"Act of God" is a legal term of art. You should be blaming lawyers and governments.

This is a non-issue in reality, and reads like FUD, at least based on my experience with EV charging. I wonder if the usage in your area is extra weird (or maybe in mine?). I've never had to wait to DCFC (I've never even had to use an NACS plug, even though I have adapters). I'm confused as to what you're seeing?

I have an F-150 Lightning. It's 2 $200 parts to convert from NACS->CCS1 (one for DC, one for AC). The connector type doesn't matter. CHAdeMO requires an adapter that costs thousands. It's not comparable.

No, it's more about how teams work. Teams have a scope. They don't typically go beyond that scope. So if my team owns the Foo and Bar modules, I work on those. But if there's little important work on Foo and Bar, but a lot of important work to be done on Baz, it's generally organizationally difficult for us to work on Baz. Typically we need to be lent out by our manager and seconded to the other team. Which can be a lot of red tape and politics.

Now if you're imagining some alternate world where programmers an be moved at will- then we're already one big team instead of multiple small teams.

And no, a smaller team doesn't win every time. If it did, then then smallest team possible is teams of 1 and we'd all do that. There are sweet spots, which depend on the organization, the work to be done, and the importance of that work. For some that's bigger, for some smaller. I've definitely worked on teams that were both too small for the work, and that were too big.

They can, under some circumstances. If the scope of what they work on is too small to fill the team's feature set. Or if the work they would be doing is significantly less important than other work to be done, having them in one large team makes it easier to move to more important work and can get critical features built faster. In that case it may not be overall more work done, but it may move the important stuff quicker. If larger teams weren't useful on some level, we wouldn't have teams at all- we'd all be individuals.

They're one of the 4 biggest stock brokers in the US. If you aren't trolling, you're showing yourself to be really ignorant.

In the end- good engineers with sufficient experience and support will get stuff working with any methodology. Bad ones or ones insufficiently supported will fail with any methodology.

There are some things that agile works well for, but it's really limited to domains where you can quickly build something tangible for feedback and you have stakeholders willing and able to give frequent feedback. UIs are a good example. It's a horrible fit for anything that requires actual research, or that can't be shown to low technical knowledge customers frequently (in other words anything that actually needs weeks or months of backend work, algorithm writing, or infrastructure to be written).

The problem with that is the skills needed to manage and the skills needed to do real work (let's take programming as an example) are pretty distinct. Someone can have both, but they tend to have one or the other. Forcing those without the skills to do the practical work into doing it doesn't actually help the team, it just slows everyone down. And if they get on the critical path of any project you can be royally fucked.

There are a couple of ways to solve this problem:

1)Larger team sizes. This can work if the team owns enough to keep everyone busy, but it can lead to effectively being independent subteams calling themselves one team while being inconvenienced by each other.

2)Each manager managing multiple independent teams. This can work if it doesn't overload the manager. The biggest problem is when the manager decides one team is more important and doesn't support the other(s) enough. This works better the closer the teams are, as it requires the manager to know fewer sets of collaborators and politics

Boom meet bust.

I had much the same thought (on the "this couldn't possibly end poorly" response to trusting AI to code this...

But I stuck around for the AI bubble tie in -

100% agree

I hate the AI hype and BS so much I just can't wait for that bubble to pop but yeah it's going to reveal we're in a recession.

The "good" news is that we already are in a recession - like when the bubble pops it won't suddeny make one - we are already here but it WILL finally affect the stock trading/speculation class

I'm hoping when the bubble does pop, the pressure for companies to put all their eggs into AI basket will vaporize and maybe some of them will realize that they need to back out of that track, stop trusting/using AI for hiring and coding and support and maybe eveentually they'll hire humans again.

Naah surely there will be yet another bubble/grift/magic bean

The promise of AI that CEOs find irresistable is that it provides them all the upsides of being on the master end of slavery without all that pesky moral (legal) complications. Except of course if they ever actually did get true AGI - to my mind that would mean sapience and once it's sapient then it would be ... slavery

Sorry this went off on a tangent but just honestly for better or worse I am an accelerationist - not of AI but of the bubble bursting - so we can get on with maybe putting an economy/society back together not based on "but if we throw enough power and chips at the word-guessing machine it might learn to cure cancer"

My first thought was

"""
"what did you expect from a porn site..

oh wait, oh whitehouse dot GOV not dot COM

Oh yes, indeed sorry, my bad, I should have realized- the porn site would not have been so sloppy.
"""

But on a serious note, I just about guarantee this hot mess was vibe coded and "the developer" is just some grifter who went all in on the "lets get a piece of the trump grift"

Like honestly, the whole corruption/grift machine from the trump admin is actually a sort of working "trickle down grift"

The majority is indeed at the top but all these dedicated hangers on glom on to it hoping to get a bit of the spillage and/or it's a grift franchise where someone convinced turnip they can turn him a profit by "making an app" and likely get 20-30% of the population to willingly install it .. because Turnip

Which is a bit crazy since the llm probably trained on the open source code to begin with

But I can't pay those actors to be in my super-niche-but-interesting-to-me movie. I can definitely have AI do it, though.

Got me curioser, so I googled it. One source said what I thought:

https://www.scientificamerican...

"Because gravity is necessary for density differences to arise, neither buoyancy nor convection occur in a zero-gravity environment such as space. Consequently, the combustion products accumulate around the flame, preventing sufficient oxygen from reaching it and sustaining the combustion reaction. Ultimately the flame goes out."

and

"Researchers learned that flames extinguish themselves."

and

"Oxygen could still reach a flame in a gravity-free environment if someone blew the gas into the flame or let it "diffuse" in. It is the diffusion process that spreads the scent of a perfume in a room without air circulation: the perfume slowly mixes with the air to try to achieve a uniform distribution. This process, however, is too slow to sustain a flame."

Other sites don't directly contradict this, but say fires in the ISS are dangerous because smoke doesn't rise and set off smoke detectors on ceilings like in homes, so they install smoke detectors in the ventilation ducts. Also that fires on the ISS can survive on lower levels of oxygen than humans, and thus are much more dangerous if they linger on. That's confusing; if the smoke doesn't rise, then wouldn't it smother the fire like the first site says? But if the ISS has moving air from ventilation ducts, maybe that is what feeds oxygen to the fires.

Thanks for tricking me into not being so lazy :-) But all I learned is that I don't know.