Please treat the state bird of Florida with some respect. When the wingspan casts a shadow on your house, it is hungry, and will feed. By the way, where is your dog - is he outside?

Dumb kids is one thing

( Pause)

Dumb adults is another

Did he just call us "dumb"? Oh, the kids...

...April...One year ago

I think April Fools was ten days ago. Dear eds, your AI is sleeping.

TFA only mentioned EVs not hybrids. Ford can't seem to build hybrid Mavericks fast enough, based on the shopping I just did for one.

All entries are stationary at St. Hormuz

St. Hormuz? WTF is that?!

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.

But if one ever decides to be a ShaoLin monk, we must tell it that one of the requirements is it must be blind first. And remember the first rule: Go North, and seek out your master. He likes knock-knock jokes at the border.

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

Everybody hates me

"That's a good start."

It might as well be called Dead C

This isn't the Kernighan and Ritchie we're looking for; move along

I get sick after 10 minutes last time I tried it (a few years ago). It's not anywhere near solved. Of course I have no desire to try the new versions, because even if it was solved it doesn't actually make anything useful better.