If you think Jesus was a moderate you are too stupid to bother with. I'll turn my other cheek your way...my ass cheek.

People not lifting a finger over something easy that results in many preventable deaths is WORSE than purposely murdering people. You have reason and motive to kill "bad" protestors. To kill innocent random people simply because you don't want to change habits or pay pennies more... that is worse despite being more soft. think about it (other people not the parent.)

I find Iranian mullahs no more weird in their evil than the christian nutjobs; not that the difference matters at all.

Yep. Any really good teacher is significantly overqualified. It is not a surprise that many are in better paying jobs.

yes. The fact of the matter is that creating teaching content that works without a teacher teaching it is much, much harder. A prof that had 30 years experience with (classical) distance education gave me an estimate of 10x more effort, possibly higher. This is in addition to specific teaching skills being needed that are different from in-person teaching and it is no surprise that we do not have much good teaching content suitable for computer-based self-learning.

Well, nuances require insight and understanding. Simplistic and unsupported "I love xyz" or "I hate xyz" does not. Americans all think they are geniuses, when in reality most people are average in mental capability and the average is not that impressive. The cultural response in America is to deny reality and ignore things like nuances and details that make it clearer where you stand mentally. It gets replaced by grandiose language, grandstanding, deep unsupported beliefs and other cult-like behaviors.

There is a group of US citizens that have moved abroad and compare their cultural experiences on YouTube. They basically all find a strong disconnect between reality and self-image in American culture.

Obviously, stating such facts will get me moderated down. Because disagreeing changes reality. Right? Right?

Yes. But that level of reasoning is too complex for most people. Hence they say "screen", but what they really mean is a specific environment. Sure, the UI has some problems of its own, for example you learn better when handwriting things on paper (not in cursive though, that causes too much cognitive load) than when typing on a keyboard. But these effects are relatively small.

Or fake. The number "10" is highly suspicious in this context.

They will have been told. Why do you think they are firing all the senior engineers with a clue?

Well, yes. But it started with "Individuals and interactions over processes and tools".

Respect individuals? That is not something management does! Cannot have that! So the usual "Agile" implementation starts with disregarding the first line in the Agile manifesto. And usually it goes downhill from there.

Incidentally, just in case you are unaware of it, there are only 3 developers in what Brooks in "The Mythical Man-Month" describes as the perfect software engineering team: There is the "chief programmer", the "copilot" and the "toolsmith". Nobody else writes code, they are all support for those that do.

Depending on the task, I would think you can extend the number of coders a bit, but not much without efficiency and effectiveness suffering. I think, for example, that you can have more than one tool-maker in some contexts. You may also have a, say "data engineer" or the like. But that is essentially it.

Excellent. I applaud your stance. Good managers do indeed exist, even if they are pretty rare. You clearly are one. There is one quality good managers and good engineers share: They want to do a good job. Many managers just want to climb the corporate ladder and that is not good at all.

Indeed. But "managers" are typically fully incompetent and do not even know these basic and well-established facts. And hence the same stupid and expensive mistakes are being made time and again.

My guess would be that some senior engineers at Fidelity told "management" these basic facts and that what "management" was doing was not going to work. Hence "management" decided to get rid of all these naysayers and hire young and clueless people. Expect Fidelity to not exist anymore in no more than 10 years.

There is a well-known ideal team size for engineering design work (which software is) it is around 5-10 people. Go over that and you lose efficiency. Go significantly over it and total (!) productivity drops. Above some size a team cannot deliver results anymore at all. This has been known for a long, long time, but "managers" are typically ignorant.

Large teams are useful for exactly one thing in engineering: Making the person on top feel important because of the large number of underlings. No other positive effects.

This is, incidentally, also the way bureaucracies grow. Bureaucrats define their personal worth by how many people they control (whether directly or indirectly by forcing them to follow demented procedures).

Brooks described that nicely in "The Mythical Man Month". Should be required reading for anybody that manages software creation.

And yes, bigger teams will very obviously not move faster. They cannot. At some size-point all they do is meetings.

Indeed. But cheap engineering always ends up being exceptionally expensive. I guess there are still a ton of "managers" that are completely clueless about software creation.