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

Crazy people are a real and serious problem (in California or anywhere else). Nor only do they lose their own lives to their illness, they cause crimes against others at far greater rates. Getting them the medication they need is the best solution for everyone, including the crazy person.

Source: I would be a crazy street person if not for medication, because I have a serious mental illness. My wife's best friend just went from being a normal wife and mother to being a crazy street person who abandoned her child (and got arrested, multiple times, when she never had interacted with a cop before in her life) ... all because she didn't get the medication she needed. But she has the exact same condition as me, and absolutely could go back to taking care of her son (who desperately misses her) ... with medicine.

Now look, I'm not naive: I know that here in America we value individual sovereignty VERY highly. And here in California, specifically, we have a history of violating individuals' rights and locking them away in mental institutions simply because they were "abnormal". We don't want to go back to that.

I don't agree with Newsom on everything, but I di think he and other politicians should be looking for ways to respect individual rights ... but also get the mentally ill the care they need.

Stop believing everything every conservative pundit tells you!

Iran has a massive, multi-decade history with America. It dates back to when we supported an absolutely awful bloody/ruthless dictator known as the Shah ... directly against the interests of the Iranian people. Nukes are just the tiniest tip of the iceberg of everything between the two countries.

Go Google employees: best of luck to you!

It won't work: Google is a for profit company, and there are A LOT of profits to be made in the made from the military. They will stop operating in the UK before they give up that much money.

It's almost like there's some sort of complex set up between the military and industrial sides of the equation, designed to drain US taxpayer money from citizens and into the that military industrial complex ...

But still, keep fighting the good fight!

Yeah, it's doing great on education (ranked 16th in the nation) ... but being a child there is still horrible (50th in the nation on child health, 47th in economic well-being).

And that's just talking about kids, not all of the state's other issues.

I truly don't believe that. Politicians want votes ... well, really they want to keep being politicians ... but that requires votes!

In our democracy, campaign contributions buy votes, but at the end of the day votes are the goal, not money. If Schiff learns that the money he's getting is losing him more votes than he can buy with it, he'll reverse his position as quickly as Trump can say "TACO".

https://www.schiff.senate.gov/...

If you live in California, please take a moment (as I just did) to tell Schiff exactly what you think of him selling out the nation's children in exchange for more $$$ from OpenAI. He may be (ok, no "may") a corrupt politician ... but he still cares what his constituents think of him.

First off, I fully agree that Anthropic tried to spin a negative (they weren't ready to release the new model they'd promised) into a positive ("it's just too damn good to release"). I said as much above.

However, I think "you get a comparable full model released with zero problems." ignores some major differences between the two companies. Despite their chicanery, I still trust Anthropic to behave responsibly FAR, FAR more than I trust anything Open AI or its C-suite says. Just because Open AI says "our product is safe to release", that does not mean you should blindly trust what they say.

I think it's pretty clear that Anthropic just wasn't ready to release Mythos.

They'd signaled that they would, so they needed an excuse to get them out of the corner they'd backed into. "It's too dangerous to release" was their excuse, but it was just a smoke screen.

I thought this was strange too.

The only thing I can imagine is that the organizers thought rights in Zambia were on the rise, and they wanted to encourage the expansion of rights in the country by holding a conference where many locals could learn strategies and tactics ...

... but they goofed and over-estimated the "on the rise" signals.

Look, Musk is one of the most despicable people on this planet, and I get why everyone here loves to hate on him: I do too.

But ... am I really the only one here who is concerned about the fact that Open AI was created to be a non-profit that advanced humanity ... and it clearly transformed into an engine of advancing its shareholders interests?