Delmania

No, it sounds like you have worked out a good process as opposed to obsessing over tools.

To expand, when I teach people productivity, I keep it simple. I am familiar with both GTD for tasks and BASB/PARA for knowledge. Both approaches boil down in to having a central location to put stuff, organizing stuff around based on how immediate it is, and then having a regular review process to trim excess.

It's very similar to scrum. Dump everything into the backlog, organize it around what's going to be the most actionable, and then periodically trim/refine it.

It's not so much the MBA itself as it is what it represents. An MBA refers to an individual who is a general manager and typically come from sales or finance organization. They generally aren't concerned too much with research and development except they view them as cost centers to be optimized. They tend to be hyperfocused on the bottom line and will do anything needed to maximize profits, even at the expense of the product.

Yes, scrum limits individual autonomy. An effective team that is working together is far more productive than an individual. As a manager/director/executive, I'm far more interested in optimizing and rewarding one of my team's performance than any individual on the team. That's what I mean by "right team right people". I would rather get rid of the 10x developer who is unable to work and communicate with others and instead put a 1x developer who is capable of improving his team. That is what I see as the divide here. Developers are focused on their individual performance whereas I am focused on the whole team.

Yes, because context matters. If you want me to respond to agile, this is why you don’t have management at standup. To prevent micromanagement. My whole point is that there’s nothing inherently wrong (or right) with agile. It’s a process. The success of it depends partly on the people involved. One principle of agile is the right people on the right team.

To be honest, I don't have an answer for you. If scrum doesn't help you with a skunkworks project, then choose a different methodology.

Yes, at some point, management can ask you to justify the work you did. They are paying you, after all. Scrum and agile was never about letting people do whatever they wanted do. Management has already had a role in making sure there were appropriate limits set. In other words, if you're responsible for building a word processor and end up building a video game, I think it's appropriate for someone to ask what are you doing?

I think I'd disagree here. This article is not about scrum but about trust. Here's a quote from the article:

As head of sales and marketing, Suresh didn’t need his CEO to buy into the process or give his permission to start the discovery process. He was in charge.

Suresh is a VP of marketing. It's his job to develop a plan, get buy-in, and execute on it. If the CEO is standing in the way, then all this boils down to is that the CEO is micromanaging his VPs. No process can solve for that.

If "scrum" is being followed properly, there's somebody listening who's actually recording what you said you were going to do yesterday and compare it to what you say you did yesterday and call out any discrepancies.

Seems to me that if you can't justify why not keeping your stated commitments was in the interest of the team and the company, then the issue is with your communication and not the process itself.

I think it’s less that and more that Microsoft is leveraging Redhat’s focus on Java. They have built a good editor and plug-in environment, then engage organizations stronger in other tech and have them build support.

Conservative means what it has always meant. The political belief that the law should bind outsiders but not protect them and that it should protect insiders but not bind them.

Correct, the Democrats are a weak willed party of centrists more concerned with maintaining the status quo as opposed to implementing progressive legislation that will help people. The GOP has become a cult of personality.

By supporting free speech I support the right for us to say what we will without fear of retribution from the government. By supporting freedom of association I support that company’s can ban you for saying things they don’t agree with. Aren’t Gab and Parker right wing libertarian free market success stories? People found Twitter didn’t agree with their views so they founded a competitor.

Quite the contrary. If anything, the coverage did not show the full story. The majority of these people were out for blood. They erected hanging stations. The fought with the police. This was no demonstration. These people were to overturn the election and hurt or kill anyone who got in their way. Free speech decidedly does not protect this.

Parler was created in response to Twitter banning several far right personalities. People are more than capable of overcoming the big tech companies and finding ways to get their message out. Maybe the leader of a nation shouldn’t continually question an election and encourage his supporters to commit insurrection?

Most actually believed this was the start of the Storm and that they would force Congress to overturn the election

They already are. Also, Trump refused to send in the National Guard claiming “his people” were peaceful and that no one was paying attention to the rioters. You may want to do some digging. All of those woke conspiracy theories being spread by crazy progressives like myself usually come from Trump or QAnon supporters directly.

Simple. The only people who try to help are people who don’t have children. Everyone is the perfect parent until they have their own children. Then they know to not speak as they understand that children are different and what worked for their kids may not work for others.

No one made that claim except right wing media. They said, and this was proven, there was collusion among members of his campaign to influence the election.

Biden's lead in Arizona is shrinking and Pennsylvania isn't over. As much as I want this, I won't believe this until the counts and down and the votes are certified. Trump could pull an upset here.

No, that's not what the article says. It says there was no planning or coordination between the hospitals and the field hospitals to get patients in.

Location: Rochester,NY

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: No

Technologies: Java, Linux, AWS, DevOps, React, Node, Postgres, C#, Kotlin, Docker, etc.

LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/robertjwhitcomb/

Resume/CV: https://1drv.ms/b/s!Agf-ChNmOB2d-xCVCaIuTC0SEIoC?e=ODUxe3

Email: rwhitcomb@acm.org

We're not going to whitewash Trump; he wasted too much time trying to downplay and deflect the virus and only took it seriously when it became apparent that wouldn't work.

I also think everyone is working to end the quarantine as quickly as possible, as they are aware of the social and economic implications. The problem with rushing however is that if we develop a vaccine that is ineffective or harmful, it will make the situation worse.

How is this shady compared to Google's ads for Chrome on google.com or the paid search results in the App Store? All the tech giants participate in this behavior.

How is this different than getting an ad for Chrome when you go to google.com?

Do you know _why_ this uptick has happened? Does anyone?

Are you asking why polarization has happened? Or why is had gotten worse? The answer to the first is all about control. There's a great book called The Dictator's Handbook that documents this. Throughout history, the ruling class has sought to divide the people they rule over into groups and then cater to the groups that will help them remain in power. See the current situation in the United States where the president won by less than 50% of the vote and the majority party in the Senate represents a minority of Americans. Between the various tools for voter amplification and voter suppression, the goal is to carve out the smallest group of people needed to win, then cater to their base emotions by painting everyone else as the Other, to be feared and attacked.

As for why the uptick, that's due to technology. The Internet, ad placements, etc, have enabled these groups to execute on these strategies en masse.

As the expression goes, there's nothing new under the sun, just a reiteration of the past.

You miss the point where Microsoft would have to acquire those licenses or release a half finished system. What value proposition is there for them to do it?

Came to make a similar point. There's lot of love for C and belief it's some superior language to modern ones. The reality is that C hasn't aged well as hardware has evolved. It's not that good as parallel programming, which is more prevalent considering most CPUs are multi-core. The ACM did a great write-up on this, https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3212479

The bottom line is to echo your first statement, C is a tool, good for some tasks, not so good for others. Choose accordingly.

This is a site in which Breitbart, a well know white nationalist propaganda site is marked as a trusted source for news. Zuck has met privately with conservative pundits. There is reason to be alarmed and skeptical of Facebook.

No, they wouldn't. What kind of claim is this? Active directory, group policy, etc. If you're running an org on Google Business, sure, but most large organizations are running AD and Windows works well with that.

Yes, they did. I paid for a lifetime subscription to freedom just for this.