HN user
This mirrors my own thoughts. Additionally, for businesses looking to replace people (particularly developers) with agentic AI, this is arguably worse from an accounting perspective as the cost of using these services will likely be pure OpEx vs capitalised per my understanding of US/UK GAAP accounting.
My pet theory here is that Anthropic wants to be the end-to-end system for all software delivery on the web, with its model firmly at the centre of that universe. I have seen posts (but not confirmed) that as part of their recent breach was part of a Vercel-like clone. From that POV, Atlassian could be useful for a few reasons:
1. Data, forget Jira tickets, but Confluence and Service Desk could be valuable for requirements shaping on the model. 2. Customers, as it's easy NRR to include on their balance sheet and would help with an IPO. 3. Infra, Atlassian has been remarkably stable for the last few years (in my region at least) while Anthropic have been suffering, maybe there's some ops acquihire advantage.
For the love of god, don't be true, though.
This is an excellent and distinctly frustrating game Echo comments on restart being faster; maybe having the % stats in the main ui somewhere. Will be recommending this to some friends.
The average knowledge worker maintains accounts across system after system, switching between applications hundreds of times per day. And they produce, in aggregate, a staggering amount of coordinated and collaborative activity that never actually becomes anything resembling ~output.
The problem with this is conflating *output* for *impact*. A team of lone wolves writing 1k LOC by the hour is good output but not necessarily good impact.
A team with higher coordination overhead and "structural support" will probably have lower output, but if it focuses on significantly higher leverage activities might just have a better impact. The key question is whether that impact is visible and understood (often not) and lots of businesses are bad at understanding leverage.
I see this lone wolf BS from lots of founder types who mistake their own grind for real performance, often missing their own blind spots. I don't disagree that the 80-20% rule comes up and that some people have an outsized contribution overall compared to others, but to say that collaboration is dead as a result is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I've not heard that goal before. If true, it makes me sad to hear that once again, people confuse "More LOC == More Customer Value == More Profit". Sigh.
As the manager is accountable for the problem being solved, they are responsible for making sure processes are optimal.
There definitely should be an onus on individuals and teams to reflect and generate their own improvement actions to that end. Scrum Retros are a good example of this. In this case, the manager is responsible for process improvement by chairing the retro, ensuring that the team has the info needed, and has the space to implement actions. Scrum Masters chairing retros can be seen as a form of coaching.
There are also times when process improvement means directly stepping in and directing the team to do something differently. This can happen for lots of reasons; one example may be a manager taking over an existing team under fire and identifying immediate changes needed to dig them out. I've seen several teams with entrenched mindsets in this situation where process improvement is directed rather than discovered.
Ideally, the team drives it, while the manager is responsible for ensuring it happens successfully.
E.g. there is a big difference between "Why did we loose a day here, what can we learn?" vs "From now on each dev needs to review every pull request twice per-day". Might be the same ultimate action, but in the latter the manager is solving the issue directly.
Depends where you go, these two terms get used interchangeably (incorrectly IMO) and so there is some semantic drift.
If you were to read Julie Starr's "The Coaching Manual", or "The Coaching Habit", the definition is more or less what I outlined.
If you are familiar with the Leadership Continuum/Situational Leadership, the distinction from there becomes: tell/sell (mentoring), join/consult (coaching).
The Coaching Habit is a fantastic book and is the right way to do. Managers don't exist to solve other peoples problems; it's vice versa.
Managers are accountable for a problem, and responsible for building a team that can solve it in the most cost effective way. Their team members are responsible for solving the problem. Managers are also responsible for a lot of other things (tracking, reporting, cost management, roadmaps, change management, hiring/firing, process improvement). IME the managers who don't like the coaching side largely don't really want to be managers or don't understand that distinction in responsibilities. (Not helped, TBF, by lots of pretty awful promotion schemes that don't support people on that path).
What The Coaching Habit does leave out is the need for mentoring. Mentoring is not a synonym for coaching, it's active: "my report does not know how to do this thing, I need to tell/show them how to do it." While coaching: "my report knows how to do this, they need a soundboard for getting to the right answer."
It can distinctly suck some time, for both parties. However, in the long run, when managers stop coddling, their team members start growing. One person who hated me bitterly when I started on the coaching road with them now thanks me for it because it helped them to build their confidence and ultimately their skills to become a CTO. I have similar stories from others. YMMV.
I agree with some of the points here, but I roundly disagree.
Agree with: people are employed to do a job, they should be empowered to get on and do it with minimal supervision, escalation, and distraction (particularly from "PR Theatre"). Also agree that sometimes unity of vision and focus time can yield exceptional results.
However, this doesn't work unless you can work every part of a system with a high-level of alignment with vision and commercial context to make good decisions and you test mercilessly. I know, have worked with, and still work with, an "entrepreneurial developer" type who can do that, but over time their "isolationist" approach leads to misaligned features that are usually anathema to good by the end of the startup phase.
Additionally, the ability to work with that level of alignment and autonomy simply doesn't describe the majority of the developers on the market and who really just want to be given tasks in their area of skill. Are they acceptable for a startup? Probably not. But in the SME context that's fine because collaboration fills the gap.
Also, while there is a lot to be said for T- and V-Shaped engineers, I-Shaped engineers are much more common and that's not a bad thing because – if one can get a designer, fe, be, and operator collaborating _effectively_ – you can still get good results.
Many hours of fun it was running CounterStrike servers and writing my own plugins. Halcyon days :)
I agree the problem, but the given solution feels a bit clunky to me. From a syntax perspective, passing an options object and applying it over a set of defaults feels a lot cleaner. The reason kwargs work in Python is primarily because the syntax is clean on both the caller and callee's side of things. This puts a lot of additional non-obvious syntax on the callee side.
It's a great message, thanks for sharing.
This really made me laugh, thank you :)
I think you hit the nail on the head: React is a good fit for certain solutions (like interactivity rich web applications), while not a good fit for others (like adding minor interactivity into a form). There are trade offs to React vs Vue vs Angular vs Vanilla and which is best is contextual to the problem you are solving, rather than a more moralistic "X is THE winner" stance.
Hi hopelite. I typed out a decently detailed response to your message, but decided to cut it short. I think we probably have a profoundly different viewpoint and set of experiences which would be too much to try and reconcile here.
I'll say this: history, certainly British history, shows that bad actors are real and that power is simultaneously unavoidable, useful, and deeply dangerous, particularly for those who seek it out. I'm certainly not oblivious to that or "lack the sophistication" to see that the world is complex.
However, for all its ills, I'd rather live here, now, than anywhere else at any other time in history and I think there's better things ahead if we can stop see those who have different viewpoints as inferior, or as enemies, and find some common ground. I'd certainly rather be here than in Gaza, Iran, Russia, Belarus, Afganistan, China, etc.
Maybe I'll be proved wrong, but given the same outrage flew during the Snoopers Charter debacle and we are all still here and talking, maybe "they" are not out to get us all.
Right, supporting PA is illegal, opposing what's happening in Gaza is not. That's why I specifically didn't say having a placard with a message supporting PA, but "Stop Genocide in Palestine". That is the detail that matters.
I should note that my comparison was to a US organisation proscribed as an eco-terror organisation, the name of which escapes me, and which I couldn't find in a quick scan back through my reading or here[0]. I came across them through a podcast interviewing both sides about a decade out. I'll keep looking though and try and qualify my source :)
I guess what I mean is this: while I think the PA proscription is probably misjudged, it's not without its precedent.
I appreciate that with recent articles shared here it might look that way. What is difficult as a Brit reading this is that so little has actually changed that I can't quite grasp what you mean.
Firstly, the paper reporting the "power grab" is a national newspaper read by millions. Secondly, as noted in several other places, the spin the newspaper has put on the judgement is deeply cynical. Lastly, this legislation has been in debate for years under multiple governments with a decent (by no means unilateral) amount of public support for some (but distinctly not all) the provisions.
As a Brit, I'd agree that it's not ideal.
However, the characterisation of terrorist scare in the 2000's, is somewhat off. Over the course of the last two decades, there have been numerous terrorist attacks, most notably 7/9, which have led to increased vigilance and securitisation.
So while travelling in Hungary, Croatia, or Italy over the last few years I've noted the difference, I also appreciate that each country is dealing with its own internal context that can be difficult to grasp from the outside.
Anyway, thank you for visiting our fair shores :)
I'll stand to be wrong, but I believe in one case a member of staff and two police officers were also assaulted. Terrorism isn't necessarily about body count, it's about motivation. If the motive is political change, and the ends is violence/criminal damaged/anti-social behaviour that tends to be enough. Similar cases exist in the US, too.
I personally think its a bit of a stretch and will likely be undone. However, to pretend they are simply peaceful protests being unfairly targeted is also incorrect.
So, here's the thing, the BBC has a whole section of its news site dedicated to the conflict, including documentation of alleged atrocities committed by Israel and Hamas. Its produced documentaries detailing the settlers movement. The BBC is paid for by the taxpayers. LBC regularly has pro-Israel and pro-Palestine people on. GBNews, Sky and the Murdock-verse have their views mostly from a pro-Israel POV, more left-leaning papers like the Guardian continue to report in favour of the Palestinian people (not Hamas).
So if the government had a major problem with the a free speech, its doing a pretty good job of not showing that.
In the Commons, the argument hasn't been against the humanitarian crisis faced. However, the situation is more complicated when Hamas and a significant portion of the Israeli government want to eradicate each other and end any hopes of the two-state solution, and act accordingly violent.
The situation with Palestine Action being made proscribed also isn't because of their beliefs, but their actions. You can't commit criminal activity like destruction of property and violence against people for political reasons and not come under the remit of anti-terror legislation. The same has happened to environmentalist groups that have taken their actions too far, and for groups like the IRA pre-Good Friday agreement.
I could walk to my local town centre with a placard for either saying: "Stop Genocide in Palestine" or "Down with Hamas" this weekend and not be arrested.
I'm happy to be wrong, but I don't believe that's correct. There have been some people arrested for inciting violence via social media during the Southport riots.
There is also Tommy Robinson/Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who has been remanded in custody for contempt of court for continuing to libel an immigrant even after his claims were proven to be false. And by contempt of court, he literally has produced a movie continuing to slander said immigrant for his own ends.
Another is Palestine Action being made a proscribed terror group. While lots of people, as evidenced by recent protests, see this as problematic, its not particularly different to other groups like environmental activists that commit criminal acts being proscribed and there are numerous examples UK/abroad of that. PA members at the direction of PA leadership have fallen into that category not because of their beliefs, but because of their actions – like breaking into Israeli-owned security research company with a van, and into an RAF base, in both cases committing vandalism and destruction of property.
Some people believe there is a problem, but there really isn't a legislative agenda against free speech.
Of course not.
There are people facing genuine harassment, death threat, rape threat every day; that's what the law protects against.
If you were to dox me, threaten mine and my families life repeatedly, spread lies about me that convince other people to do the same, then that would be closer to the definition of _reasonable_ psychological harm.
We can see that scenario playing out for people right now, some of whom actually come to harm because of it.
Look at some of the hate directed at MP Jess Philips on Twitter recently based on downright lies, and the mob that stirred up as a result, as an example.
I agree with your point about Putin waiting for the WH administration to change. Were the president hawkish on Russia, however, I still doubt Putin would back down.
Putin needs to be seen to win at home to play to his core base. Biden wouldn't let him, Trump will, but to Putin that means:
1. Control of annexed territory. 2. No Ukrainian nukes. 3. No NATO/EU membership for Ukraine. 4. Zelenski removed and puppet/anti-democratic leader installed.
What we're hearing post-meeting is Trump laying the groundwork for point 4 and taking a firm position on 1.
You seem to have overlooked the clause 179.1.C. If I send a death threat to someone, or I incite violence by spreading misinformation (like happened in Southport) there are consequences.
That's what it covers, not a random tweet that says "I think the sky is actually green".
Yeah, I think they'll fold on that point, too, but the main stumbling block for Ukraine is that Russian guarantees mean little in a post-2021 invasion context given they made the same overtures after 2014.
The idea of the entire country becoming a DMZ just smacks of Putin lining up the next play and a Russian-leaning leader put in Zelenskis place.
Right, but that's not a free speach issue. I can critise a public officials handling of a situation, or disagree with a policy, or publicly protest a law, and not go to prison.
I cannot be wantonly offensive about a minister just because I don't like them, up to including threatening behaviour.
Free speach doesn't mean no rules/consequences.
So, watching the video as a brit with a number if Ukrainian friends and colleagues, my first reaction is that this is the Trump Whitehouse looking for a cheap win.
However, I think their calculation here speaks to the difficulty of the current situation.
Putting aside the morality, sovereign integrity, and such: the situation appears to be entering/in a stalemate. The Ukrainian forces have done well to proactively take and hold Russian territory, and have held the line pretty well. However, there does not seem to be a play here that will conclusively end Russian occupation presently. The best case seems to be waiting out the supply of Russian troops, but the Ukrainian army doesn't have an endless supply of volunteers in this regard (I've worked with a few who have).
So the question has to be asked: how does this end decisively if neither side can win outright? And how much support is required to maintain the status quo?
I hate to say it, but I think they will likely have to lose territory. I think they could argue for greater security architecture (i.e. part of NATO but no nukes) to prevent repeat. But otherwise I can appreciate why the current administration is where its at.
Its a sorry situation all around.
They are the US's proxy against Iran in the Middle East, primarily, which makes it a strategic relationship. Addition, based on the 2022 data, the US imported $21BB from Israel and had a trade deficit of ~$7BB.
I'm not American, but my read of this announcement looks something like:
* The Trump Administration doesn't believe in the two state solution stalemate. * They have leverage over The Netanyahu Administration in Israel due to the ongoing military support needed. * The Netanyahu Administration wants to incorporate Gaza into Israel as also doesn't believe in two state solution but cannot do so without repercussions. * US could take over Gaza as the West won't sanction it, China needs to sell to it, RoW not an issue. * Trump wants US to take over Gaza, use US corps and workers to rebuild paid for by Israel, and then sell back to Israel at a later time.
I don't agree with that position but I think that's what the deal looks like overall.