Can I vote for obsfuscators not holding a language hostage?

You don’t want a department that you throw it over the fence to, you want them embedded on your team. Keep those feedback loops TIGHT bois

I mean, I’ve never seen a real platypus but I’m not going to use that as a justification for why they can’t exist.

I don’t know what to tell you. It’s a spectrum. I’ve worked in shops that claimed to be agile but to them, that just meant JIRA and story points. I’ve worked at places where agile meant having daily standups.

And I’ve worked places where there actually was a genuine attempt, and that was an awesome place to work.

I’ll rephrase them, except in good faith:

1. Talking directly to the people about the work is better than a 95 state JIRA pipeline

2. Document your finished working work, not every broken POC, because that’s a waste of time

3. If the contract isn’t actually going to meet the desires of your stakeholders, negotiate one that will

4. If you realize the plan sucks, make a better plan.

My company paid to have Kent Beck come to workshop with our Sr devs. I expected to dislike him, but he won me over pretty quick.

I don’t remember what it was, but someone was like “Kent, we do X like you recommend in the manifesto, but it creates Y, and Z problem for us”

And he was like “So, in your situation it isn’t providing value?”

Guy was like “No”

“Then stop doing it.”

It’s not hard. It’s the most fucking common sense shit. I feel bad for them because these guys came from a world where there were these process bibles that people were following. So they wrote like, basically a letter saying “if your Bible doesn’t serve you, don’t follow it”

And all these businesses dummies were like “oh look, a NEW bible we can mindlessly follow”

'Nailing down the definition of a story point to “1 developer day” oughta do it ’

Ah, an auditability audit.

“0.1% is 55 and below? F*. 2% of the population is 70, Jesus! Between 55 and 70, [it’s] 2% of the population. And then, 14% of the population is 85.”

Yes. IQ is a score on a bell curve, such that the median is 100 and that one standard deviation is 15. This is EXACTLY what you’d expect given the parameters of such a curve.

I’m not even convinced they were looking at American demographics specifically, I think that they’d just stumbled onto the literal definition of the curve and didn’t understand it.

It depends VERY much about the content and invitees of the meetings.

If you’re there to give your expert engineering feedback, awesome. If you’re there to receive the information you need in order to provide expert engineering feedback, awesome.

So often, I find, meetings are too broad and end up oversubscribed. Engineers are in a 2 hour meeting with 10 minutes of relevance.

There are serious differences in meeting culture, with vast implications oh the amount of efficacy you can juice from the attendees.

I’m really confused about the arguments around this, being that things like apostrophes and hyphens have special meanings in databases.

Yes, they do… But there are incredibly mature standard practices around how to store and query this type of data so that it isn’t a problem.

Hyphens and apostrophes aren’t uncommon in surnames. Is anyone suggesting banning those?

My critique is of your process, not your result. And, my thesis is that in the long term, developing and refining your how is actually more important than coming to a correct conclusion.

If you just are told what a correct conclusion is and you don’t understand why, and can’t even evaluate the validity of why, then you’re you’re just surrendering yourself to group think. This is how people get MAGA-ized or Jordan Peterson-ized and how they can’t get out.

Hypothetically, let’s say someone was staunchly pro-Israel, and NOTHING they were doing made you want to be critical of actions by them.

And then say that suddenly they changed their mind. Not because of the genocide they’re perpetrating against the Palestinians, but instead because MTG was going off about “Jewish space lasers”. Ok, sure, maybe it’s “good” that interests have coincidentally aligned, but you’re still not really a rational agent, and I can’t really trust you to make ethical evaluations because your process is nonsensical.

It’s more important to me, and for your role as a member of a functional society to be able to critically evaluate information than it is for you to simply “land” on a good conclusion by what is essentially random chance.

I do recognize it’s difficult to admit that you’ve changed your mind. I am sorry, I do commend you for it. I even respect you for it.

Consider this just a call to action that I sincerely believe that you can improve your ability to self-assess and evaluate information critically and logically. Without someone explaining the weakness in your decision making process, you’d be missing an opportunity to consider and reevaluate your own processes.

So you were able to gloss over all of the actual scummy things she does for personal benefit…

And the one thing that changed your mind is something that had NOTHING to do with her?

It wasn’t her procedure. It wasn’t her spa. She has nothing to do with this.

This is like if I say “cycling is great, you should do it” (I like this facial), and then instead of buying a bike from a bike shop (licensed spa), you buy it from a shady bike thief (unlicensed spa with no records leaving unsealed blood laying around). And then it turns out the bike was stolen from a drug lords kid (HIV positive blood from unknown source). So when they see you riding it they shoot you (gets HIV).

There are many, many people at fault in a scenario like this. But, unbelievably, in THIS scenario Gwyneth actually isn’t one of them.

I think a lot of people believe the science in this article to be problematic. Another poster went into several reasons. It’s heavy on persuasive language, shy of facts, and many of the facts are suspect, and it hasn’t been accepted by any publications so it hasn’t gotten any peer review. It’s possible it hasn’t gotten any publication because the apparently quality is so low.

It might be that people see your comment as accepting the validity of the claims which suspiciously have no peer review, and are then jumping the gun by associating it to things which ARE well scientifically established like climate change.

It’s kinda leaping to an ethical and political discussion when there are a lot of outstanding questions about the science. And this is /c/science.

I can’t speak for others. I didn’t downvote you. But, your comment wasn’t really… Science?

Totally fair. It’s entirely appropriate to raise this concern in the way that you have. It provides the space for people have have the discussion rooted in objective fact.

You don’t have to give anyone the benefit of anything.

If you read the article, the bloodbath statement was during a rant about how the continual outsourcing of production of the American auto industry will result in an industry bloodbath.

I HATE Trump.

But even more than that, I hate that as a result of 9 years of this constant nonsense from him, I hate that all of the adults have just given up.

NPR heard the word “bloodbath” and “immigration” 20 minutes and several distinct topics away from eachother? That’s the headline. Done.

Then people like you, read the headline and then literally nothing else. It wouldn’t be so bad if you only read the headline and then kept your mouth shut, but you read … What is that FOURTEEN words, and feel like you’re prepared to have an adult conversation on that basis?

Like what the fuck happened to us as a society. Like, was it Trump? Was it earlier, with the Bushian notion of “truthiness”? Was it capitalism crushing news media out of the realm of fact and objectivity into what it is now: literally argued in court to merely be “entertainment”? How has it come to be that speaking about something you know nothing about is societally viewed as “fine”, rather than an embarrassment… Yet asking people to actually read something before commenting on it gets you mocked?

Are you allergic to reading?

I’m sorry… Your point is that people will jump on any lie that paints him in a bad light…

And so you’re suggesting, after being presented with the actual facts (which actually is the version that paints him in the best light), that we reject those too…

And just choose your version of events, that you conjured out of thin air (having admitted and demonstrated that you never read past the headline)?

How is that any different than jumping on a lie? Except that this is actually worse. Before you were just ignorant. Now you know better, but you haven’t changed your mind and are still pushing nonsense.

It’s been said that one should never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. I’ve changed my mind on you.

You didn’t read the article.

So, who are “you guys”, in this scenario? Lemmings?

Because the title of the post is VERBATIM the title of the linked article.

…Did you read the article, the article that you’re suggesting people are intentionally misunderstanding his rhetoric on?

No. You didn’t either. I know you didn’t either, because it explicitly puts it into context:

“If I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country,” he warned, while talking about the impact of offshoring on the country’s auto industry and his plans to increase tariffs on foreign-made cars.

So, you’re right, kind of. You’re the worst kid of right. “Accidentally not quite wrong”.

Like, fist of all: Fuck NPR for his headline. Clearly intentionally misleading.

Second of all: Fuck everyone commenting about how “it tracks”, without ever even fucking reading the article.

And third of all: Fuck you for going off on people for chastising people while you yourself didn’t even read the article.

If you are included in any of my fuck yous: I mean it. you are literally actively involved in the dismantling of Western Democracy so seriously fuck you.

If you weren’t included, but are offended by my fuck yous, actually fuck you too for enabling it.

If you actually read the article before opening your mouth, no matter your position: you’re cool.

The only question was the title, and the content of their post was answering their own question.

This post is just a blog post.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34011581#:~:text=Background story seems to be,own community as a consequence.

TLDR; if, as OP mentioned as a desirable criterion:

Something that respect as much the gnu philosophy (so nothing like Github etc…)

Gitea might not specifically be the best self hosted GitHub clone to use.

I use it. I self host it. But if you’re prioritizing FOSS philosophies, there are other GitHub clones that would fit the bill.

Lol