So, let's exaggerate the bad of PM tools, ex. "Tasks hierarchy to the 5th level", and let's fly to the other extreme as some sort of saving grace.
I've been in three startups. We typically use Kanban boards in a simple way to, ironically, show purpose (think of Osterwalder's book but on Trello), communicate (distributed individuals across timezones), keep focus (tops board) and alignment (hey everyone, the tops all work together!). It doesn't directly help with hiring, except maybe to show we aren't mismanaging ourselves. Nothing scarier to someone taking a chance on a startup than to not see a cohesive picture...
Has nothing to do with micromanagement. But, I understand from experience that there isn't one magical unicorn to ride to success. This has worked for me with one successful exit so far, one imminent and a third going strong.
So, you recommended "try nothing and re-invent everything"?
Incidentally, I don't think the author meant try everything, but rather don't be afraid to try it out, in the right context. You seem to suggest something orthogonal, but not the opposite of what he said. Obviously, in time-to-market situations or other, that is not the time to experiment.
So, how does this analysis account for the fact that, in many reported cases like this, other services work just fine at high-speed? Your point 2 is that more consumers and producers are flooding the net as a whole, but that would cause widespread issues, not just premier services issues, right?
The built-in romantic assumption is that 7,776 different language would result in things like 7,776 solutions to one problem, which is likely not the case.
Waitaminute. Anything that transforms ("manipulates") state is a function call. It's y = f(x), where f() is a GET, PUT, POST, etc, x is the resource and y is the response, no? REST is about function calls, but instead of emphasizing the function, it emphasizes the resource and standardizes the functions you can use.
There's never been due process; it's not suddenly worse than before. The widespread and rapid communications we enjoy know have made us all too aware of how often it does (and used to) happen.
This is yet another example of bad science journalism. The fact is: Different sleep patterns correlates to different gene expression patterns.
From that, wild conjecture.
How do we know "great sleepers" express only more of the better proteins? I could just as much theorize that better sleep leads to more proteins which could lead to more deposits.
Did they control for cognitive function? We know that different people need different amounts of sleep to function properly. How do the patterns shift for a long sleeper vs a short sleeper.
My general approach is to tease out the facts and go to the original source. As an ex-neurosceintist, I often get irritated at the "sciencey press" that follows.
At least once a week I am gobsmacked by how excruciatingly and pointlessly picky developers can be.
Want to start a real stupid waste of time fight? Bring up code standards. Not that having a standard is wrong, but rather just how inflexible and dogmatic developers can suddenly become when you bring up tabbing, spaces or other first-world problems, developer-style.
False dichotomy: why do we have to choose between fixing mass shooting or fixing tobacco deaths? Why not fix both? There is likely some amount of finite resources to be given, per nation, to solving ills, but I doubt the US has tapped out on that...
Right. Because large companies are paragons of efficiency? I'm really getting tired of the "governments are corrupt/inefficient/lazy" meme. There is a contingent of people on the right living in anecdotal evidence found in government, and ignoring anecdotal evidence in business. It's the hypocrisy that is most bothersome.