There was a part of the article that discussed that you create tasks, not stories.
You can group the tasks into stories or milestones or iterations or epics.
In general, he’s saying you should always keep breaking down a task until it’s a 1, since 1s are easy to estimate.
The key part that may be missed is the “mob programming” or “pair programming” aspect where all the engineers on a team sit together and work through a story or milestones or epic to come up with a list one 1 point tasks.
Obviously this still can’t be done, so the only effective end solution is maximum pair/mob programming unless all tasks in an iteration are accounted for and broken down into easily understandable and estimable bits of work.
There is at least some truth to the notion that if you use mob programming, estimating becomes pointless.
1) Services are often unique per patient. Even for patients with the same ICD-10 codes, the quality of service will vary. Hospitals cost different amounts to run. If you always peg the price to the lowest, it will be a race to the bottom for quality of service.
2) Patients are unique, with different health profiles, with different preferences for paying. Markets are different. Some markets only have one insurance payer.
It seems that an anesthesiologists job is to make sure you’re unconscious. If there’s anyone that knows how to define consciousness, it should probably be them.
Seems that consciousness is an awareness of certain stimuli that give rise to novel patterns in our brain, in turn triggering our frontal lobes to notice…
Don't knock it till you try it. I was originally of a similar impression upon discovering the technique.
The breaks are not so you stop thinking about what you're doing. They're to take you away from it. I continue to think during my breaks about what I'm doing.. I am just not allowed to do it.
It allows me to step back from what I'm doing and re-evaluate if what I'm doing at this very moment is what I should be doing. Otherwise, it's easy to get stuck just wanting to finish what you're doin
It also does allow me to stop thinking about what I'm doing, for a brief moment, while leaving the train of through intact in the subconscious.
Typically, when someone loses their train of thought because of distractions, it is because they have to switch what they're focused on. The train gets derailed because it has to go along another track. Pomodoro breaks are more like stopping the train to look around than switching tracks.
Furthermore, removing distractions and staying in your train of thought is what the technique is fundamentally all about. Once you start the technique, you'll notice that the requirement that you keep track of your distractions, allows you to focus on ridding yourself of distractions first and foremost. Once you have found a way to rid yourself of distractions, every moment of those 25 minutes becomes precious, your mind sharpens, and solutions become clear.
The breaks allow you to dis-engage, providing greater focus and clarity.
There was a significant bit of the article at the end where the author discussed future changes to the codebase that requires special casing handles for different shapes, how it would have been difficult with the refactor but simple with the repetitive code.
I think that’s the critical bit is that you have to realize that the code will change in the future. Requirements will change, related code will change. If you make abstractions that restrict that ability to change, you’re hurting future you’s ability to adapt the codebase. More so because we often hold on, emotionally, to these abstractions we’ve invested so much time and effort into that we waste more time trying to elegantly fit the changes into our elegant solution.
What if consciousness is an emergent illusion? “You” are merely a passenger, observing your physical self’s actions and assuming ownership of them. What if consciousness is merely an effect, not a cause?
What if humans’ responses are merely probabilistically consistent with a history of sensory experiences? Would this change the significance of human emotions vs apparent emergent emotional responses from LLMs?
Thank you for your contributions. Am I correct that you are asserting there are substantial numbers of practicing psychologists that literally and absolutely believe inner structures of the brain are unchanged over hundreds of millions of years, and they can and will be reached by this paper?
If anyone doesn't understand "All models are wrong, but some are useful" I don't know if you'll reach them with this paper.
Maybe it needs to be said. It's possible the most useful papers are those that assert obvious things in ways that refute our basic models so we can see things differently. It's also possible this is a clickbait paper that isn't saying anything new, just trying to be controversial.
No one thinks the older structures are static. No one is arguing that.
It's a simplified model about the origin.
This argument is akin to saying we're not "newer" apes ala
> The refutation is of the idea that it’s a strictly chronological ordering of species, with the old species still inside and intact.
The correct view is that while homosapiens are indeed mostly "newer", the “older” apes were also modified throughout evolution
Much of the value in Reddit isn’t “what’s happening now” but in that trove of information gathered over the last ten years. Reddit is a primary source of information because of that trove. Engagement numbers will obviously suffer if Reddit drops out of search results.