Assuming that the systems are truly encrypted end-to-end, how do we know for sure that noone can actually decrypt it? I mean, apart from the Eng team that directly works on that part, are we basically trusting them at face value that it works? Or does this code need to live in an open-sourced environment so as to make it more trustworthy?
To be clear, I don't mean trusting the encryption algorithm, that part is easy because math. I mean trusting that that algorithm is actually what's being used under the hood and actually noone can decrypt it for any reason.
I don't think the analogy of town planning fits well. I think it depends how the tasks are broken down by the team. What if the tasks are created in the breadth-first approach, so that the goal is not to "fully complete" each neighborhood, but to get each neighborhood in a working state, like the "organic" approach the author mentioned?
I have found success using this approach on my team. And yes, agreed that we should use other software like Docs or Sheets for the project homebase, and only limit JIRA to Epics/stories tied to labels for the projects.
Google is not happy with third-party blockers blocking all their ads (e.g. YouTube ads), so they want their own blocker that can show more "Google-friendly" ads. It's all about the moolah...
I believe there's still concerns around long-term usage, like the eyes/brain mismatch to focusing on something that's 'virtually' a few meters away, but in reality is in front of your face, which can cause nausea.
It's not about who made how much money. It's about redefining the economics of space exploration. Comparing it to a movie makes it easier to understand.
Why not keep the rating system, and have an additional thumbs up/down rating? That way you get to vote on the 'objective' quality and the 'subjective' enjoyment factor of the content.