I work with Australian tax - lots of regulatory complexity, add the documentation often assumes the reader is a CPA. I've got decent results by telling the chat bot to ask questions instead of making assumptions, and then grilling it to find edge cases.
I did a live demo in front of the CPAs, using their documentation, and Claude asked clarification questions they hadn't thought of and exposed gaps in the old manual processes.
Native apps are where power users and other non-developers can do programming. The type of things that an engineer who lives in the terminal might make a CLI or TUI for, an accountant or project manager might want to do with a GUI. This is where VB6 and VBA lived, probably also HyperCard. Web tech has too much complexity for that.
People will often write about something that worked for them, and from that pull out abstractions they believe are generalised and universal. They rarely are.
Organisational patterns that work for startups rapidly iterating to find product market fit won’t work well for a consultancy building a better defined product for a single client, or a corpo IT department trying to shoehorn a new distribution channel through a 30 year old logistics system.
A team of experienced engineers who know the problem domain and have worked together for years needs different organisational structures than a team of new hires and grads. A team of introverted hermits and a team of extroverts will function differently regardless of organisational structure.
You need to have some idea of where ideas work and don’t work before you can design the ones needed for your specific situation.
I think the observed feminisation isn't a causal factor, but instead shares a causal factor - that every space must now accept everyone. This causes a few problems.
0. One of the ideas that has tagged along with inclusion has been changing from an input focus ("e.g. No girls allowed in treehouse!") to an output focus (Fewer girls than boys are in the treehouse). In the input focused model, you want to change the rule to stop excluding girls. In the output focused model you also need to change the treehouse to be more attractive to girls. From this, any 'deviant' interests that happen to be gendered (or racial, cultural, etc) get suppressed in the name of creating inclusive outcomes.
1. Most humans have a natural urge to conform to those around us, some just experience it stronger or weaker than others. When 'deviants' are included in a non-deviant space, their deviant tendencies face a subtle yet strong conformity pressure that wouldn't be felt if they were excluded entirely.
2. 'Deviants' being accepted more widely means they don't need to create or find their own spaces. Hence there are fewer spaces where the deviation is locally normal, which would allow the conformist pressure to enhance and refine the deviation.
You mentioned restrictions around sending money, but not restrictions on receiving money. If you put obligations on the banks receiving payments to refund scam victims, those banks will have incentive to stop people using their services to conduct scams. Basically, unusual payments get stopped or delayed until the bank can confirm their own customer isn’t running a scam, identities haven’t been stolen to open accounts, etc.
It wasn't just storage. In the 90s, most servers were single core. Databases already had network interfaces so they could be shared by non-web applications running on desktops, and so were the natural place to split a website over multiple machines. This turned into the received wisdom of always putting your database on a separate machine, despite processing power and storage latency improving so much since the 486 and pentium days that network overhead dominated response times.
They perform elaborate cleansing rituals on any item brought into the crystal-writing room. When they enter, they wear special clothing, lest the impurities of the outside world taint the crystals.
Maybe the books that they're trying to market aren't books that kids want to read. There are a couple of quotes that point to that:
> Connor was more blunt: “Maybe you think a book about a school shooting is really important,” she said, “but kids want to read a fun book. That’s what kids want today—they want to have fun.”
> But if you’re a new author who’s written a quiet, issue-oriented debut, “you might have to think about adapting, in a way.”
> Eberly, the book agent, doesn’t think the supply of serious, “award-winning” books will dry up. “Knowing the editors that I sell to, those are the types of books they want to shepherd into the world.”
Maybe kids would rather read fun adventure stories rather than the issue-driven stories that adults are pushing on them.
You need a way to assign technical debt to a process or practice, then you can evaluate the cost of that process over time.
Could be something like... Our team spent 500 hours fixing bugs introduced during overtime, and we spent 250 hours of overtime to introduce those bugs in the first place. So an additional hour of overtime will likely introduce 2 hours of technical debt.
Or maybe... Code written using inheritance hierarchies creates 40 minutes of muda per hour, but using composition only creates 20 minutes. Or... every hour spent on throw-away prototypes reduces muda by 2 hours.
You don't need a monopoly, you need competition. Renewables sell into the same energy market as fossil fuels, and get paid the same price. So you end up with low cost renewables making higher profits than high cost fossil fuels, and so attract more investment.
Long term, when renewables have displaced fossil fuels, then profits will fall. But that only happens after the renewables get investment.
A corporation is an organisation. It has internal processes, both documented/formal, and undocumented/informal - 'the way we do things here'. There are teams and departments, and relationships between them. There are contracts and commitments to and from other organisations. Handshake deals. Unspoken agreements. Expectations around whose turn it is to get promoted. Culture. History. Group identity.
And sometimes these are bad and need to be dissolved.
IMO, it should be the bank that receives the money that should have to pay. Banks (even small ones) need to know their own customers, and they take on the risk of not knowing them well enough. They can impose verification rules to stop typical scam behaviour, at least up to the level of risk they're comfortable carrying.