I think you are poor moderator acting in bad faith, if you think I violated all those guidelines.
Is that a personal attack? Is that against the guidelines?
I'm not interested in being a part of a community that finds my previous post objectionable. What I said was true and needed to be said. It wasn't kind, but the OP did not deserve or need kindness, he needs a reality check.
> It should be clear that this kind of conduct is not acceptable
I've considered this, and I don't agree with you. This was not a personal attack (the guidelines you posted also don't forbid personal attacks, they discourage name-calling).
As someone who has struggled with physical and mental addictions for my entire life: breaking a physical addiction is trivially easy compared to breaking a mental addiction. And breaking a physical addiction is really hard (I'm currently suffering withdrawal effects from a recent decision to quit vaping nicotine and it sucks).
Mileage varies for different people, of course. But dopamine is dopamine and addiction is addiction and it's neither kind nor fair to tell someone else that their addiction isn't real because there's no change in their blood chemistry.
This makes no sense in Zuckerberg's case: he was never hired by the board and they've never had a chance to fire him. Investors can sell the stock if they don't like what he does, but that is not a "professional advisor" relationship.
It's mostly a cult of personality relationship, and you're deep in it with your belief that Zuckerberg is an unusually capable operator.
> For you (and me), switching browsers is annoying but doable. There was a time when I used Firefox, and then a time when I used Chrome, and someday I'll use something else. But for the vast majority of the world, the idea of switching browsers feels like a big challenge.
Given this paragraph suggests you haven't changed browsers in over 15 years, you should probably give it a try sometime and see if what you think is true still is true.
(If you don't want to do your homework, it is not true. A not-very-technical person could change browsers three times between now and dinner and have no issues)
I love it when my counterparty's breach of contract is my fault because I foolishly trusted that they would do what they said they would in exchange for my money.
I'm sure you also believe that she was asking for it because she was wearing a short skirt and your dad was right to hit you because you wouldn't shut up.
> This is the same thing as "you won't walk around all day with a calculator in your pocket so you need to learn math"
People who can't do simple addition and multiplication without a calculator (12*30 or 23 + 49) are absolutely at a disadvantage in many circumstances in real life and I don't see how you could think this isn't true. You can't work as a cashier without this skill. You can't play board games. You can't calculate tips or figure out how much you're about to spend at the grocery store. You could pull out your phone and use a calculator in all these situations, but people don't.
> I took a small company that was living contract to contract into a world where they started making millions in annual recurring revenue.
> There's no secret, magic bullet. All I did was make sure we were delivering progress at a regular cadence. Kept communication channels open. And tried to, but ultimately failed at, training the sales team to stop with the secret deadline negotiation
> The value equation of a software development team isn't a product of their time and salary compared to the code/features/whatever-unit they produce. It's the theories and knowledge they build in their heads and share through the process of understanding problems and developing solutions. You can't optimize that process in a Taylorist fashion.
There is no value equation for "the theories and knowledge" that developers build in their heads. Value in software happens when customers pay for software. That's how business works. It happens to be true that developers need to build theories and knowledge in their heads, but that isn't unique to software engineering and doesn't prevent deadlines from being effective.
> "It gets done when it gets done," is a glib way of saying that progress is more important than deadlines. The idea that systems take time and what's important is that people know where we're at and where we're heading more than threatening punishment for not delivering what we estimated at an agreed upon time.
I understand the argument, having heard it from teammates ten thousand times in my career. I'm somewhat sympathetic to it, but it is not a full picture of the software business. A business that fully adopts such a strategy has no long-term plan and can't make promises to customers. That can work if you lucked into all the money in the world (Google), but most of us are not so lucky and need to deliver to customers within reasonable timeframes or the customers go to someone else who can.
I get that estimation can be hard, conversations about scope can be hard, and managing expectations can be hard. I don't care. If you still have a job in this industry you are extremely well compensated to overcome those difficulties.
This makes no sense at all. The business needs to make money to pay you. Your time is the development cost of the software. It is completely reasonable and rational for a company to say, "This is valuable to us if it can be built in three weeks, but if it takes longer, we don't want it." Because three weeks of paying your team costs a certain amount of money, and a cost higher than that puts the value of the work underwater.
If you cannot forecast whether it can be built in three weeks and then deliver against that forecast, you aren't doing your job.
> Wasn't agile created to solve this BS?
Agile sets regular deadlines for shipping to customers, that is literally the core idea. Instead of one big deadline 6 months from now, you have a small deadline every two weeks for the next 6 months. It's still a deadline.
It's not tricky at all. When you're the richest country in the world and you have a lower than average tax rate, there is one very simple trick that gets rid of the debt problem.
If you think that community needs a group of strangers to con them into coming together and being more than the sum of its parts, you are more cynical than I am.
1) The story of stone soup is the story of how some grifters got a free meal. I don't think it's moral instruction, or an example to be learned from, unless you are a grifter.
2) In the stone soup example and in cases like Wikipedia, the soup is freely shared with everyone, regardless of their contributions. Is AI like that, or in the AI stone soup story, are the travelers charging everyone for a bowl of soup? Doesn't that change the story quite a bit?
Is that a personal attack? Is that against the guidelines?
I'm not interested in being a part of a community that finds my previous post objectionable. What I said was true and needed to be said. It wasn't kind, but the OP did not deserve or need kindness, he needs a reality check.
> It should be clear that this kind of conduct is not acceptable
It isn't.