• 0 Posts
  • 41 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 18th, 2023

help-circle

  • I think that’s a little too simplistic. I definitely agree that “we can’t show you the evidence of why we made this decision but trust us” isn’t going to instill confidence in the community, but it’s not like the steering council is some unrelated board of executives. They’re all core developers, theoretically chosen for their dedication and contributions to Python as a whole, and it seems their granted power has made them anxious about showing favoritism among the most seasoned at the expense of upholding the community guidelines that keep the Python community a positive and welcoming place.

    I think a flawed decision was made, or at least the way it was presented was flawed, and that should be considered for the next election. Maybe the council does need to be totally overhauled, that’s a valid position. But this is their work, too, and imply they have no skin in the game is disingenuous.


  • I agree that most people won’t care but take issue with calling them “dumb”. Everyone has a limited amount of time on this planet to build skills and chase hobbies. A lot of people on this site have tech-related jobs and hobbies, so of course this matters to us. I might expect someone who buys pre-built gaming PCs to keep this on their radar, but the vast majority of folks who use computers as email and social media machines, including those who only use it for data entry type jobs, have little reason to care about the specifics of their CPU or any other single component of their computer. If their computer breaks, that’s annoying, but that’s life. They’ll spend the same amount on a new laptop as we might spend on a new CPU and get on with their day.

    I don’t know what brand of spark plugs are in my car, and maybe a mechanic or car enthusiast would find that dumb. But hey, I’m too busy caring about my CPU to spend time worrying about my car unless it breaks.


  • I definitely agree, but that’s true of any system. The particulars of the pitfalls may vary, but a good system can’t overpower bad management. We mitigate the stakeholder issue by having BAs that act as the liason between devs and stakeholders, knowing just enough about the dev side to manage expectations while helping to prioritize the things stakeholders want most. Our stakes are also, mercifully, pretty aware that they don’t always know what will be complex and what will be trivial, so they accept the effort we assign to items.



  • Honestly a little confused by the hatred of agile. As anything that is heavily maligned or exalted in tech, it’s a tool that may or may not work for your team and project. Personally I like agile, or at least the version of it that I’ve been exposed to. No days or weeks of design meetings, just “hey we want this feature” and it’s in an item and ready to go. I also find effort points to be one of the more fair ways to gauge dev performance.

    Projects where engineers felt they had the freedom to discuss and address problems were 87 percent more likely to succeed.

    I’m not really sure how this relates to agile. A good team listens to the concerns of its members regardless of what strategy they use.

    A neverending stream of patches indicates that quality might not be what it once was, and code turning up in an unfinished or ill-considered state have all been attributed to Agile practices.

    Again, not sure how shipping with bugs is an agile issue. My understanding of “fail fast” is “try out individual features to quickly see if they work instead of including them in a large update”, not “release features as fast as possible even if they’re poorly tested and full of bugs.” Our team got itself into a “quality crisis” while using agile, but we got back out of it with the same system. It was way more about improving QA practices than the strategy itself.

    The article kinda hand waves the fact that the study was not only commissioned by Engprax, but published by the author of the book “Impact Engineering,” conveniently available on Engprax’s site. Not to say this necessarily invalidates the study, or that agile hasn’t had its fair share of cash grabs, but it makes me doubt the objectivity of the research. Granted, Ali seems like he’s no hack when it comes to engineering.







  • Brooklyn Nine-Nine feels that way to me. Not that I think it’s a particularly bad show, but I definitely feel like the memes spawned from it already contain the funniest parts of the show. The actual content of each episode is kinda predictable with the protagonist learning stone sort of lesson.

    Also I so desperately wanted to get into Bojack Horseman because I love animation, puns, and to cry while watching shows. The memes showed so many really deep and interesting moments, but by the end of the third season, I just couldn’t stand to watch Bojack learn a lesson only to revert to being a complete asshole an episode later. I get that’s kind of the point, but it was more infuriating than engaging.





  • I hate how a lot of settings pages have stopped adding save/apply buttons, especially when they don’t provide any indication that your changes are being saved after each modification. Like do I just close this window? What if I want to cancel the changes?

    Also more sites seem to be adding these reactive-only search bars that dynamically fetch results as you type. Looks cool I suppose, but it’s a huge pain in the ass when I want to add a search shortcut in Firefox and can’t because they don’t actually have a search URL.



  • From the other side, for a lot of women don’t just hear that people do that (though there are many firsthand accounts), they experience it. Even if you don’t mean anything by it, they’ve likely been the victim of enough purposefully suggestive comments that they’re sensitive to it. It’s not really your fault, but it’s not theirs, either.

    Out of curiosity, do you have some examples of misconstrued phrases?