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.
> 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.
My issue with this has always been that once an issue is straightforward enough to estimate as a 1 point task, you could’ve implemented the task already during the estimation process. The unknown effort is almost never in the writing code part, but figuring out the complexities around business rules & externalities.
But this doesn’t fix the process, it just moves the variability of effort & time into a different part of the process.
I have actually always had the same feeling about 1 pointers, but in this case you're talking about a collection of small tasks that make up a larger feature.
The larger feature probably couldn't have been implemented during the estimation process, but a single isolated small task could have.
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.
Regarding #3, do you mean in the United States? That's not generally true. Your health insurance premiums, under normal employer plans, are not tax deductible, but they are paid pre-tax.
Additional out of pocket healthcare expenditure is only deductible if you itemize your deductions and you're only allowed to deduct medical expenditures in excess of 7.5% of your income (AGI to be technical).
> And of course we don’t have free will. We have experience, which fools us into thinking we are in control.
Not sure if you're disagreeing with me, or if you didn't grasp my comment. The quote above is meaningless without defining what free will is and how it can possibly mean anything other than "the experience of decision making".
Decision-making is something that a fully deterministic, non-conscious machine can do. (A motion detector performs decision making based on light input.) Decision-making does not require consciousness. Consciousness is what grants us the ability to experience and reflect on our decision making. It is fair to call that phenomenon "free will."
Defining "free will" as "the ability to make a decision not influenced by our state and inputs (including sensation, memory, etc.)" makes no sense. Decisions are fundamentally dependent on state and inputs*. Any definition of "free will" which ignores that is useless.
Indirect Realism as a consequence of evolution + lack of distribution of this knowledge (causing it to be phenomenologically experienced as Direct Realism) as a consequence of culture.
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.
> 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.
They're called pee breaks. Do you drink enough water?
