> Do you really think that in a high stress situation you’re going to make the best decisions?
I mean that statement could be used to excuse any mistake in any project/system ever made, and is mostly a cop out. Yes, the system is definitely designed to minimize legal risk for the health-workers/hospitals. A system is only as good as what it's' design objectives are, and if "save a life at all cost" was the objective the system might as well look entirely different.
Ah, reminds of my first car. I got a new Corolla and went on my merry way. But on the third day I found the steering stuck and extremely hard to maneuver. Scared the heck out of me, so I went back to the dealership.
They inspected the car and informed me the next day that there was nothing wrong with it and asked me to pick it up. I drive out of the parking lot, and again the steering gets stuck, and I just circle around and give them the car back, showing the live problem.
They inspect it another day, and aren't able to find anything wrong, and ask me to pick it back up.
Sure enough, I haven't even gotten to my home yet and the problem reappears, so I drive it back to the dealership.
This time they open up the car, the steering wheel and changed somethings in it and asked me to pick the car back up. Took me 4 mins of driving to land back in the same problem after which I made them refund my money.
I decided to shelve a few extra bucks and purchased a Camry from the same dealership. The second day while I was parking my new Camry, I found the same issue of the steering wheel getting stuck all over again, with this new car.
So this was surely a me-problem, and not the car problem. After some analysis I relaized that I was turning off the car at red lights, without shifting to park. So when I turned it back on, the steering would lock itself. But if I shifted to park first then it would work perfectly!
> If you simply select positive results and exclude negative results then even the placebo group would show great success.
Where did zosima ask to do that? They mentioned that the variable of comparison should be changes from baseline metrics in treatment group vs changes from baseline metrics in control group. That would be a fair study, and isn't cherry picking.
If there is an IC advancement track then the titles don't matter. All the discussion around titles is specifically to have an IC advancement track, which very few companies have.
No one is denying the need for PMs. OP is pointing out that PMs have too much decision making power, with too little accountability in most organizations.
Your argument is akin to, "PMs can't code, so alas we need engineers, and that's why shitty engineering exists, and there is no way to make it better"! Nope! We need product practices, akin to engineering practices, with 360° feedback and analysis, and the product management should be held accountable for their decisions!
Right. And I'm saying that is because engineers don't want the responsibility that they often request because the entire point of PM's existence is offloading that responsibility. They seem more than happy to complain about it though
This is still missing the point. The way to improve PM accountability isn't engineers fixing them. It's the organization's and leadership responsibility to ensure PMs are held accountable.
Engineers would be far happier if they don't have to do good engineering and can do away with shitty software without accountability. But there are checks and balances to improve engineering quality, and those aren't created by PMs. It's the engineering org that champions good engineering practices and accountability and post mortems. Same should be done in PM organizations.
Overengineering is typically a term thrown around when a manager wants to ship a system in half the time it actually would take to make a half-decent system!
These are just fantastical musings of a product manager, who is pretty far from engineering, and thinks that their products fail because of engineers, not because they didn't get their product right, and/or think that every engineer who doesn't produce a fully functional Facebook with news feed and friends, in 39 days is overengineering their product and are far removed from users!
So you are going on and on about a hypothesis without any backing numbers, while completely ignoring provided evidence on how the unvaccinated is more likely to end up in ICUs?
Get off your high horse and do your fucking part. People are dying of Covid19, and a lot of people who survive end up with permanent disabilites, while you engage in mental gymnastics with your hypotheticals!
Apparently writing one sentence is now "going on and on".
It's not mental gymnastics to point out the information overload on one side of this issue, which makes absolutely no medical or scientific sense, yet makes a ton of profit "cents".
I've already done my part by contracting and beating the virus you're deathly afraid of. I have more powerful immunity than anyone who's taken any of those shots. I don't have to ponder about the numbers on that one.
If that's the opinion of a reputable medical professional that you've personally talked to, then sure, great, good for you. If you're basing this on random things you've read on the internet... well, kinda a shame you're basing health decisions on that.
Given the fact that you've made an absolutist statement about immunity that doesn't track with the studies I've read, I suspect it's sadly the latter.
(Natural immunity may give rise to more mature memory B-cells, which could be better than the memory B-cells you get with vaccination, but the vaccines do provoke your immune system to produce many more antibodies than found in the aftermath of natural infection. So the jury is kinda still out on this.)
I hope you had a reputable doctor interpret those studies for you in person. I read on CNN.com that it can be dangerous to do online research and think for yourself. I’m not sure if I should believe it though, since a reputable medical professional didn’t read it to me in person. In fact, even reading your comment, I’m not at liberty to reply, since a reputable medical professional didn’t read it to me, and I can’t be sure just what to think without a reputable medical professional telling me, in person, what I should think.
Guess I'll just get off of my high horse and make sure big Pharma gets paid by the taxpayer for something that not only do I not need, but would weaken the immunity that I have.
The state of the world is obvious from the activity on this forum. If these are supposed to be "intelligent hackers" here, god help the human race.
> What we observe could be explained by many other more convincing factors: early learning activity, more care to the child's education, logical and clear answers to the kid's questions about the world around him, help with the homework, etc. With proper early learning activity for the baby, and amazing teachers for the early teachings, the kid has a strong foundation. From there, compound returns.
I don't see why that would be more convincing. As a hyperbole, if two completely different species (say a monkey and a primate) are exposed to the same learning environment, one would definitely end up fairing better than the other due to the differences in their brain.
The twin studies just show that, given most other factors for twins are likely to be the same.
I mean that statement could be used to excuse any mistake in any project/system ever made, and is mostly a cop out. Yes, the system is definitely designed to minimize legal risk for the health-workers/hospitals. A system is only as good as what it's' design objectives are, and if "save a life at all cost" was the objective the system might as well look entirely different.