- If it's an internal project (like migrating from one vendor to another, with no user impact) then it takes as long as I can convince my boss it is reasonable to take.
- If it's a project with user impact (like adding a new feature) then it takes as long as the estimated ROI remains positive.
- If it's a project that requires coordination with external parties (like a client or a partner), then the sales team gets to pick the delivery date, and the engineering team gets to lie about what constitutes an MVP to fit that date.
My issue with the second one is that, as an engineer, I am almost never the one trusted with managing ROI. In r&d this just means your product people expect delivery earlier and earlier, and will accept lower and lower quality if they think it has some return for the product.
Exactly. For many software projects ROI is just not measurable the way it is for more pedestrian products. Sometimes you can estimate the cost of replacing one product with another, and then you can estimate the "value" of enhancements to the current product that keep you from having to spend the cost of replacing it. Other times you can measure happiness of your product's users but not the ROI strictly defined. Other times you can say "this project enabled _that_ project, and that project has a measurable ROI, therefore so does _this_ project". You just can't count on always having a measurable ROI.
So far the only metric I've seen that works is KTLO fraction, where lower is better, because that means with the rest of the time you can be adding value, and that value is socially determinable by asking your peers and users. KTLO fraction can't be gamed because your peer managers will call you out on it if you try to cook it. To drive KTLO fraction down you also have to address tech debt that cause high KTLO fractions, and addressing that tech debt enables value-add because between spending less time on KTLO and having a cleaner architecture/design you enable the addition of valuable features.
Those who currently hold the majority don't want any ranked choice that might undermine their position. Worse, since there are only two parties, the other side is very often seen as deranged, corrupt, and evil, that should be kept away from power with any means short of a nuclear strike.
Only when there is a sizable number of disgruntled voters who are unhappy with both the red and the blue, and would vote for specific decent people, not party affiliation, then RCV has a fir chance of being adopted, I assume.
I wonder if some portion of these come from templates. Maybe there's a patient communication template that includes a telephone emoji, and it gets reused.
Health care workers are in a hurry when writing notes, so I doubt they're consulting their emoji pickers just to make their notes more interesting.
If you want a fast, healthy, balanced meal for $4 or less, the obvious choice in America is a frozen meal (aka TV dinner).
You can microwave it in 4-6 minutes; ingredients are often flash-frozen, locking in nutrients; and food-safety concerns are addressed at scale, rather than in a hit-or-miss way in a tiny storefront.
So perhaps, instead of advocating for more tiny restaurants that would likely need to skimp on safety considerations, we should be advocating for more microwaves available in grocery and convenience stores, so people can select a frozen meal, heat it up, and be on their way.
Not sure I can accept most of your assertions, but anyway, I left America in 2008 and IIRC there were microwaves available in every 7-11 even then?
There were't any $4 healthy bowls of anything, but there were $2 "red hot beef & bean" (& fake soy filler) burritos which hit the spot if you'd failed to find a way to eat real food...
The problem with the microwave solution, I think, is that pretty much only burritos and pasta can be packaged in a microwavable way that still tastes good? And maybe like a few kinds of vegetable side dishes.
Octane is the #1 Powersports lender in the US and has expanded into other verticals, such as RVs, marine vehicles, and autos.
Our Platform Engineering team plays a critical role in building and maintaining the highly reliable, scalable, and secure infrastructure that powers our business. We are seeking a seasoned Staff Platform Engineer to serve as the technical lead for the team. This leadership position will be responsible for shaping the strategy, architecture, and delivery of our core platform services while mentoring engineers and guiding best practices across the organization. The ideal candidate has deep expertise in AWS and cloud infrastructure and thrives on solving complex challenges at scale.
The main problem with choosing representatives by lottery is that the average person just doesn't want to do the job. I know I wouldn't. It's about as appealing as having to do jury duty for three years.
The book proposes financial incentives as a way to address this reluctance, such as paying the person 1.5 times their current salary. But that seems like it will lead to representatives who are only doing it for the money, not because they care about doing a good job.
Part of me wonders what would happen if a lottery were used not to select representatives from among the population at large, but from among the candidates who have won their parties' respective primaries. Of course, then you'd have to decide whether to use weighted selections (which would strongly favor the entrenched parties) or non-weighted (which would give a strong edge to minor parties).
But realistically, sensible term limits seem like they would help achieve a lot of what the proposed lottocracy system would achieve.
Former journalist here. I would argue that it's a shared-responsibility model. We, the public, are at least partly (and I would argue mostly) responsible for developing the media literacy that helps us end up with the right understanding, rather than requiring media outlets to publish general disclaimers and PSAs.
When I was in high school, I took a one-semester media literacy course where we examined topics like reputable sources, bias, sensationalism, moderating one's consumption, why watchdog reporting is so important but often goes unnoticed, etc. I would love to see more high schools offer this.
In this shared responsibility model, if the public is mostly responsible, then what can and should be done by the public to fix these issues? And how long will it take? And how would you propose getting the bipartisan support needed, or avoid it becoming a partisan political issue? Are more high school media literacy classes realistically going to fix this problem? Today it feels to me like agenda-driven manipulative reporting is fueling a decrease in media literacy, which appears to be precisely what some people want. What can the public realistically do to counteract this?
That's true, but I don't think the burden can reasonably fall completely on schools and individuals.
I think regular "general disclaimers and PSAs" and necessary to 1) reinforce and refresh the proper lessons and 2) give them to people who never had the proper lessons in the first place.
I would call it "splitting hairs," which experts tend to do.
The practical reality is acknowledged at the end of the post.
Even if, technically speaking, using gift cards as a payments instrument is not a scam 100% of the time, anyone but a non-expert should behave as if it's 100%.
- If it's an internal project (like migrating from one vendor to another, with no user impact) then it takes as long as I can convince my boss it is reasonable to take.
- If it's a project with user impact (like adding a new feature) then it takes as long as the estimated ROI remains positive.
- If it's a project that requires coordination with external parties (like a client or a partner), then the sales team gets to pick the delivery date, and the engineering team gets to lie about what constitutes an MVP to fit that date.
reply