Re-planning in isolation is not a failure. I think re-planning is a failure when nothing is learned from previous assumptions not being correct, which usually leads to serial re-planning. I've seen this pattern form at practically every company I've worked for, in particular whenever there's a merger or a private equity buy-out. More often than not, this is ironically caused by leadership failing to learn from previous assumptions because they're too busy chasing the shiny new bobble of the week, but the blame still gets diffused across the organization.
> I think re-planning is a failure when nothing is learned from previous assumptions not being correct
This is the exact problem, and why it is so extremely difficult to communicate about the subject.
Another way to say "learn from previous [failures]" is "bureaucracy". We did something wrong last time, so we need a rule about that failure.
It SHOULD NOT be seen as failure, we SHOULD NOT add bureaucracy, simple rules CAN NOT fix the issue.
What should happen: Line managers and developers should be able to communicate about what they are learning as they do the work of software engineering. Developers should be able to re-plan their approach to problem solutions.
This simply will not work if there is not strong trust between upper management/[the money] and the engineering/execution side of the organization.
----
The meta-problem is that you have to see things go wrong many times in many ways before you really understand what is going on, and by that point ... well everything gets very tiresome.
You may be hanging with the wrong crowds in the sense that your people are out there somewhere and you just haven't found them yet, but your people are still a minority. One would hope that tech would have more genuine and curious people, but I swear most of us are hustlers who bought a shovel for a particular gold rush.
In my experience, you'll have the best luck finding likeminded people at hacker spaces and conferences.
I agree, though I shudder to imagine how cringey the switchover would be. A significant number of students already had poor diction and linguistic skills when I was in college, and recent evidence shows this situation has likely become worse.
Senior software engineer with 13+ years of experience in full stack web development looking for a full-time remote position; excels in improving performance and efficiency in both software and developer workflows.
How is your browsing experience with that stuff? I used to go nuts with anti-tracking measures, but enough of my browsing experience kept breaking that it just didn't feel worth it.
My experience with uMatrix: most sites work right away. Others require fiddling with the matrix of media, script, xhr, frames and the third parties serving them. After a while it's easy to remember which ones must be temporary enabled and which ones don't. Sites with videos are a little more difficult. Sites with payments require care. I whitelist the minimum set of scripts that make the sites I use often work. There are usually many scripts that can be left out. If everything fails and it's a one shot site, I start Chrome.
It's fine. Sometimes I get annoyed by websites which require JavaScript to show static text (apparently HTML is too difficult?) or which block me with a 'please unblock challenges.cloudflare.com to proceed' (that second one seriously pisses me off when I see it on, for example, the website of the Belgian railways), but by and large I'm fine with just saying 'if it breaks I don't need it'. But I handle my e-mail with isync, mu, and mu4e; and as far as I understand e-mail tends to be a sticking point for those who care for their digital rights. I also don't have Xitter or Facebook or any of that nonsense.
If there's one thing I don't like its the fact that NoScript doesn't integrate with Multi-Account Containers. It would be neat if instead of having to temporarily allow GitHub JavaScript and re-disable it when I'm done; I could just allow GH JS in a GitHub or Microsoft container and it only being enabled in that container.
I've heard this before, yet my mouth remains... unaffected.
What does an "oral microbiome" even mean? I understand what it means in the literal sense, but would a person's mouth be dysfunctional if it were hypothetically devoid of microbes? Is there an accepted healthy oral microbiome composition?
Maybe I'm just not imaginative enough, but I don't imagine myself relying on a digital device in order to prove my identity in foreign countries. Drop your phone and break it... then what do you do? And yeah, you can lose your physical passport, but you can also repeatedly stomp on it and even submerge it in water and it will still be useful.
Instead of stomping on your passport, grab a $30 passport card, useful for ID in non-border contexts abroad (other countries tend to have card shaped national IDs that a passport card can stand in for). No real issues if you lose it; nobody can get into the USA with it, and you can leave your passport in your hotel room
I generally do this anyway; about the only time I carry a passport while just out and about in another country (note: not risky ones) is if making large purchases that will be VAT-refundable. Do merchants accept the card in lieu of passport for verifying you for VAT exemption? Many will take a photo on the phone, but not all.
I used it in South Asia for ID purposes. There’s a lot of going to photocopier businesses to get duplicates of things (gvmt offices won’t do that for you), so it’s nice that middlemen aren’t getting your home address
US passports do not have home addresses or Social Security numbers. Date and place of birth (state, not city) only. Probably not much safer, but there it is.
I'm not sure what it actually means. For instance Apple Pay is probably not supposed to replace your actual credit card, but if you can live your life without ever using the physical one, that's just legalese.
If it really doesn't do much (i.e. only help to pass TSA lines), then perhaps it should be called something else. If it effectively can act as a passport in 80%+ more situations, "not a replacement for xxxx" will just be legalese for most users.
Yeah I purely care about whether or not this will get me through TSA. I'm against Apple Pay and all that, but I really don't want to carry (=risk losing) my physical passport just for domestic travel.
You don't need a "framework". You don't even really need a rendering/state library like React, depending on what you're doing.
If you're having difficulty thinking outside of frameworks, I would suggest you work on a simple project where you don't use anything like Next.js or React. Start with the bare minimum of tools available to you through the browser API and your backend runtime of choice, then add things on as needed. Try implementing your own routing without using a third-party package dedicated to routing. Work on your own component system, state management, or even a rendering abstraction.
I can guarantee that, once you at least near completion on such a pet project, you'll not only have a better appreciation for what frameworks are doing but realize that they're actually quite overrated in a lot of ways. In reality, it's totally feasible to build an application, especially one for the web, with more of your own code and not having to think about it in terms of how your logic fits within a "framework".
At the end of the day, 99% of frameworks is someone else's opinion. This is I think what makes churn in the JS world painful. The majority of changes are based on a developer's opinion of how things should work, but their opinion isn't necessarily better than anyone else's. Your application is not worse because it doesn't use someone's idea of how an elegant state management system should behave. It's not worse because it's doing its own DOM manipulation rather than handing off all that work to an opaque rendering library. The point is to get the job done. You can make a kickass web application with freaking Backbone or jQuery if you wanted to.
It's not that I don't appreciate frameworks, though I do think it's important for programmers to learn how to move beyond them. Frameworks don't have as big a job as many are lead to believe. Their complexity is primarily arbitrary most of the time. It's not that such complexity can't be beneficial, but bypassing said complexity doesn't require a big brain.
reply