> Wtf? So you take the statement that we can recover and shouldn't believe in doomsday as let's just kill each other? What are you, a Stalinist? ... But I guess you want that since you're a nuclear war advocate.
Do you understand sarcasm?
> You realize the rhetoric of life being over as we know it is increasing suicide rates. People are literally killing themselves because they dont want to live in the narrative that life as we know it is down hill from here.
There's actually little to no "rhetoric of life being [permanently] over as we know it [due to COVID]" except as a straw man. There is rhetoric arguing for temporary sacrifices for the greater good, and also rhetoric downplaying or denying the situation to argue against making those sacrifices.
A proper appreciation of the seriousness of the situation is not "being a fucking doomsday prophet," as you said; rather it's the mindset that steels one to make the sacrifices that need to be made with the hope that they'll work.
>> More Americans have died from COVID in the last 9 months than the Americans who died in WWI, and we've surpassed the American South's Civil War deaths, and are approaching how many died fighting for the North, too.
> One death is one too many, but we recovered from the civil war which was 600k+ deaths with a 31m population at the time.
> Covid isn't the end of the world. We can recover. The world has been through far, far worse. Stop being a fucking doomsday prophet.
Let's have a nuclear war, then. Sure it will cause massive death and destruction, but we don't have to worry about that because the Black Death shows we'll eventually recover [1].
Massive tragedies from that past don't free us from having to worry about similarly-sized tragedies in the present, but those acknowledged tragedies can help us acknowledge the scope of the current tragedy.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death: "The Black Death ... is estimated to have killed 30% to 60% of Europe's population.... it took until 1500 for the European population to regain the levels of 1300."
> The captain doesn't need to understand the calculation that goes behind the optimal arrival time of his ship.
But now he can't monitor its performance and intervene when it's wrong or offer feedback. He's turned into an automaton, and we're assuming his central planner has all the knowledge and understanding necessary to successfully manage a central plan and react to (perhaps unexpected) changes.
And that's only considering the perspective of task performance, which is not the only angle here. Is it really a better world if all the tasks are performed perfectly, but if almost everyone's reduced to a deskilled, mind-numbed, burger-flipper?
> Yeah, standups are for triage. If someone raises an issue then you work out who they need to talk to about that and arrange for that to happen. The details get hashed out in the separate smaller meetings (or 1:1 conversations).
Honestly, I expect competent developers to be able to do that on their own, without needing someone to make arrangements or having to wait for a standup.
> Have you forgotten to have retrospectives? Yes, the first 2 weeks, the stand-ups is badly place, then the team talks about it and chose a different time. (Remember the team decides the time, not management or Product owner), management only gets to decide that you are doing scrum, which means you need to have the daily stand-up.
Sure, that's the orthodoxy, and assumes the team is actually empowered to do that, but agile-as-practiced often doesn't actually address the problems that it was supposed to solve. In many ways it just replaced one set of ceremonies with another, leaving the fundamentals unchanged.
> I just got out of my team's standup. MY team has 8 people. The standup lasted 6 minutes. I think the people who complain about this, are the ones who have a reason to complain. You don't hear the success stories.
I'm not sure if I'd count a 6 minute standup as a success story. My guess is the only person deriving any value from it is some kind of manager who's tracking status, and pulling everyone into a meeting room to do that is mainly just a convenience for that person.
The kind of information that can be conveyed in less than 1 minute per person is likely information that can be collected less disruptively in other ways.
From my perspective as a developer, the best "standups" were the ones that actually deviated from orthodoxy, where we talked about some technical issue or something.
> It’s not wasted time, and even if you don’t care what I’m working on I still care that you know so that we don’t spend two weeks building something only for you to go “Oh, that won’t work after the changes I made to the core.... why didn’t you come by my desk and ask me “are you intending to change the core code in a way that invalidates all assumptions we had two weeks ago when we started working on this?” And do so like clockwork every day, even though I’d answer no 6 times before suddenly answering yes?
I thought the whole point of orthodox standups (and one of the brain-dead things about them), was that you weren't supposed to have discussions at that level of detail.
Do you understand sarcasm?
> You realize the rhetoric of life being over as we know it is increasing suicide rates. People are literally killing themselves because they dont want to live in the narrative that life as we know it is down hill from here.
There's actually little to no "rhetoric of life being [permanently] over as we know it [due to COVID]" except as a straw man. There is rhetoric arguing for temporary sacrifices for the greater good, and also rhetoric downplaying or denying the situation to argue against making those sacrifices.
A proper appreciation of the seriousness of the situation is not "being a fucking doomsday prophet," as you said; rather it's the mindset that steels one to make the sacrifices that need to be made with the hope that they'll work.