It's half work until those tests actually test something of value. We all know what happens with half-work in the long run, and it certainly isn't 'they build habits towards full work'.
That's before considering even if the tests do test something, most code tests written are easily improved upon garbage.
None of what you said has to do with the reality of the matter, nor does you trying to flip the script change things. Look past your own emotions instead of trying to low blow immediately.
Comment in question claims people are more empathetic because individuals seem to switch between biking and driving cars almost daily. This is not happening. Live a 30 minute drive away from work, most individuals would take the bike every weekend at best. Most individuals do in fact live that far from work. Furthermore, car usage continues to increase, and roads continue to be expanded as a result. You can say all you want, most individuals are not going to cycle after an 8 hour workday and spending at least an hour commuting.
>While cyclists should indicate, the nature of the vehicle
>why do cars attempt to pull up in front of me anyhow?
Way too focused on cyclist vs vehicle. There are plenty of roads where it isn't always obvious which way someone is going, no matter cyclist or vehicle. These are old roads, but they exist nonetheless. Vehicles are actively punished for not indicating, cyclists are not. Both are hazards for everyone else, themselves and pedestrians included. That's not exactly something that would instill empathy.
That should also make it obvious the inverse situation doesn't create empathy either. It's a two-way street and neither is particularly giving to the other. That has nothing to do with automobile vs cyclist vs pedestrian vs whatever, it has to do with.. who would've guessed, people being people.
Why do you think laws were made to accommodate cyclists in particular? Why do you think lanes are split? Why do you think many individuals have a particular distaste for sport cyclists, who go high speed through busy roads and expect everyone to adapt to them? It's not empathy, it's a lack of empathy, followed by individuals not wanting to get in trouble over petty little things, and a legal system not wanting to spend thousands of manhours covering he-said-she-said scenarios.
That's cool, but the stats continue to show wealth causes increase in driving and people continue to live pretty far away from work. Most people are not going to cycle after getting home from work or prior. The few Amsterdam anecdotes in this thread don't weight up against the masses driving 20+ minutes and the high traffic roads being expanded again.
Now add the many laws favorable towards cyclists and measurements taken to accommodate them. It's not empathy. It's saving one's own hide from causing a lot of harm, a sense of guilt and the potential lawsuit waiting to happen. There's no special empathy given to cyclists in particular, only universal respect towards any non-motorized vehicle and individuals (e.g. children, individuals with heavy groceries).
Your experience is dispelled the moment you take an hour cycling to and from work. That's pretty easy for anyone not on a SDE salary.
This is a highly idealistic myth. Most drivers are not "cyclists a few hours earlier/later", and many definitely aren't empathetic. The split between bike lanes and car lanes, as well as the law favoring cyclists, should make that obvious. Cyclists even get away not showing their direction despite this being taught from early age.
The percentage goes up only marginally with age/experience, and that still doesn't keep cultures from hiring older people with zero experience into leadership roles. The culture specifically opts to select older individuals despite there being enough young people with natural leadership skills in contexts where both populations have no experience.
You haven't addressed the part where the ICs have to be part of the system so thoroughly. You've only addressed that project managers need to communicate with one another and with their teams, and you've only done so by using anecdotal evidence, before drawing a conclusion that JIRA is a net positive.
Again, give some actual proof. It's about time we stop clashing rationalities and face the music. If it's this easy to come to a "rational conclusion", it shouldn't be much harder to pull evidence.
I'll ask you the reverse. What proof is there we absolutely need all this to function? If people are so sure of this, surely they can substantiate it with more than just rationality. If the similarities are fine, just pull that information from the other disciplines you insist know better than the "special snowflakes".
>Why does engineer or constructor worker understand that you need planning to align thousands of people over many years to build a great big thing
You're conflating "needing to align thousands of people" with "needing a fancy system which pulls everyone in its web to deal with multiple times a day". If anything, construction shows just how little ICs need to know to function. You don't boggle your construction workers with bureaucracy, you take it away and let architects, managers and foremen deal with it.
>The problem I have with the incessant Jira bitching is that I rarely feel that bitchers have a true understanding for the extreme difficulty of the organization-wide problem Jira is trying to solve.
This is a lot of hearsay which tends to devolve into a debate of "we absolute need this!" vs "no you don't, see X".
>Obviously some of the complaints (speed, stability) are very valid
I don't think people defending it fully grasp just how important speed and stability are, or at least live in a corporation where Jira was optimized better than the average corporation does. Given not everything is the fault of Jira, but when Jira is expected to be the place you go to all the time and it is that slow, it becomes very impactful to morale.
>"Jira is the worst project management tool, except for all the others".
This doesn't work until big corps actually try something different, but pretty much all of them push back on the mere idea of trying alternatives. If you can't invest a few months trying a different system, you can't judge it. And since those few months are seen as a "great risk", no manager is going to push the issue any further, even if Jira's costs per developer could easily run into the hundreds (or thousands, for 6-figures) a year on morale loss and time loss alone.
And this is the crux of the matter. Management likes concrete numbers. Management likes mimicking what other successful companies do. Management does not like fairly abstract things with great risks. Management does not like big risks with abstract rewards.
Entire post can be summed up as "this is my answer, here is me rationalizing correlation=causation without any empirical evidence".
We could dissect the entire thing but really, if that is how it works for you, fine. Just don't push it onto others as the absolute truth. If this stuff was really so great, empirical research would've hammered it home decades ago. But it doesn't, and continues to struggle finding any meaningful correlations between these "whacky fun strategies" and actual job performance.
>But conflict about where to place a piece of code? Sure! Conflict about if we name it Foo or Bar? Why not?! That conflict is like the sharpening of Iron!
I dearly hope this is sarcasm. This is about the same level of absurdity as developers taking ages to pick project/file names. I'm not railing against a review's abilities to find bugs and make sure someone else understands. GP is right in pointing out how many fruitless review discussions exist over personal differences in what to call a function name because "I think X sounds better than Y", despite every party involved understanding the code and what it does.
Very little empirical evidence supports it, despite people parroting how "useful" it is. You're also teaching people to BS about themselves to get a job, perverting the entire thing.
If you want to psychologically analyze people, use a method which is actually supported empirically instead of the "do what every other pseudo-psychologist does" method. Big 5, for one, actually has some empirical evidence supporting it, but is barely ever used.
On the other hand, if you can actually figure people out in an hour under a single set of constraints, somehow being able to extrapolate that to the work environment as a whole, while also trying to put the work environment in a much better light than it actually is: quit your IT job now and make millions selling books.
It's not. You'll find plenty of anecdotes outside the US. Even just outside SV is enough to put things into question, as salaries outside SV are way lower.
>Doctors and lawyers do a period of internship after and during the degree that perhaps mitigates the uncertainty around hiring.
Two problems with this.
For one, this is changing rapidly. Any institute of higher education is becoming a worker factory focusing on what the industry wants in candidates rapidly. Despite this, interviewers continue to complain about the most minor things which in reality are very easy to grasp for people with a degree and some projects.
For two, this problem still persists after having some years of experience under your belt. If an internship mitigates the need for other professions to go through this, surely having verifiable experience should do the same. But it doesn't, and it takes away a lot of time from people to build their own portfolio to get through interviews with too.
>It must surely boil down to the profession aspect.
I don't believe so. Hiring is plagued with perfectionism and idealism, looking for the perfect candidates and failing candidates over the most minor things. You could actually be the best candidate in the world, and you'll fail because you said something or did something in a way the interviewer preemptively labels as "unviable".
The problem is actually as you point out: hiring managers are pushing risks onto individuals in the name of "calling", and loads of developers are doing nothing to push back on it. Or worse, they are encouraging it. See also why the average junior requirements includes an entire IT department's worth of skills.
I'd be careful stating this, as the reason why this isn't happening might be as simple as "there aren't enough experienced tech workers to make such a demand". Considering tech recruitment is still willing to do many other things which aren't empirically proven or even have empirical evidence suggesting against the act, there is room for skepticism here.
>I don't know what the cause of the weirdness is though.
Because "dismantling the patriarchy" isn't what is happening to begin with, and the current actions are coming at the cost of young men. Meanwhile, it is questionable whether young women are getting much better from it.* There are many variables compounding on one another which are very difficult to interpret, despite people on both sides of the debate claiming they can.
The majority of people are still ruled primarily by a bunch of rich men. The majority of people are women and men. This hasn't changed at all. What has changed is the giant sandwich of men and women between the poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich shuffling around, while they also have a smaller piece of the pie as a whole.
*: Yes obviously not being dependent on others is a good thing. However, there is an underlying connotation that women are better off in the workforce than they are doing what they would do as of old. Considering many other social factors at play, there is enough reason to doubt this.