Well I think that a proper implementation of "disagree and commit" differs significantly from what's described in the article.
The author seems to be suggesting that rather than discussing technical trade-offs and nuance, you instead ship whatever the other person proposes, even if you believe it is wrong, without going through the discussion.
I always interpreted "disagree and commit", at least in a healthy form, to be more about cases where, after both sides had presented their interpretation of a technical decision and both had understood the other's point of view, they still differed in opinion as to how it should be handled a meaningful way that was unlikely to be resolved from further communication. From there, rather than wasting more time on debating, simply agreeing to disagree, shipping to move on.
The key difference being that you aren't simply accepting whatever is told you, even if you believe it to be blatantly wrong, and silently shipping based on that feedback. You're actually engaging with each other and trying to solve the problem together but not getting locked in intractable arguments.
What OP is proposing seems significantly more toxic and honestly like something I would expect from someone playing corporate politics rather than trying to excel as an engineer.
Oh interesting, is it actually covered as part of the standard compulsory public school curriculum? Genuinely surprised, because here in Canada (Ontario) it's covered as an elective in 11th grade physics, which roughly 15/120 people in my graduating class opted to take.
Maybe this depends on the framing? Ex. 18 months is fairly common in some circles, but that could alternatively have been expressed as a year and a half.
6-12 months? Red flag
12-24 months, especially early-to-mid career? Not uncommon
At least in the factory I worked in prior to becoming a software engineer, there was a significantly higher component of physical risk than in any of the software jobs I've worked in
Well, I think in the context of the parent comment, separating out housing would risk overstating changes in its effect on purchasing power because increases to housing would already be captured by inflation (since
we're talking about real median income, which is already inflation adjusted)
I agree that housing affordability is a major problem and that looking at it independently could help you quantify if housing specifically has become more unaffordable, but that's a different question then whether the median person's overall purchasing power has declined (considering all of housing, healthcare food etc)
I see your point, and think one of the merits in OP's argument is precisely what you're saying: words have meaning, and saying something like "I think that X is probably the case" when you're virtually certain that X is the case dilutes the meaning of words.
That said, I think throughout the post OP is mixing different dimensions of communicatiom together in a way that confuses the conversation - namely conciseness, directness, and explicitness - which while often overlapping aren't exactly the same.
Interesting, I regularly use chat-based support on amazon.ca to speak with (what I presume is) a real human after none of the control flow paths adequately resolve my issue. I've always found the support quick to reply and very helpful.
Granted, it's been 1-2 weeks since I had an issue, so it may have changed since then, or it could be only released to a subset of users.
Unsure about whether the specific dealership in question supports online booking, but there existing consumers whose preference is for a phone call over a web-based experience is definitely the case, at least in the US.
For example, even with the (digital-only) SAAS company I work at, we have a non-trivial amount of customers who with strong preferences to talk on the phone, ex to provide their credit card number, rather than enter it in the product. This is likely more pronounced if your product serves less tech-savvy niches.
That said, a strong preference for human call > website use doesn't necessarily imply even a weak preference for AI call > website use (likely customer-dependent, but I'd be surprised if the number with that preference was exactly 0)
My read of the comment wasn't that he was "blaming" either, but explaining where the fees come from.
It sounds like the direct increase to the consumer's prices is done by the restaurant itself, but the reason the restaurant is charging higher prices are to make up for the fees they're charged by UE/DD.
In other words, UE/DD restaurant-side service fees eat into the restaurant's profit margins, so the restaurant passes on the cost increases to the consumer to get them back.
To be clear, no idea about how closely these statements correspond to the world, just that this seems to be OP's claim.
So I agree that your inference is probably correct, but it is worth pointing out that the rate which a sex experiences X from their intimate partners isn't exactly the same as the rate at which the other sex does X to their partners, namely because of non-heterosexual couples.
For example, you could imagine a world where men are significantly more likely than women to commit DV, making some subset of that 28.5% men who have suffered at the hands of other men. It would also imply that gay women are less likely to experience DV, which would widen the gap further. That said, I believe many more couples are hetero than not, so maybe it wouldn't make much of a difference.
To be clear, I'm not making this specific claim about men, just illustrating that I think the statistic quoted doesn't _directly_ justify the claim "women aren't that much less likely to offend" (although it does lend credence to it)
How this issue skews probably depends on where you live, but in the area I live, I have the opposite complaint: that bicyclists should re-learn that they are legally required (in my city) to ride on roads, rather than barrelling down sidewalks.
That said, this is coming from me as a pedestrian, so maybe someone who was primarily a driver would have a completely different take from both of us.
The author seems to be suggesting that rather than discussing technical trade-offs and nuance, you instead ship whatever the other person proposes, even if you believe it is wrong, without going through the discussion.
I always interpreted "disagree and commit", at least in a healthy form, to be more about cases where, after both sides had presented their interpretation of a technical decision and both had understood the other's point of view, they still differed in opinion as to how it should be handled a meaningful way that was unlikely to be resolved from further communication. From there, rather than wasting more time on debating, simply agreeing to disagree, shipping to move on.
The key difference being that you aren't simply accepting whatever is told you, even if you believe it to be blatantly wrong, and silently shipping based on that feedback. You're actually engaging with each other and trying to solve the problem together but not getting locked in intractable arguments.
What OP is proposing seems significantly more toxic and honestly like something I would expect from someone playing corporate politics rather than trying to excel as an engineer.