Interesting. Things I think of as quite reasonable, though certainly with counter arguments, are to him fundamentally preposterous and not even worthy of reasonable consideration.
My kid goes to a very liberal California school. The main difference between it and my school growing up is that it is no longer acceptable to ostracize or beat up lgbtq kids or kids who are different in other ways. Part of that is because, gasp, the school builds acceptance into the curriculum. I wish I grew up now, it’s such a nicer time to be a weird nerd.
You’re ignoring general heavy workloads such as observability. How much telemetry do they gather and analyze for tracking and fraud detection. A quick google on Tesco engineering shows that they process 35k qps against couchbase, and 35 terrabytes of telemetry data per day.
They track 150k devices in their ecosystem, which, reading between the lines, would produce the telemetry and require observability, state management, anomaly detection, etc. They have hundreds of thousands of employees using these devices for varying purposes. We’re talking quite a bit of compute, which also requires high availability.
I know nothing about Tesco beyond that quick google search, but I’ve been at several companies where I would read online comments claiming we could reduce our workload to a few servers, and I would think of our tens of thousands of fully loaded machines and roll my eyes.
Why do you summarily dismiss (and recommend that other people dismiss) the multiple viewpoints in the article suggesting that the law you’re mentioning was unfairly targeted at immigrant owned establishments? It’s absolutely part of the story. Is it really that hard to believe that a corrupt way of enforcing a law might intentionally be targeted at people who are less likely to feel empowered to fight it?
It's interesting--I completely and utterly agree with out intellectually. But when I look back on many teams I've been on in many companies, daily standups achieve this sort of psychological weight of monotony. Even when they're below 15 minutes they take on a dread.
I don't think this is exclusive to standups: any type of process done repetitively over time can get this upward curve of increasing monotony, even if it doesn't lose its inherent usefulness.
The very act of changing or intervening in a monotonous process might be a boost for people, and to your point is not an argument against the usefulness of the process. I've equally had teams not doing standups get a boost from starting to do standups.
Coming from doing a lot of recommendation systems work, it's similar to how just changing algorithms around often leads to a temporary boost in engagement which then regresses back to the mean (same in general A/B testing).
When I'm managing a process and someone comes to me with a process change suggestion, and I feel like I am well-stocked with evidence as to why the existing process makes sense and is efficient, I now have a meta-assessment where I consider the change because it will at the very least mix things up and introduce changes to thinking. Obviously that is not to be done willy nilly, but my younger self would have pushed back on process changes that were not inherently superior to the existing ones.
My kid goes to a very liberal California school. The main difference between it and my school growing up is that it is no longer acceptable to ostracize or beat up lgbtq kids or kids who are different in other ways. Part of that is because, gasp, the school builds acceptance into the curriculum. I wish I grew up now, it’s such a nicer time to be a weird nerd.