If you don’t trust your employees to work remotely you should tell them that work is expected onsite. If it is important to them to work remotely, they shouldn’t have let you hire or have paid them
also, people who obsess over issues tend to have issues with the issues they obsess over. Con-men, for instance, obsess over matters of trust, as do people who have been conned. Don't work for or hire people who obsess over trust. People with trusting and trustworthy personalities and a good sense of boundaries expect it and don't obsess over it because it's built into their (metaphoric? literal?) DNA.
I think you mean memory usage is lexically scoped because no pointers to blocks are saved or returned? I think, and didn't really want to think harder, just thought in the same sense that functional brings some useful baggage with it, so does lexical scope.
huge success may have luck, but it is always in combination with greed.
The average worker and entrepreneur wannabe in Silicon Valley has nowhere near the requisite and absolute focus on pure self interest that Larry Ellison, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc. have/had. Look to how Woz or Paul Allen was treated by them.
in the Ask HN that started this, he did put methodology in literalized fingerquotes, so he didn't actually make the egregious error you decry.
| 5) Agile "methodology" when used as anything but a tool
and his summary point still applies right on target because the Agile "manifesto" does not solve what he identifies as the problem: I think overall we seem to be over-complicating software development. We look to architecture and process for flexibility when in reality its acting as a crutch for lack of communication and proper analysis of how we should be architecting the actual software.
dear Agile Manifesto,
The best architectures, requirements, and designs
emerge from self-organizing teams? so therefore self-organizing teams always produce the best architectures... anybody see an error in reasoning?
Agile processes promote sustainable development.
The sponsors, developers, and users should be able
to maintain a constant pace indefinitely. Suuure they do, and that's why we see Agile processes adopted by winning NFL teams, or in the ERs at hospitals, and... Look, there is a Zen Buddhist ideal for living your life in harmony, but it's a goal, not an emergent property of self organized teams.
The most efficient and effective method of
conveying information to and within a development
team is face-to-face conversation. So, do not look up information in a man page, instead ask me and I will read it to you... that metric-imperial problem that lost that space probe, why another scrum or two would have identified that right away!
I could keep going, but this letter is too long already. Yes, software does offer some advantages over other types of team problem solving (due to the possibility of virtualizing or dummying any of the parts) but because of that flexibility it becomes even more important to nail down as much key design infrastructure as possible, and the Agile Manifesto does not read like a manual for nailing anything down. (And software alone offers the possibility to rip up things that are nailed down, so we don't need to fear nailing down.)
imagine a human player playing solo against a table full of optimally designed AI's that compute perfect statistical and economic odds based on a huge library of prior games including human games. What you are calling "advantages" for the human are no advantage at all. So now add a second human at that table, now the advantages you cite, they work only against that other player.
in terms of intial hand evaluation based on "gut", this is similar to chess position evaluation, a key part of master and computer play, a part that's been hard to get right, a part that brute force depth helps to get right, a part that is now completely solved for computers in play against humans. There is nothing particularly challenging about poker that stands in the way here.
online poker has the tremendous flaw that collusion between players is the most optimum strategy, and there is just noooo way to stop it. Collaborating poker-bots who outsource their peppy poker chatter to Bangalore (your feedback is important to them!) will soon be running all the tables if they aren't already. No, they'll never be the champions, because that suboptimal strategy would lead to discovery, but as a giant grist milling farm grinding out profit, seems irresistable.
I did a quick google review of Kuhn poker and I don't see how any of that would not benefit from the understanding I was attempting to convey in my initial post.
most people (including here on HN) are complete n00bs when it comes to understanding how poker is played and how computers can play it, so just to straighten y'all out at the git-go here:
computers are better at bluffing and randomness than humans are. Bluffing is an important optimizing strategy in playing poker well, and it entails tracking the expected value of a pot (which includes cost expectations, don't forget) and it entails randomness, necessary to obfuscate patterns of betting that could give away evidence of your bluffing strategy. Like chess and go, we may not be "there" yet with computers, but n00bs need to understand the theory.
What computers can't do is read "tells", so if you are a master poker player via tells (whether it's unconscious or conscious thinking on your part) then you will beat other humans better than a computer will; but, by the same token, the computer will not give you tells to read nor be fooled by your fake tells. I think the mistake in thinking newbies (even highly experienced ones) make is mixing together "the psychology" of the game with the mathematics of the game.
So to give an oversimplified concrete example of a poker bluffing strategy (inspired by Nesmith Ankeny's book), if odds of you drawing one of the cards you need to win a showdown are 1 out of 4 but the expected payoff is 20x then you not only need to stay in purely on expected value, but it is also an optimal time to bluff if you don't get your card. It is informationally better to have a bluffing strategy that masquerades as an "I have good cards" strategy and gives random information after the showdown rather than "bluffing" being something you do sheerly when you have shit cards. And to enforce a random strategy on yourself, he recommends using a system of the cards in your hand as the random number generator to tell you whether to bluff or not: as you can see, his strategy designed for human players is more perfectly implemented by a computer.
also, people who obsess over issues tend to have issues with the issues they obsess over. Con-men, for instance, obsess over matters of trust, as do people who have been conned. Don't work for or hire people who obsess over trust. People with trusting and trustworthy personalities and a good sense of boundaries expect it and don't obsess over it because it's built into their (metaphoric? literal?) DNA.