Had. Now we have the "Merit Order Principle". Cheap energy (i.e. renewables) are used first but the price is determined by the most expensive energy source running. (See https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merit-Order)
So if you're running a solar park you have production costs of about 5ct/kWh. But if there's also a gas plant running you get maybe 20ct/kWh. Instaprofit.
It's difficult to reason about intelligence in this context.
Human intelligence is defined by behavior we humans value. Intelligence tests are geared to measuring these aspects.
Intelligence tests devised by animals would look totally different - and it's quite thinkable humans wouldn't do too well taking them.
Wouldn't assume that animals have less language ability than we humans, unless we totally figured out what other species are really talking about. Unless we do this is just an assumption.
And they are able to show insight and planning to get what they want...
Once a friend of our dog came visiting, grabbed his favorite stuffy and happily chewed it in the yard. Which our dog clearly resented.
So he cleaned up the yard and hid all other toys in the house. Usually that's our job - he never bothers to look after his toys.
Then he came out with an old tennis ball, pranced around, played with it, like "Dude, this is the BEST toy EVER invented. An it's mine."
His friend dropped the coveted stuffy and came over to investigate... our dog dropped the ball, grabbed the stuffy and hid it in the house.
His friend was left with a slimy, boring ball.
I really can't think of any other explanation - he knew how to get his stuffy, but also anticipated this trick wouldn't work twice. So the cleanup in advance.
A pity, I'd have liked to visit Scotland again. Perhaps it's just me, but when a country decides to treat me like a criminal suspect instead of a welcomed visitor I just don't want to go there anymore.
Really don't like the enforcing. Okay, mixed feelings there.
Rules should help you along, perhaps set a framework for your thinking. But they never should limit you in achieving your goal. When establishing a rule you should also specify what you want to achieve by it, how you'll measure its effects and under which conditions it should be removed.
Rigid rule enforcement has a strong danger of shifting the priorities of the developers to the detriment of your business.
Don't know if this is really a bad thing - had the same problems with the book, but the apparent contradictions made me really think about the stuff. So I'm quite prepared to consider his advice, I'd never turn it into gospel.
Don't think so. If the senior engineer is worth his salt he should know that programming is always about finding a balance between several aspects of a given problem - some of them technical, some of them human. As long as the code does what it's supposed to do the rest is mostly up to personal taste - so yes, you can have an insightful discussion, but there's only to learn, nothing to "win" for all participants.
> but rules are important, and this is what we're missing today.
Programming rules are important - they make you think before you break them. Just don't turn rules into dogma - otherwise your devs will be more concerned with following the rules than solving the actual business problems. And you don't want that.
Sounds familiar, especially the stuttering. Not really sure what's going on with me, but I found that sitting down for about 10 minutes and drinking one or two glasses of water alleviates the symptoms. Might be I just need the break, might be I'm stuttering because I've been dehydrated.
> There’s a lot of collaboration and spontaneous connection that happens in hallways and kitchenettes.
Those spontaneous connections yielding noticeable results are probably an urban legend. 25 years in the business and I've never seen this happen. You're talking with people in your team/project anyway in regular meetings, so there is no reason to drag that into the hallway. Talking biz to people from other projects/teams is mostly impossible - would take hours to explain a specific problem to get a meaningful contribution. Never goes beyond basic griping and commiseration.
If you think those meetings are essential for company success you REALLY should examine your process.
Quite so. As the article stated there are quite a lot of things wildcards abhor which the company needs done somehow anyway. Devs with another mentality.
But that wasn't my point in my previous comment. I was thinking more along the lines of "value for the customer" and the 80:20-rule.
I'm quite aware there's a strong correlation between code quality and the quality perceived by the customer, but if the customer didn't demand a certain percentage of code coverage or that every typo fix in a comment has to be done on a developer branch and code reviewed I see no value in these activities. So I feel more productive if I'm able to omit those steps.
Others probably think they're more productive than me because I don't get anything "really finished" by their standards.
Don't think so. For example some devs I know just love following an elaborate development process with as many quality gates as possible. Some like to glue as many complex frameworks together into a solution as possible. Some just love to do the same things the same way again and again.
Wildcards don't.
So if you're running a solar park you have production costs of about 5ct/kWh. But if there's also a gas plant running you get maybe 20ct/kWh. Instaprofit.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromgestehungskosten