I think the key -- the point at which the position becomes (to me) rational -- is to knowingly accept lower quality, less innovation, etc. in order to achieve p

I think the key -- the point at which the position becomes (to me) rational -- is to knowingly accept lower quality, less innovation, etc. in order to achieve predictability. It's a continuum, so of course nobody ever gets 100% predictability with software. But most of us, if we really needed to, could ratched down our productivity to a level where we almost always delivered exactly what we said we would in each sprint or other schedule unit. And I think that is the crux. Most people who write software don't want to live like that, but there are a whole lot of managers dreaming of a shop floor full of "individual contributors" who are not very individual, and plenty of CEO's who will happily take that over cat-herding their way to the next iPhone. That should give a big advantage to any company capable of embracing a little chaos and giving a happy home to talented and creative programmers. But when I look around and see even, say, Facebook -- a company that needs to innovate and seems to know that -- building developer-hostile open-plan offices, it makes me think we may all be doomed.