2 ms·
You could have also used approximately logarithmic scale that everybody is familiar with, namely, cash! You know, 1,2,5,10,20,50,100,200,500.. But no, here we
by js8 8y ago
You could have also used approximately logarithmic scale that everybody is familiar with, namely, cash! You know, 1,2,5,10,20,50,100,200,500..
But no, here we are doing science, that's why we use Fibonacci, hey even plants and rabbits are using it.
- jfoutz 8y agoI kinda want to grab you by the lapels and re-enact that part from Clear and Present Danger. It doesn't matter what's true, it matters what i can prove! Unfortunately, the phrasing would be more like, It doesn't matter what's true, it matters what i can sell to management. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, i think i'm ready to take a side close to yours. It's useful to expand error bars exponentially as you move away from the time of the estimate, but there's nothing special about fibonacci.
- js8 8y ago> Unfortunately, the phrasing would be more like, It doesn't matter what's true, it matters what i can sell to management. Yes, that's my main beef with it. SCRUM could be based on science, but sadly, it isn't. Here's an interesting book: https://www.amazon.com/Making-Software-Really-Works-Believe/dp/0596808321 https://www.amazon.com/Making-Software-Really-Works-Believe/...