4 ms·

Agreed, sounds like they are trying to say that two people in different settings can make changes without understanding the reasons. It could also be summed up

Agreed, sounds like they are trying to say that two people in different settings can make changes without understanding the reasons. It could also be summed up with, "go talk to each other"

kristopolous 6y ago
I summarize all those theories as "how to be a human". There's all these tech business books with titles like "Lean Innovation" and they must be written for people without the crudest socialization skills. It has flow charts, diagrams, tabular statistics, you know, to conclude groundbreaking things like "talking to at least one customer before releasing a product is a smart idea" or "don't waste time on unimportant things" I'm like "Dude, did you just want a section for your CV that says 'Recent Publications'?"
- fenderbluesjr 6y ago
  I encourage you to read more.. Your take on the wikipedia article reads as as you had your decision made up beforehand. The words he uses, which you think are too elaborate, have specific definitions within the context of the book. Your 'summary' missed the mark completely
  - kristopolous 6y ago
    Of course they do. That's part of the theater. Some things are genuinely complicated and others are intentionally so. This is clearly something that is complicated by choice, not by necessity. All that "complicated by choice" leads to is fundamentalism and orthodoxy. People worry about whether their code matches the new sacred scripture over whether it works and then they shoehorn things into the form that don't belong there. They bake meaning onto code that's way out of scope of the project. It's like programmers Gematria. I've seen these all-knowing preachers write broken code and leave unmaintainable dumpster fires in their wake my whole career. Giant cathedral messes that barely do anything that all the customers complain about with endless academic blabbering everywhere and very little to show for it. It's a "type", more rare than others, but they're out there. If the results are better and the systems work sign me up. But if it's just another church of code with mere ceremony and internal logic, then yeah, have fun at mass.
  - FieryTransition 6y ago
    I think the problem is that these methods and authors are heavily incentivized to make a name for themselves and a framework which can become a business somehow. There's a serious lack of scientific rigour in these areas, and from my experience, it's heavily driven by popularity. Besides, i still don't see a reason why you could not explain things in simpler terms. If you get smart people together who can communicate well, think for themselves and don't stand in their way, it will always outperform any method. But this is so painfully obvious, that no one will pay you to say that. And there's really no cookie cutter recipe to achieve that, anyone who tells you otherwise, probably has something to sell.

Agreed, sounds like they are trying to say that two people in different settings can make changes without understanding the reasons. It could also be summed up with, "go talk to each other"

kristopolous 6y ago

I summarize all those theories as "how to be a human". There's all these tech business books with titles like "Lean Innovation" and they must be written for people without the crudest socialization skills. It has flow charts, diagrams, tabular statistics, you know, to conclude groundbreaking things like "talking to at least one customer before releasing a product is a smart idea" or "don't waste time on unimportant things" I'm like "Dude, did you just want a section for your CV that says 'Recent Publications'?"

fenderbluesjr 6y ago
I encourage you to read more.. Your take on the wikipedia article reads as as you had your decision made up beforehand. The words he uses, which you think are too elaborate, have specific definitions within the context of the book. Your 'summary' missed the mark completely
- kristopolous 6y ago
  Of course they do. That's part of the theater. Some things are genuinely complicated and others are intentionally so. This is clearly something that is complicated by choice, not by necessity. All that "complicated by choice" leads to is fundamentalism and orthodoxy. People worry about whether their code matches the new sacred scripture over whether it works and then they shoehorn things into the form that don't belong there. They bake meaning onto code that's way out of scope of the project. It's like programmers Gematria. I've seen these all-knowing preachers write broken code and leave unmaintainable dumpster fires in their wake my whole career. Giant cathedral messes that barely do anything that all the customers complain about with endless academic blabbering everywhere and very little to show for it. It's a "type", more rare than others, but they're out there. If the results are better and the systems work sign me up. But if it's just another church of code with mere ceremony and internal logic, then yeah, have fun at mass.
- FieryTransition 6y ago
  I think the problem is that these methods and authors are heavily incentivized to make a name for themselves and a framework which can become a business somehow. There's a serious lack of scientific rigour in these areas, and from my experience, it's heavily driven by popularity. Besides, i still don't see a reason why you could not explain things in simpler terms. If you get smart people together who can communicate well, think for themselves and don't stand in their way, it will always outperform any method. But this is so painfully obvious, that no one will pay you to say that. And there's really no cookie cutter recipe to achieve that, anyone who tells you otherwise, probably has something to sell.