g051051

22 ms·

181.
by g051051 5y ago
If your team is so dysfunctional that you need two days to stop, think, talk, and relax, then no amount of meetings are ever going to get you on track.
182.
by g051051 5y ago
> At the end of the sprint, we spent AN ENTIRE DAY on retro. Before the next sprint started, we spent AN ENTIRE DAY on planning. I'm getting ill just thinking about this. Two whole days wasted every sprint!
183.
by g051051 5y ago
In my experience, it most definitely is not.
184.
by g051051 5y ago
> those hallowed commandments are, frankly, ill-defined bollocks. I wish I could upvote this more.
185.
by g051051 5y ago
> They were developers, programmers, scientists, and engineers. They were still slingin’ code* and working with their stakeholders to solve problems. This is important. Utter nonsense. They were consultants looking to sell consulting se
186.
by g051051 5y ago
The last place I worked would pull devs randomly to do QA tasks when QA got behind. Of course, since we weren't trained in the QA processes, and didn't do it all the time, it often wound up taking longer to do the testing, plus t
187.
by g051051 5y ago
I don't know what they'd have to do with it. It's the CPU, not the motherboard, that's being blacklisted by Microsoft. I could upgrade to a Threadripper 2950X without changing anything else, and it'd be supported.
188.
by g051051 5y ago
Yes it is. It's enabled in the firmware (fTPM) and shows TPM 2.0 available in the tpm.msc snap-in.
189.
by g051051 5y ago
How does limiting the number of machines that can run it make money for Microsoft? I won't be paying for a Windows 11 upgrade (I assume it's not going to be free this time) until I need to replace my machine, which will be quite
190.
by g051051 5y ago
I just noticed that my Threadripper 1950x isn't "supported". Completely ludicrous. I'd love to see the technical justification for that.
191.
by g051051 5y ago
I intend for it to use 100% less memory.
192.
by g051051 5y ago
Relevant article by Raymond Chen: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20191011-00/?p=10...
193.
by g051051 5y ago
Preach it!
194.
by g051051 5y ago
Ugh. I'm an engineer, not a babysitter.
195.
by g051051 5y ago
At the last two companies I worked at, before a big management shakeup at my now previous employer. That's when the Agile cultists came in, and started spouting drivel like was in the article. If you want to add capacity, fine, but yo
196.
by g051051 5y ago
> Your comment reads very like: "So, I have no anecdotal evidence from my immediate peers that it can work so it must not work. You have offered me first hand anecdotal evidence that it can, I shall ignore that." No, it's
197.
by g051051 5y ago
> But, have you seriously (as I said in another comment, if you go in expecting it to fail, of course it will fail) tried it? I don't have to jump out in front of a moving car to know I'll get injured if I do. I've collab
198.
by g051051 5y ago
Fundamentally, if two people want to pair, and can meet their obligations as far as delivering work (produce two or more times the work than what's expected of an individual), then feel free. At the end of the day, I don't care
199.
by g051051 5y ago
I'm just going by what I've seen in my career, as well as the words that you're using to describe the process, what others in this thread are saying (on both sides of the issue), plus the countless articles I've read ove
200.
by g051051 5y ago
> Have you seen that work anywhere, at any scale? Of course. It's the only logical and effective way to deal with the problem. > It leads to an organization where everyone is essentially “blocked” There's a big difference f
201.
by g051051 5y ago
> In fluid pairing the driver and navigator are constantly switching roles and bouncing off each other. Apparently, pair programming places no value on flow. > I just don't think you're fully understanding the process, which
202.
by g051051 5y ago
> I find it striking that you’re making very emphatic, very confident statements about things they have experienced and you have not. You're free to whatever interpretation you wish. I'm glad it worked out for them (and you).
203.
by g051051 5y ago
Except in this case, it's like one person playing while another person talks to them about what they're playing. In a purely instructional context, sure. In a performance context, it sounds crazy.
204.
by g051051 5y ago
> I don't know what kind of work you do, but in my ~20 years of programming, typing is a rather tiny percentage of programming work. Most of it is thinking, problem solving and designing. I spend a lot of time typing and thinking.
205.
by g051051 5y ago
And my point is that I just can't see it. I collaborate with people, and there's benefit in those relatively short interactions, but I've never seen a situation where it made more sense to pair up like that, unless it's
206.
by g051051 5y ago
> All in all, why is the code not just: In the other code, you could substitute parallelStream for stream and have it execute in parallel for "free".
207.
by g051051 5y ago
I just can't fathom that. How could the 4 hours "pairing" negate the fact that one of you can't work for 4 hours? I can see it if those 4 hours were really design/planning time, but otherwise, I just don't se
208.
by g051051 5y ago
Ouch. Another cult in action, just like Agile. What utter madness.
209.
by g051051 5y ago
If the team is falling behind, stop incoming work until they catch up. If the team is treading water, stop incoming work until they start making progress. If the team is repaying debt but not at the desired capacity, then add more people.
210.
by g051051 5y ago
What a pile of rubbish. Adding people to a team already falling behind? Specifically new hires? By the time the new people are up to speed, the experienced ones will have finished burning out and left, and the cycle continues. Oh, and a

More ›