pvdoom

7 ms·

31.
by pvdoom 2y ago
> you don't have the power to set rules, or lock people in boxes, or (in some places) kill people Quite the opposite - companies literally set rules all the time. How the work should be done, who should do what, who the boss is, whe
32.
by pvdoom 2y ago
> Person who knows how to truly destroy git history The Gitsatz Haderach
33.
by pvdoom 2y ago
> what capitalism wants to avoid is putting "money" in with "power" Sorry but this is plain out wrong. Under a capitalist system money IS power, as it is fundamental for survival, and that people with money are the on
34.
by pvdoom 2y ago
Just wanted to point out that the distinction between communism and socialism is not whether it's the state that owns things. In fact there is no distinction. They are one and the same and both refer to workers owning the means of prod
35.
by pvdoom 2y ago
> Anyone else see an issue with this comment? We don’t know how to value the work of a corporate employee but we’re simultaneously all being paid less than we’re worth. Think of it as a general rule of thumb, a statistical average. You w
36.
by pvdoom 2y ago
While I see where you are coming from, I don't think the free market has much to do with it, as "free market" to the extend that such thing exists outside the fantasies of ancap weirdos, is just one of many types of distribut
37.
by pvdoom 2y ago
Its always the management consultants and finance guys that ruin things ...
38.
by pvdoom 2y ago
> Not waste time by ceding control to another entity that doesn't have any engineering know-how to evaluate what does and does not need done. Take the reins and do what needs doing. Problem is organisational power. What happens when
39.
by pvdoom 2y ago
> Product should have nothing to do with refactors on the systems. Which really sucks when product is the one that gets the say on what gets worked on ...
40.
by pvdoom 2y ago
IDK, I recently did a big presentation on the topic in my company's Python community and there were tons of people that were genuinely surprised it's not great. And people in my department love throwing random classes that inherit
41.
by pvdoom 3y ago
> I might be fully past the idea that what makes the difference is the architecture rather than the team. SO much yes. You may have the prettiest architecture, and the best separation of concerns, and the most modular modularity, but if
42.
by pvdoom 3y ago
This. Conways law is about the actual organization, not the orgchart.
43.
by pvdoom 3y ago
Its not really the move overseas itself that reduce in quality, its the conscious choice to both use cheaper materials and provide less training to that cheaper labor.
44.
by pvdoom 3y ago
The kids are alright
45.
by pvdoom 3y ago
IN the 60s and 70s there were ideas of using actual ponds as computers
46.
by pvdoom 3y ago
I think it's not so much the individual management technique that is the problem, it's the design of our organisations. SAFe, Lean, etc. are half processes and half organization design, but are generally really shoddy on the secon
47.
by pvdoom 3y ago
Yeah, executives need to understand how little influence they actually have. I think OKRs aren't really that much of a solution, as more of a stopgap. We need a new management paradigm that embraces this knowledge, rather than pretendi
48.
by pvdoom 3y ago
Hell yeah! And on top of that management rarely learns or understands that they need to think and design what their organization should be, nor that their power to introduce change is much more limited than they think.
49.
by pvdoom 3y ago
I think people very often don't know what they want, and at least for data science there is this weird thinking that exists that you are either a data scientist or a developer. When in reality the good data scientists also have good de
50.
by pvdoom 3y ago
no
51.
by pvdoom 3y ago
Hell, most enterprises don't even follow SAFe, but usually an even worse abomination wearing the skin of SAFe. And that is not defending it in any way it's cursed.
52.
by pvdoom 3y ago
> But private logging operations have long understood that they need to split up land to have forest at different stages so that they can continually harvest wood for a long time. Private logging operations have started taking a more sus
53.
by pvdoom 3y ago
I was involved with historical reenactment, of the medieval kind, and have interacted with those of the later era. So, there is a lot of research that is going on, and a lot of it involves both artefacts and visual evidence ... and if we lo
54.
by pvdoom 3y ago
Yup.
55.
by pvdoom 3y ago
And a lot of those things you list are not tragedy of the commons as stated, but a consequences of the very thing that Hardin was defending - the enclosure of the commons and privatisation. Because privatisation and capitalism both encourag
56.
by pvdoom 3y ago
> I would suggest Elinor Ostrom work on the topic. Isn't her fundamental restatement of the tragedy of the commons that if the people decide to cooperate, then it doesn't happen? Which is a pretty thorough refutation to the ori
57.
by pvdoom 3y ago
The whole tragedy of the commons was literally made up by a very reactionary dude to justify fucking people over and justify enclosure and privatisation. Historically people have actually had rather complicated and at the same time very eff
58.
by pvdoom 3y ago
A better way to put it is, we could fix everything, we just don't, because it is not profitable and not in the interest of the people that have the money to invest in stuff. I do think there is definitely an element of things being har
59.
by pvdoom 3y ago
Kinda disagree. All the times I have seen OKRs implemented has been as part of a "transition to agile" with several other measures, and often what happens is they get slapped on top or replace other measures, without doing anythin
60.
by pvdoom 3y ago
To me its not OKRs specifically but organisations in general - what is an organisation and how does it actually work (as opposed to what we tell ourselves), and that includes the frameworks and processes we use. OKRs are interesting then b

More ›