IOW it works like a Middle East Peace Process or Global Warming religion, the difference being in a number of crackpots pushing it. Here it is 1+. Stopping this early minimizes crowd effect with all its collateral damage.
1) Fail early, fail often.
2) Early optimization is root of all evil.
3) Good horizontal communication.
The problem is that it is in the human nature of bad managers to will project towards success. And, to continue on point touched by the first article, some cultures (to some degree Indian) makes developers hide failures "to please manager". Which compromizes communication. Given that it is especially challenging to follow these 'agile' rules on big projects.
I just witnessed how brilliant, smart, flexible engineer and capable communicator was fired by his strong-willed boss who likes to succeed through personal overtime and lacks ability to manage complexity. Which is one of the main main tasks of modern software manager.
On the base of it successful agile management approach is based on flexibility in ideas and communication. And on a big sign on the door: 'Strong willed work maniacs are not welcome!'
>I haven't used it enough to speak to how it works in practice
>That's what they said about the early versions of Java. Now C++ is relegated mostly to embedded, systems and games programming.
Java has its uses but it is yet to replace C++ as language of large software systems due to lesser flexibility then C++. You obviously like to speak of things that you haven't used.
To OldHawk777: I really liked what you had to say about the trust. Trust works and that's main reason why narcissists should be spotted and rooted out, never mind 'displacing cheese'. I want to trust my trustworthy Boss to be business driven - if he is not I don't trust him even if I like him personally.
But regarding the Cold War you are wrong. I came from Iron Curtain and I am telling you that it WAS Reigan who won it. Don't underestimate American individualism in the right place, in the right time. May be you did not like him for a political reason but see my point above: trust is real world more then liking. (Many liked Clinton but noone trusts the white trash).
xtal: Telling people 'go to hell' in the middle of the self-serving sentence. Saying YMMV at the end. Loving yourself in public. Reminds me of a big fat 'N' in that 'OCEAN'. Narcissist that is. You found the way to work that is good for you, probably because you don't have to deal with those expensive staff of engineers on a daily basis. Otherwise why does it bother you that some of us make good money while working for a company? That expensive staff does not like to take BS, you know. You may not like it but the article is right on the nail with its emphasis on that N-word.
And to cap it all, the name is not Ural Sea but Aral Sea. The lesson: don't watch Al Gore too much or you brain will start drying up. That bitter looser, self-proclaimed inventor (of Internet) chose the wrong winner this time. Again. If time machine is invented Al should be transported to Moscow, second half of Fifties to become Minister Of Irrigation in charge of pet project of Khruschev to divert Aral Sea water to grow wheat in prairies of Kazakhstan. That way he would be taken seriously on the state level (until 1964, sorry) and won't confuse those not totally brainwashed.
>I just can't believe people are still beating this drum - when will individual cases like this stop making/. news?
When much bigger inaccuracies that are purposefully perpetrated by the big media will receive adequate attention. People use Wikipedia as an outlet for their accumulated frustration. May be somebody should create open Mediapedia of distortions and inaccuracies. The more I think about it the more I like an idea.
>The problem is that the article isn't discrediting his theory, it's discrediting Yau.
Which theory? Yao and his students say that they did not understand Perelman's proof of Poincaré's conjecture and filled in the gaps. Sounds like wishful thinking to me - not the proof.
>I don't know much about the people in question, and even less about the math, but it's pretty damn obvious that the article was slanted against Yau for whatever reason.
Not that fast. Is John Morgan, who is the head of the mathematics department at Columbia University, slanted against Yao? The article talks about two projects sponsored by the Clay Institute that traced and confirmed validity of Perelman's proof. Dr. Morgan had lead one of them, Gang Tian lead the second. And there were others that reached the same conclusion. He pretty much summed it up when he said: "Perelman already did it and what he did was complete and correct. I don't see that they did anything different". My Chinese coworker read in Chineese publication where Yao is criticized in China for unethical behavior in this ordeal.
May be when Yao wins the suite and takes over math both in mainland China, Taiwan and here then he'll twist opinions of us, little people, as much as he wants, he may even call himself Chairman Yao and we'll understand. But on the way he'll have to prove the validity of his math in the court of law because he could not do that in the world of math. Funny it did not occur to him that nobody did that before (since Poincare and earlier). May be ACLU will take on his case and reinstate his proof by theory of reversed discrimination. So much for slanted.
Now you are talking about reputation of somebody involved with policitcal issues in China. That Yao got involved too much with his reputation at the expense of achivements of somebody else is why he found himself in this mess. That is exactly how inordinate talents get exploited in any field. Some hack steals the work or gets a handle on the inventor who after that is supposed to care for hack's reputation more then for his own integrity and life. Instead hack should unlearn himself and start caring for his integrity if any left. And you (waxigloo) seem to get it reversed - as Yao did.
And that is why Grisha Perelman cut himself off. He just did not want to get ugly to deal with politics in math community. Here is his quote in New Yorker article:
"As long as I was not conspicuous, I had a choice, either to make some ugly thing--a fuss about the math community's lack of integrity -- or, if I didn't do this kind of thing, to be treated as a pet. Now, when I become a very conspicuous person, I cannot stay a pet and say nothing. That is why I had to quit."
Slashdot Mirror
IOW it works like a Middle East Peace Process or Global Warming religion, the difference being in a number of crackpots pushing it. Here it is 1+. Stopping this early minimizes crowd effect with all its collateral damage.
1) Fail early, fail often. 2) Early optimization is root of all evil. 3) Good horizontal communication. The problem is that it is in the human nature of bad managers to will project towards success. And, to continue on point touched by the first article, some cultures (to some degree Indian) makes developers hide failures "to please manager". Which compromizes communication. Given that it is especially challenging to follow these 'agile' rules on big projects. I just witnessed how brilliant, smart, flexible engineer and capable communicator was fired by his strong-willed boss who likes to succeed through personal overtime and lacks ability to manage complexity. Which is one of the main main tasks of modern software manager. On the base of it successful agile management approach is based on flexibility in ideas and communication. And on a big sign on the door: 'Strong willed work maniacs are not welcome!'
>I haven't used it enough to speak to how it works in practice >That's what they said about the early versions of Java. Now C++ is relegated mostly to embedded, systems and games programming. Java has its uses but it is yet to replace C++ as language of large software systems due to lesser flexibility then C++. You obviously like to speak of things that you haven't used.
To OldHawk777:
I really liked what you had to say about the trust. Trust works and that's main reason why narcissists should be spotted and rooted out, never mind 'displacing cheese'. I want to trust my trustworthy Boss to be business driven - if he is not I don't trust him even if I like him personally.
But regarding the Cold War you are wrong. I came from Iron Curtain and I am telling you that it WAS Reigan who won it. Don't underestimate American individualism in the right place, in the right time. May be you did not like him for a political reason but see my point above: trust is real world more then liking. (Many liked Clinton but noone trusts the white trash).
xtal:
Telling people 'go to hell' in the middle of the self-serving sentence. Saying YMMV at the end. Loving yourself in public. Reminds me of a big fat 'N' in that 'OCEAN'. Narcissist that is. You found the way to work that is good for you, probably because you don't have to deal with those expensive staff of engineers on a daily basis. Otherwise why does it bother you that some of us make good money while working for a company? That expensive staff does not like to take BS, you know. You may not like it but the article is right on the nail with its emphasis on that N-word.
And to cap it all, the name is not Ural Sea but Aral Sea. The lesson: don't watch Al Gore too much or you brain will start drying up. That bitter looser, self-proclaimed inventor (of Internet) chose the wrong winner this time. Again. If time machine is invented Al should be transported to Moscow, second half of Fifties to become Minister Of Irrigation in charge of pet project of Khruschev to divert Aral Sea water to grow wheat in prairies of Kazakhstan. That way he would be taken seriously on the state level (until 1964, sorry) and won't confuse those not totally brainwashed.
Good luck with your new job!
>I just can't believe people are still beating this drum - when will individual cases like this stop making /. news?
When much bigger inaccuracies that are purposefully perpetrated by the big media will receive adequate attention. People use Wikipedia as an outlet for their accumulated frustration. May be somebody should create open Mediapedia of distortions and inaccuracies. The more I think about it the more I like an idea.
>The problem is that the article isn't discrediting his theory, it's discrediting Yau. Which theory? Yao and his students say that they did not understand Perelman's proof of Poincaré's conjecture and filled in the gaps. Sounds like wishful thinking to me - not the proof. >I don't know much about the people in question, and even less about the math, but it's pretty damn obvious that the article was slanted against Yau for whatever reason. Not that fast. Is John Morgan, who is the head of the mathematics department at Columbia University, slanted against Yao? The article talks about two projects sponsored by the Clay Institute that traced and confirmed validity of Perelman's proof. Dr. Morgan had lead one of them, Gang Tian lead the second. And there were others that reached the same conclusion. He pretty much summed it up when he said: "Perelman already did it and what he did was complete and correct. I don't see that they did anything different". My Chinese coworker read in Chineese publication where Yao is criticized in China for unethical behavior in this ordeal. May be when Yao wins the suite and takes over math both in mainland China, Taiwan and here then he'll twist opinions of us, little people, as much as he wants, he may even call himself Chairman Yao and we'll understand. But on the way he'll have to prove the validity of his math in the court of law because he could not do that in the world of math. Funny it did not occur to him that nobody did that before (since Poincare and earlier). May be ACLU will take on his case and reinstate his proof by theory of reversed discrimination. So much for slanted.
Now you are talking about reputation of somebody involved with policitcal issues in China. That Yao got involved too much with his reputation at the expense of achivements of somebody else is why he found himself in this mess. That is exactly how inordinate talents get exploited in any field. Some hack steals the work or gets a handle on the inventor who after that is supposed to care for hack's reputation more then for his own integrity and life. Instead hack should unlearn himself and start caring for his integrity if any left. And you (waxigloo) seem to get it reversed - as Yao did.
And that is why Grisha Perelman cut himself off. He just did not want to get ugly to deal with politics in math community. Here is his quote in New Yorker article: "As long as I was not conspicuous, I had a choice, either to make some ugly thing--a fuss about the math community's lack of integrity -- or, if I didn't do this kind of thing, to be treated as a pet. Now, when I become a very conspicuous person, I cannot stay a pet and say nothing. That is why I had to quit."
Now it is Moneyfold Destiny for Dr Yau. Dr Yau just proved that he is 50% mathematician and 60% somebody else who does not like to be caught.