Mediapart outs corrupt politicians, while Le Canard Enchaîné has a lot of information from government's insiders. Mediapart is serious, and wants to go on a crusade against corruption. Le Canard is humorous, full of excellent puns, and somewhat disillusioned about politics (they are systematically sued, but rarely lose their lawsuits). Both are feared by politicians and lobbyists.
In fact, it appears that all these tasks are done by unqualified people, like bus drivers or fishmongers. These people went unemployed, following Fukushima's problems.
Tepco is unable to handle these problems, so they seek contractors to work on them. The winning contractors are always the lowest bidders, and they tend to find sub-contractors (some of them are linked to yakuza). Finally, the job is assigned to people having no experience, since they are the lowest paid guys.
The article explains that the people are so unqualified that sometimes it's the team leader that has to do the tasks, and the other employees just watch. Another example is that they should use iron pipes, but they use pipes in plastic.
Re:"We believed we knew better what customers need
on
How BlackBerry Blew It
·
· Score: 1
Blackberry thought they knew and were wrong.
Jobs thought he knew and was right.
This is incorrect: nobody "knows".
Every company put their bet on their own concept. Jobs was simply more successful than Blackberry, and I don't think that there is a simple answer why, but it's mostly luck.
Now that Jobs is gone, let's see who will be more successful.
As a coder, I'm not efficient after 4 hours of intensive coding, and only if it's really interesting. And it has been a lot of years since I had to do this, because I rarely had to writing some interesting code.
When I was 20, I worked in a game company, where I coded 12 hours every day, and 6 days per week. It was so exciting that fatigue was not a problem, because my brain kept me awake. 4 years later, I paid for all my efforts, with a massive burn-out: it was absolutely impossible for me to code even a line without incredible effort. I believe that it was related to the fact that I was alone: had no external support outside of my work. So yes, you can work long hours. Being productive ? I doubt so. And if you are alone, expect a massive burn-out, especially if you believe that your work gives a lot of meaning to your life.
Coding requires creativity, and creativity requires that you rest your mind. As long as your mind is busy, you are not creative, you incrementally build using your knowledge. When you really rest your mind (for example after a night sleep), new ideas start to appear.
If you really want to be productive, remove all sources of disruptions, that's all !
Another question I'd like to ask is: how much are you paid for every hour of work ? You may believe that you have a nice salary, but if you divide it by the number of working hours, you may be less paid that some other jobs.
many doctors now tell patients to eat yogurt after taking a course of the drugs, to replace some of the good guys.
As long as I remember, doctors always recommended to eat yogurt to rebuild the bacteria guts.
However, there are 2 big problems with yogurts: 1) they contain lactose, which is not as good as people believe. For example, if you have arthritis 2) some of them contain bifidus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifidobacterium, and bifidus is used to fatten porks
To rebuild guts bacteria, I read on a french site that you need to eat: 1) less meat 2) less dairy products (but more goat's and sheep's milk) 3) more fruits, vegetables, whole grains and nuts 4) vegetable oil (preferably olive oil, walnuts and canola) 5) less saturated fat 6) and very little sugar
About the antibiotics, I'm pretty sure that they are the cause of my gluten intolerance (I'm also allergic to lactose, with temporary side effects). When I was younger, a lot of illnesses were treated with antibiotics, and since they randomly kill species of guts bacteria, they change our metabolisms.
I also believe that because our vegetables are heavily spread with pesticides, we need to peel them before eating. And from what I think, it's the skin that contains the most nutrients.
I'll add another case where using Google's version is a bad idea: when your site works with http AND https. Since most browsers don't accept mixed content (secure and not secure), if you use the cached versions of Google, the scripts won't load.
I'm an ex-game programmer, and what you say is not supported by my experience.
Developing a framework is totally different than releasing games.
When you work on a framework, you spend a lot of time on the same project, by incrementally adding new features. Quality is very important, so you must spend most of your time building quality, by writing tests and writing optimized code. You also have direct contact with your customers.
When you program games, what is important is the delivery date, especially in large game companies. Quality is not really important, and all the conception is already done before the game started, so there is not a lot of place for innovation. Porting games is mostly what large game companies do, since you cannot rely on a single console to earn money.
And when you write games nowadays, your job as a coder is mostly using libraries, because a game is too much work if rewritten from scratch. The "fun" part as a coder is to write your own routines, so that you master everything, when you rely on a library, you always expect bugs. And the "fun" part as a gamer is to fine-tune the game, and this is the most tedious task !
Since you are into philosophy I'll use an example of right speaking (from the Buddhist 8 way path). If someones life is on the line, and you are more competent than the person or people trying to save them, then it would be not only bad, but possibly deadly, not to point out your virtues.
Since you are in buddhist philosophy, you should know that the right attitude cannot be thought, it appears spontaneously. The more you think, the farther you are from the correct attitude.
If you are competent to save a person, but that person prefers another incompetent guy, you can do nothing, and the correct attitude is "to let go", even if a life is at stake.
It's the same thing with an interview. You can be the best profile for a job, but you won't be chosen for a totally random reason. If you are miserable because you failed to get the job, then YOU have an inner problem.
And in this particular case, another mechanism took place: TRUST. CEO always seek people that seem reliable (and believe me, they can become friends with crooks, just because they seem reliable), because they always doubt: am I making the correct decision ? So they want tools to help them decide quickly (for example, evaluate risks), and they try to find people that they can trust.
If the trust is broken, they cannot cope with their own failure of misjudging the untrustworthy, so they tend to use some extreme measures, like firing with humiliation.
The virus-makers realized that your computer has a value for them. For example:
- stealing your credit cards
- spam forwarding
- DDOS attack
- filesharing
- bit-coin mining or passwords cracking etc...
So the virus now don't try to destroy your computer, but they try to find the best value of it.
Personally, I use Comodo Personal Firewall version 5, since I don't like version 6. If you really want an antivirus, you can disable the continuous scan, and only manually scan files that seem to connect somewhere.
In my case, when the program catches an error, it displays a text input and a Send button.
I expressedly ask the users to explain how they reached this message, and I encourage them to report bugs in order to improve the quality of the program.
When they click Send, it sends a mail containing their message along with the (hidden) callstack and the error message.
Most of the time, people are unable to explain how they encountered this error, but at least they always press Send !
>what could you learn, other than what creates failure?
As a veteran game programmer, I strongly disagree !
The problem is that the best lessons are always discovered when failing. Success cannot be predicted, and thus, you cannot analyze what made a success. It's just a pure matter of luck.
But I can provide you a recipe to success: to create a successful videogame, concentrate on both the content and the container.
Most game creators focus only on they strongest point, and that is either coding, gameplay or art. So when you see some nice art, gameplay is lacking, and when you see some nice gameplay, the art tends to suck (in all cases, the code generally sucks).
It's all a matter of balance, and in my experience (18 years in the videogame industry), I only met a few people able to achieve one of these goals, and they were rarely part of a team (unconstrained talents don't mix well with teams).
Also, I'm not sure an academy could help discover future talents. Schools tend to format people, by making them think and behave the same way, and this results in average people, not great people.
The best creators I met are really weird guys, they have their own thinking process, and it's definitely different than yours. And finally, most of the current game managers are sales guys, not creators. They hate risk.
There is an interesting side effect about this data problem: the cloud.
Currently, the biggest cloud providers are based in US. But due to the NSA disclosure, most companies cannot afford to give their data to outside countries, especially since it's now clear that NSA spied european companies economically.
So local cloud providers will quickly emerge, and this will directly impact Google and Amazon's services. US clouds cannot be trusted anymore.
1) I don't look at the whole picture because there are too much details, so I prefer to attack little by little. 2) I quickly check what I can rewrite in order to optimize the code. If I have no idea, I run a profiler, and take a look at the routines that take the most time. 3) once I understood or rewrote the most consuming parts (sometimes it's heavily optimized, but most of the time, I can make a real improvement), I decide what most important functionality I would like to add, and I just focus on that. 4) if I really need to have robust code, I write tests for the routines before optimizing them, so that I can validate if there are regressions 5) whenever possible, I use "assert" and put some bound-checking tests, in order to validate the ranges of certain values or conditions.
The important thing is to start by taking ownership of a small part of the code, then a bigger part, etc... Take one slice at a time, not the whole pie. And one last point: knowing every little detail is useless, concentrate on what is important for you: performance, functionalities,... ?
Yes, you got that right, but I don't see any defeatism. It would be defeatist only if you believe that you can change people.
I have no evidence to back my arguments, only my personal experience and feelings. But I doubt you'll ever find an evidence to prove the contrary, because change is a natural process. The change is so natural that you are not even conscious that you change, only others can tell you. And the change is so subtle that only close friends may notice it after a long time.
But hey, prove me that there is a method to change, and I'll gladly hear your arguments.
Rational or emotional arguments can only provoke some reaction, but it won't last in the long term. An evidence for that is dieting. People believe that taking some diet will make lose some weight, and when they realize that they cannot sustain it, they blame their own willpower ("I didn't try hard enough").
By the way, it's very easy to notice when people stopped the flow of change.
The best thing to do if you want to change people's minds is to find facts and present them reasonably, politely, logically, in a factual manner, and possibly with a reference link.
No, no and no ! And I'll explain why.
First, look at yourself. How do you think you can change ? Do you think that integrating a new idea changes you ? Do you think that change is an incremental process, and that you can change after accepting a few ideas ? You are totally wrong ! Change is always here, it happens naturally, and you can accept or refuse this natural change. Nobody really wants to change, because they are in a local optimum, so they put all their efforts to remain in this local optimum because any immediate change will worsen their situation. Perhaps a small change could lead to a better local optimum, who knows ?
In fact, your problem is that you believe that you can change yourself with your thinking process. And you also think that since you are able to change yourself, you can change other people. But I can assure you that you cannot change anybody, even yourself ! Reason or passion don't change people, but it makes them react.
So how can you change yourself ? Let the change happen ! And stop dreaming about changing others, you can just accept them, in the hope that they'll change one day.
You are mistaken lower divorce rates do not mean happier marriages... Just enduring hell.
While I agree with you that it's better to divorce than living miserably, I would like to add that you should not expect your marriage to be happy, because it will probably not be happy. In fact, the most stable marriages are arranged ones, because people don't have a choice, so they tend to adapt to the situation, they can only accept the other. Meanwhile, people who marry because they love each other do only accept the other as they are at a given moment. But people change, and after a few years, the change can be so dramatic that the new situation is impossible to stand. Love becomes gradually hate. I like to say that the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. The real love is accepting the other as he/she is, and encouraging him/her to become a better person.
OK, so electronic ballots are proved to be less "secure" than paper ballots, again.
Hum, do you remember the election for the leader of UMP between Fillon and Copé ? The vote was done with paper ballots, but there have been massive frauds anyway, since Copé stole the election. The fraud was so massive that Fillon rightfully complained, but since we are talking about politics, they settled "peacefully".
What this proves is that UMP leaders abuse the voting system.
Good point ! But in a sports team, the manager has some other players on the bench, so when he sees that a guy doesn't do his best, the player will be replaced instantly.
As I explained in another answer, what is important in a team is the sense of power. If every member thinks that he can produce something significant (like in a sports team), then everybody will be motivated and will do their best. If somebody thinks that his effort will be insignificant, he'll quietly reduce his effort, and sometimes that means doing nothing !
I think that you were lucky. Luck has a great importance in software projects, but of course, luck is not random.
I think that the most important fact that you don't mention is that everybody in your team was motivated, they felt that they had some power to do things. When you remove the sense of power, people lose motivation and produce some half-assed work.
Then, I believe that you are an ex-programmer, and most of the managers I know pretend to be able to code, but when I check, I see that they are pretty bad. Organization is an art, and I really met only a few people able to organize correctly.
Finally, you optimized the bandwidth of your team, and that is what managers don't know how to do.
Now, in your current project, you don't have luck, so you are discovering what happens when nobody has power in a team.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny thing is, I WORK for that agency, so it would have cost them almost nothing to have me do it.
Why do you think that this kind of work is proposed to contractors ?
It's just because nobody wants to take the responsibility of the project.
If it fails, it's easier to accuse the contractor than to take the blame for the project, even if it costs a ton of money.
Pride is priceless.
And I forgot Le Courrier International, which is less France centric:
http://www.courrierinternational.com/
In France: Mediapart http://www.mediapart.fr/ and Le Canard Enchaîné http://lecanardenchaine.fr/
Mediapart has an english version: http://www.mediapart.fr/en/english
Mediapart outs corrupt politicians, while Le Canard Enchaîné has a lot of information from government's insiders.
Mediapart is serious, and wants to go on a crusade against corruption.
Le Canard is humorous, full of excellent puns, and somewhat disillusioned about politics (they are systematically sued, but rarely lose their lawsuits).
Both are feared by politicians and lobbyists.
There is an excellent article in french explaining the problem:
http://www.lepoint.fr/environnement/fukushima-des-liquidateurs-temoignent-de-l-enfer-sur-terre-27-09-2013-1735686_1927.php
In fact, it appears that all these tasks are done by unqualified people, like bus drivers or fishmongers.
These people went unemployed, following Fukushima's problems.
Tepco is unable to handle these problems, so they seek contractors to work on them.
The winning contractors are always the lowest bidders, and they tend to find sub-contractors (some of them are linked to yakuza).
Finally, the job is assigned to people having no experience, since they are the lowest paid guys.
The article explains that the people are so unqualified that sometimes it's the team leader that has to do the tasks, and the other employees just watch.
Another example is that they should use iron pipes, but they use pipes in plastic.
Don't let someone take FUCKING NAKED pictures of you!!!
On the bright side, it's a quick way to get your 15 minutes of fame:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_minutes_of_fame
Blackberry thought they knew and were wrong.
Jobs thought he knew and was right.
This is incorrect: nobody "knows".
Every company put their bet on their own concept.
Jobs was simply more successful than Blackberry, and I don't think that there is a simple answer why, but it's mostly luck.
Now that Jobs is gone, let's see who will be more successful.
As a coder, I'm not efficient after 4 hours of intensive coding, and only if it's really interesting.
And it has been a lot of years since I had to do this, because I rarely had to writing some interesting code.
When I was 20, I worked in a game company, where I coded 12 hours every day, and 6 days per week.
It was so exciting that fatigue was not a problem, because my brain kept me awake.
4 years later, I paid for all my efforts, with a massive burn-out: it was absolutely impossible for me to code even a line without incredible effort.
I believe that it was related to the fact that I was alone: had no external support outside of my work.
So yes, you can work long hours.
Being productive ? I doubt so.
And if you are alone, expect a massive burn-out, especially if you believe that your work gives a lot of meaning to your life.
Coding requires creativity, and creativity requires that you rest your mind.
As long as your mind is busy, you are not creative, you incrementally build using your knowledge.
When you really rest your mind (for example after a night sleep), new ideas start to appear.
If you really want to be productive, remove all sources of disruptions, that's all !
Another question I'd like to ask is: how much are you paid for every hour of work ?
You may believe that you have a nice salary, but if you divide it by the number of working hours, you may be less paid that some other jobs.
Wine is the first step, but why don't we use blood to power microprocessors ?
Everybody can easily extract blood, and a processor named Vampire would be so cool.
many doctors now tell patients to eat yogurt after taking a course of the drugs, to replace some of the good guys.
As long as I remember, doctors always recommended to eat yogurt to rebuild the bacteria guts.
However, there are 2 big problems with yogurts:
1) they contain lactose, which is not as good as people believe. For example, if you have arthritis
2) some of them contain bifidus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifidobacterium, and bifidus is used to fatten porks
To rebuild guts bacteria, I read on a french site that you need to eat:
1) less meat
2) less dairy products (but more goat's and sheep's milk)
3) more fruits, vegetables, whole grains and nuts
4) vegetable oil (preferably olive oil, walnuts and canola)
5) less saturated fat
6) and very little sugar
About the antibiotics, I'm pretty sure that they are the cause of my gluten intolerance (I'm also allergic to lactose, with temporary side effects).
When I was younger, a lot of illnesses were treated with antibiotics, and since they randomly kill species of guts bacteria, they change our metabolisms.
I also believe that because our vegetables are heavily spread with pesticides, we need to peel them before eating.
And from what I think, it's the skin that contains the most nutrients.
It's the same pattern every year, beginning september and ending january.
It has everything to do with demand, since the demand increases because of the end of year gifts.
Last year, it was the hard-disks producers, if I remember correctly.
This time, it's RAM.
Next year, it'll be processors.
The difference between ethical and legal is also called the "profit margin".
I'll add another case where using Google's version is a bad idea: when your site works with http AND https.
Since most browsers don't accept mixed content (secure and not secure), if you use the cached versions of Google, the scripts won't load.
I had this problem a few weeks ago.
I'm an ex-game programmer, and what you say is not supported by my experience.
Developing a framework is totally different than releasing games.
When you work on a framework, you spend a lot of time on the same project, by incrementally adding new features.
Quality is very important, so you must spend most of your time building quality, by writing tests and writing optimized code.
You also have direct contact with your customers.
When you program games, what is important is the delivery date, especially in large game companies.
Quality is not really important, and all the conception is already done before the game started, so there is not a lot of place for innovation.
Porting games is mostly what large game companies do, since you cannot rely on a single console to earn money.
And when you write games nowadays, your job as a coder is mostly using libraries, because a game is too much work if rewritten from scratch.
The "fun" part as a coder is to write your own routines, so that you master everything, when you rely on a library, you always expect bugs.
And the "fun" part as a gamer is to fine-tune the game, and this is the most tedious task !
Since you are into philosophy I'll use an example of right speaking (from the Buddhist 8 way path). If someones life is on the line, and you are more competent than the person or people trying to save them, then it would be not only bad, but possibly deadly, not to point out your virtues.
Since you are in buddhist philosophy, you should know that the right attitude cannot be thought, it appears spontaneously. The more you think, the farther you are from the correct attitude.
If you are competent to save a person, but that person prefers another incompetent guy, you can do nothing, and the correct attitude is "to let go", even if a life is at stake.
It's the same thing with an interview.
You can be the best profile for a job, but you won't be chosen for a totally random reason.
If you are miserable because you failed to get the job, then YOU have an inner problem.
And in this particular case, another mechanism took place: TRUST.
CEO always seek people that seem reliable (and believe me, they can become friends with crooks, just because they seem reliable), because they always doubt: am I making the correct decision ?
So they want tools to help them decide quickly (for example, evaluate risks), and they try to find people that they can trust.
If the trust is broken, they cannot cope with their own failure of misjudging the untrustworthy, so they tend to use some extreme measures, like firing with humiliation.
The virus-makers realized that your computer has a value for them.
For example:
- stealing your credit cards
- spam forwarding
- DDOS attack
- filesharing
- bit-coin mining or passwords cracking
etc...
So the virus now don't try to destroy your computer, but they try to find the best value of it.
So I would recommend that you install a program to alert you when an unknown program is trying to send some data on the Internet.
Wikipedia lists a few options:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Firewall_software
Personally, I use Comodo Personal Firewall version 5, since I don't like version 6.
If you really want an antivirus, you can disable the continuous scan, and only manually scan files that seem to connect somewhere.
Nice idea !
In my case, when the program catches an error, it displays a text input and a Send button.
I expressedly ask the users to explain how they reached this message, and I encourage them to report bugs in order to improve the quality of the program.
When they click Send, it sends a mail containing their message along with the (hidden) callstack and the error message.
Most of the time, people are unable to explain how they encountered this error, but at least they always press Send !
>what could you learn, other than what creates failure?
As a veteran game programmer, I strongly disagree !
The problem is that the best lessons are always discovered when failing.
Success cannot be predicted, and thus, you cannot analyze what made a success.
It's just a pure matter of luck.
But I can provide you a recipe to success:
to create a successful videogame, concentrate on both the content and the container.
Most game creators focus only on they strongest point, and that is either coding, gameplay or art.
So when you see some nice art, gameplay is lacking, and when you see some nice gameplay, the art tends to suck (in all cases, the code generally sucks).
It's all a matter of balance, and in my experience (18 years in the videogame industry), I only met a few people able to achieve one of these goals, and they were rarely part of a team (unconstrained talents don't mix well with teams).
Also, I'm not sure an academy could help discover future talents.
Schools tend to format people, by making them think and behave the same way, and this results in average people, not great people.
The best creators I met are really weird guys, they have their own thinking process, and it's definitely different than yours.
And finally, most of the current game managers are sales guys, not creators. They hate risk.
There is an interesting side effect about this data problem: the cloud.
Currently, the biggest cloud providers are based in US.
But due to the NSA disclosure, most companies cannot afford to give their data to outside countries, especially since it's now clear that NSA spied european companies economically.
So local cloud providers will quickly emerge, and this will directly impact Google and Amazon's services.
US clouds cannot be trusted anymore.
Here is how I work on legacy code:
1) I don't look at the whole picture because there are too much details, so I prefer to attack little by little.
2) I quickly check what I can rewrite in order to optimize the code. If I have no idea, I run a profiler, and take a look at the routines that take the most time.
3) once I understood or rewrote the most consuming parts (sometimes it's heavily optimized, but most of the time, I can make a real improvement), I decide what most important functionality I would like to add, and I just focus on that.
4) if I really need to have robust code, I write tests for the routines before optimizing them, so that I can validate if there are regressions
5) whenever possible, I use "assert" and put some bound-checking tests, in order to validate the ranges of certain values or conditions.
The important thing is to start by taking ownership of a small part of the code, then a bigger part, etc... ... ?
Take one slice at a time, not the whole pie.
And one last point: knowing every little detail is useless, concentrate on what is important for you: performance, functionalities,
Yes, you got that right, but I don't see any defeatism.
It would be defeatist only if you believe that you can change people.
I have no evidence to back my arguments, only my personal experience and feelings.
But I doubt you'll ever find an evidence to prove the contrary, because change is a natural process.
The change is so natural that you are not even conscious that you change, only others can tell you.
And the change is so subtle that only close friends may notice it after a long time.
But hey, prove me that there is a method to change, and I'll gladly hear your arguments.
Rational or emotional arguments can only provoke some reaction, but it won't last in the long term.
An evidence for that is dieting.
People believe that taking some diet will make lose some weight, and when they realize that they cannot sustain it, they blame their own willpower ("I didn't try hard enough").
By the way, it's very easy to notice when people stopped the flow of change.
The best thing to do if you want to change people's minds is to find facts and present them reasonably, politely, logically, in a factual manner, and possibly with a reference link.
No, no and no !
And I'll explain why.
First, look at yourself.
How do you think you can change ?
Do you think that integrating a new idea changes you ?
Do you think that change is an incremental process, and that you can change after accepting a few ideas ?
You are totally wrong !
Change is always here, it happens naturally, and you can accept or refuse this natural change.
Nobody really wants to change, because they are in a local optimum, so they put all their efforts to remain in this local optimum because any immediate change will worsen their situation.
Perhaps a small change could lead to a better local optimum, who knows ?
In fact, your problem is that you believe that you can change yourself with your thinking process.
And you also think that since you are able to change yourself, you can change other people.
But I can assure you that you cannot change anybody, even yourself !
Reason or passion don't change people, but it makes them react.
So how can you change yourself ?
Let the change happen !
And stop dreaming about changing others, you can just accept them, in the hope that they'll change one day.
You are mistaken lower divorce rates do not mean happier marriages... Just enduring hell.
While I agree with you that it's better to divorce than living miserably, I would like to add that you should not expect your marriage to be happy, because it will probably not be happy.
In fact, the most stable marriages are arranged ones, because people don't have a choice, so they tend to adapt to the situation, they can only accept the other.
Meanwhile, people who marry because they love each other do only accept the other as they are at a given moment.
But people change, and after a few years, the change can be so dramatic that the new situation is impossible to stand.
Love becomes gradually hate.
I like to say that the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference.
The real love is accepting the other as he/she is, and encouraging him/her to become a better person.
OK, so electronic ballots are proved to be less "secure" than paper ballots, again.
Hum, do you remember the election for the leader of UMP between Fillon and Copé ?
The vote was done with paper ballots, but there have been massive frauds anyway, since Copé stole the election.
The fraud was so massive that Fillon rightfully complained, but since we are talking about politics, they settled "peacefully".
What this proves is that UMP leaders abuse the voting system.
Good point !
But in a sports team, the manager has some other players on the bench, so when he sees that a guy doesn't do his best, the player will be replaced instantly.
As I explained in another answer, what is important in a team is the sense of power.
If every member thinks that he can produce something significant (like in a sports team), then everybody will be motivated and will do their best.
If somebody thinks that his effort will be insignificant, he'll quietly reduce his effort, and sometimes that means doing nothing !
I think that you were lucky.
Luck has a great importance in software projects, but of course, luck is not random.
I think that the most important fact that you don't mention is that everybody in your team was motivated, they felt that they had some power to do things.
When you remove the sense of power, people lose motivation and produce some half-assed work.
Then, I believe that you are an ex-programmer, and most of the managers I know pretend to be able to code, but when I check, I see that they are pretty bad.
Organization is an art, and I really met only a few people able to organize correctly.
Finally, you optimized the bandwidth of your team, and that is what managers don't know how to do.
Now, in your current project, you don't have luck, so you are discovering what happens when nobody has power in a team.