A sit-down meeting requires everyone to stand up, go to meeting room, sit down, wait for stragglers to arrive. It is a core advantage of the stand-up meeting that the last three of those steps are removed, and if they aren't, your stand-up isn't being done right.
It's fundamentally impossible for any process to defeat a bad employee with the authority to subvert it. This is why hiring is the single most important meta-function that occurs in any organization, and if you don't put a LOT of energy into it you are screwed.
Yeah, but if you go down that path, you wind up with mathematics being nothing but a tool, more a part of the process of science than science itself. Mathematics alone tells us nothing about the universe, other than that mathematics can be derived in it (and then you get back to whether or not you've really derived anything since the foundation is ultimately belief).
The question asks are they more productive? More productive than what?
Instead ask: are they effective? Then the answer is clearer: in some cases, yes. Like almost any process (or piece of a process: stand ups are typically one part of a larger agile process) you can get them wrong. There are many ways to screw up agile, just as there are many ways to screw up waterfall, or XP. You'll hear disaster stories for each. But done right, it can work, and it can be very effective.
Then your meeting host was incompetent, and you didn't care about wasting your coworkers time. But that's a personnel problem, not a fundamental flaw in the meeting design.
You say you understand, but then you make a statement that suggests otherwise. The problems that agile/extreme can solve are more common and worth more $$$ than the ones Dijkstra's algorithm can solve.
It's the audience, not what you can say. Email/PM doesn't give you the attention of the audience. It also doesn't require you to be concise, so if you do everything by email/pm you get the blowhards sucking up too much attention.
Email is too easy to tune out to avoid duplication of effort, to uncover growing problems, etc. The point of the standup in agile is to enforce awareness of what's going on in the group, so that everyone attends to the information and can help the group to work more effectively.
I would think the opposite: a small company might give you something really meaningful to put on your resume, and a very personal recommendation when you go job hunting. A large company is generally going to have you run errands for coffee, and send a form letter if anything.
But he fuses it for power, helium, and likely heavier atoms if he needs them (given he can build an interstellar spaceship, fusion of hydrogen down to heavier atoms should be old hat).
Alternatively, he just uses it for power, and uses that power for his very advanced / low-waste recycling system, allowing him to carry relatively tiny surpluses of raw materials for a 500 year trip.
People have been trying to get this right since at least 1998. The problem is, there is no right. As soon as you have a push channel, websites begin abusing it, and that channel gets shut down. It just can't be done.
Claims current oil recovery techniques are recovering up to 60% of the oil in place, and that factoring in the other 40%, there is 1,324 (reserves) * 1.4 = 1.853 T barrels remaining. That's in the ballpark of 100 years of oil remaining, assuming the burn rate doesn't go up.
I'm much more pessimistic about most of this than you. First, on biology, the biological researchers I know think that significant life extension is 50+ years away, too late for me (maybe you are younger). Immortality is even further out. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, obviously. On AI/MI... at least there I'm pretty familiar with the state of the art, and it isn't close to human thought. I would personally bet on a machine whose thoughts are comparable to a human's being at least 50 years off, barring a surprise discovery. It seems likely to me that the compute density needed for meaningful MI is probably still 80 years off. Again, I'd be happy to be proven wrong, I'd love to see it in my lifetime.
Indeed, one way is somewhat more likely. I was imagining our descendants being interested in visiting the homeworld. Once they achieve immortality, spending a couple hundred years on a trip to earth becomes much more likely.
As got pointed out in other threads, 4.5x earth mass is only about 60% extra G to deal with. I weigh 60% more than I did as a teenager (sadly) and still manage to get out of bed in the morning (most days... I'm getting up there in age).
Slashdot Mirror
A sit-down meeting requires everyone to stand up, go to meeting room, sit down, wait for stragglers to arrive. It is a core advantage of the stand-up meeting that the last three of those steps are removed, and if they aren't, your stand-up isn't being done right.
Most awesome response of the thread, thank you. But I fear effective troll was effective.
It's fundamentally impossible for any process to defeat a bad employee with the authority to subvert it. This is why hiring is the single most important meta-function that occurs in any organization, and if you don't put a LOT of energy into it you are screwed.
Yeah, but if you go down that path, you wind up with mathematics being nothing but a tool, more a part of the process of science than science itself. Mathematics alone tells us nothing about the universe, other than that mathematics can be derived in it (and then you get back to whether or not you've really derived anything since the foundation is ultimately belief).
Yeah, let's all just accept Peano's axioms, shall we? Mathematics is founded on air.
Brevity is a factor in effective communication. If you don't have brevity, you risk the message being lost in the verbiage.
The question asks are they more productive? More productive than what?
Instead ask: are they effective? Then the answer is clearer: in some cases, yes. Like almost any process (or piece of a process: stand ups are typically one part of a larger agile process) you can get them wrong. There are many ways to screw up agile, just as there are many ways to screw up waterfall, or XP. You'll hear disaster stories for each. But done right, it can work, and it can be very effective.
I have bad news for you ... dig deep enough, and you find out all the other 'sciences' suffer from exactly the same problems.
Then your meeting host was incompetent, and you didn't care about wasting your coworkers time. But that's a personnel problem, not a fundamental flaw in the meeting design.
You say you understand, but then you make a statement that suggests otherwise. The problems that agile/extreme can solve are more common and worth more $$$ than the ones Dijkstra's algorithm can solve.
It's the audience, not what you can say. Email/PM doesn't give you the attention of the audience. It also doesn't require you to be concise, so if you do everything by email/pm you get the blowhards sucking up too much attention.
Email is too easy to tune out to avoid duplication of effort, to uncover growing problems, etc. The point of the standup in agile is to enforce awareness of what's going on in the group, so that everyone attends to the information and can help the group to work more effectively.
But you understood while doing it that these are fundamentally different skill sets, right? And that both have a place in development?
The oral exams were available in ASL.
I would think the opposite: a small company might give you something really meaningful to put on your resume, and a very personal recommendation when you go job hunting. A large company is generally going to have you run errands for coffee, and send a form letter if anything.
But he fuses it for power, helium, and likely heavier atoms if he needs them (given he can build an interstellar spaceship, fusion of hydrogen down to heavier atoms should be old hat).
Alternatively, he just uses it for power, and uses that power for his very advanced / low-waste recycling system, allowing him to carry relatively tiny surpluses of raw materials for a 500 year trip.
People have been trying to get this right since at least 1998. The problem is, there is no right. As soon as you have a push channel, websites begin abusing it, and that channel gets shut down. It just can't be done.
Stop insulting flora!
Wikipedia disagrees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
Claims current oil recovery techniques are recovering up to 60% of the oil in place, and that factoring in the other 40%, there is
1,324 (reserves) * 1.4 = 1.853 T barrels remaining.
That's in the ballpark of 100 years of oil remaining, assuming the burn rate doesn't go up.
I feel pretty confident FTL does not exist. Otherwise alien visitors would be too likely to not have happened.
I'm much more pessimistic about most of this than you. ... at least there I'm pretty familiar with the state of the art, and it isn't close to human thought. I would personally bet on a machine whose thoughts are comparable to a human's being at least 50 years off, barring a surprise discovery. It seems likely to me that the compute density needed for meaningful MI is probably still 80 years off. Again, I'd be happy to be proven wrong, I'd love to see it in my lifetime.
First, on biology, the biological researchers I know think that significant life extension is 50+ years away, too late for me (maybe you are younger). Immortality is even further out. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, obviously.
On AI/MI
Indeed, one way is somewhat more likely. I was imagining our descendants being interested in visiting the homeworld. Once they achieve immortality, spending a couple hundred years on a trip to earth becomes much more likely.
It doesn't have to. Interstellar hydrogen is plentiful (at least in terms of the needs of such a ship), and easy to collect.
As got pointed out in other threads, 4.5x earth mass is only about 60% extra G to deal with. I weigh 60% more than I did as a teenager (sadly) and still manage to get out of bed in the morning (most days ... I'm getting up there in age).
Because they aren't stupid enough to broadcast their position to the more dangerous gangs in the galaxy.