Weren't there some 'Java processors' a while back that did something like this (terribly)? Certainly an interesting idea; however, everything comes down to cost in the end.
...but take lessons from the warts in the runtime.
Moving their macs off of Intel is a terrible idea as people will then only be purchasing the cheapest possible mac as a compiler host for iOS (if they need to do so.)
I have a MacBook Pro right now because I can triple boot it between Linux, macOS, and Windows - they do this and I'd rather just have one of the new minis sitting on the corner of my test for iOS builds...
Unless that ARM chipset will support x64/x86 instructions (which is technically possible but would be weird.)
Because it's simple to write an app for the watch that doesn't require you to fiddle with it to cheat - which means the teach would have to be able to see all the kids watch faces (which is circumventable by having the accelerometer hide/unhide the ui with arm movement.)
...the only way a social media company can maintain a sense of decency is to be a private company. Publicly traded companies are required, by law no less, to seek ever greater and greater revenue. Google has done an AMAZING job of straddling this line (and sometimes going past it) - but it'll get them eventually too.
...it's an easy way to get good prices, quick and easy delivery (especially if you are a Prime customer), and an excellent return policy.
I'm not sure that same set of factors applies to Whole Paycheck - oops, I mean Whole Foods. A brand that has quality items, but is infamous for being ridiculously overpriced and having a mindset akin to Gwyneth Paltrow (asparagus water for $6 - seriously?)
I'm sure Bezos will get this sorted - but it may take a while and not be an obvious win for Amazon during that period.
To avoid the Agile crowds inevitable "but, again, that's not agile" (even though that's the agile that exists out in the world) - just change the scenario to:
Customer: I want a house at this location...
Development team designs and builds a house.
Every two weeks development checks with customer, customer is happy!
24 Weeks Later
Customer: Hey everybody, here's our new house. Another Department at the Customer: We need a house we can drive to the lake.
That's the stuff that happens constantly.
You can follow Agile perfectly and yet customer satisfaction is vastly more complicated when you let them design your software. They don't know to tell you that you can't encrypt certain things because it breaks the workflows of tools they didn't even know their company uses? Or that you can't change the formatting of something because it breaks another tool. That you can't augment the data in their system because it now violates GDPR because they don't know wtf GDPR is? Et cetera, ad nausem...
Let's create a fictional company by which we can answer your questions.
CoolSoft has a vision to create a revolutionary product that crushes the 3D content creation pipeline market (think 3DSMAX/MAYA market.) They're going to call this product Cool3D (ugh...) and their primary target are AAA game development teams.
"Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software."
DUMP - Christ almighty, yes, dump this hideously inappropriate idea. Instead, find world class technical directors that have been living/breathing/eating 3D content pipelines for at least 10 years and who want to create something great - in other words pay for DOMAIN EXPERTISE so you can build the bedrock of your product by relying on their expertise augmented by your own and your teams' synergies.
This one? "Minimally Viable Product" is not a fit concept for a product or technology related company? Really?
NOT AGILE - Classic Agile zealot straw man - as if coming to market as soon as you think you will benefit is something new, LULZ. Of course you build to MVP, people have been doing that for 40 years - this is not an 'agile' thing, only the ubiquity of the term MVP is. It's not a question of keep, it's something you always do, whatever your methodology is (never heard of one that said to over develop for your market...)
"Welcome changing requirements, even late in development. Agile processes harness change for the customer's competitive advantage."
DUMP - Late significant changes should require a drastic evaluation of how you came to your, and require a change control process that includes identifying why your highly paid team of domain experts totally messed up. It's possible the reason is legitimate, and if the opportunity cost balances out the loss of market - go ahead and make the changes. PMs shouldn't count on getting bonuses though.
Do you really think your Product Manager is really infallible? That he won't take advantage of knowing the resulting product/technology as it's going on to perfect his own mind and vision? Really?
DUMP - Cool3D only hires PMs who were designers and/or implementors of AAA art content pipelines for 10 years or more. Nobody knows more than they do, that's why you hired them. They can, of course, make mistakes - but it's incredibly unlikely they'll make mistakes that damage your software in the marketplace.
"Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale."
DUMP - Cool3D thinks this is criminally stupid. It's going to take them 12 months minimum to get to better, and that's not counting the suite of tools necessary for multi-platform integration and their SDKs (ios/android/ps4/xbox/pc.)
See MVP. And then, if you can't produce a working piece within two months, rethink very carefully, since you probably don't understand it well enough as to put your time/money on it. If after deep thinking, you really think a given piece of your solution really takes that long, go ahead, on your own peril. These, after all, are just "principles", not Law from God carved in stone.
DUMP - You clearly have only worked with limited types of software and software companies (maybe not even software companies) because you seem to be unable to imagine scenarios that totally invalidate that type of thinking...
"Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project."
DUMP - Holy f*** no - this is the single biggest problem with Agile - and it's almost always wanna-be bullshit PMs (who are really poorly trained project managers) who love to use this crap - because they then have ZERO RESPONSIBILITY for the result. They don't need to know shit, just ask the customer. Cool3D wo
If you're NOT an ISV, and you make software solutions for individual customers (which is what the vast majority of software developers find themselves doing) - then Agile is probably the right way for your company to go.
If you ARE an ISV (and Independent Software Vendor makes products, unlike the folks above who work on PROJECTS) then use Agile at your peril.
ISVs that use agile are those that tend to have "Product Managers" who are not actually Product Managers, but are instead "Project Managers" with a penchant for making products up out of virtually thin air ("Oh, a customer wants this, so this must be part of the 'product.')
ISVs that know what they are doing start with Product Managers - because a Product Manager has DOMAIN EXPERTISE that means they actually know what the market wants - not just a single customer. The problem for wanna-be ISVs is that real Product Managers are expensive and difficult to find (but they're out there) due to the Product Management market being swamped with Project Managers calling themselves Product Managers.
If your company has a technology or product related vision - you should not use Agile. If your company has a market dominance or growth related vision, and you make software tailored to a specific customer's needs - you should probably use Agile.
You seem to be forgetting that the neutrino has been traveling to us for, apparently, 4 billion years. The speed at which galaxies move over 4 billion years is significant - not to mention the rotation of our galaxy relative to the orientation of the speculated galaxy is huge.
How could they possible track where the neutrino came from given their incredibly sporadic observability for measurement, a spinning earth, a spinning solar system, a spinning arm of the milky way - and 4 billion light years distance?
The article says they notified astronomers of a patch of sky that was a candidate for the source - how could this be correct if our galaxy is spinning?
Again, apologies if this is a dumb question, but thank to Einstein I think everything's relative - especially the orientation of bodies;).
If you're not going to be hybrid (which gives you other opportunities) then you simply DNS load balance between regions AND cloud providers. Easiest way? Containerize.
The complexity comes into play around your databases, but there are a myriad of well known solutions to all of these problems.
There's no other rational way to provide solid service that to spread your risk.
Setup DNS Failover (or load balance if you prefer) Setup in multiple AWS regions. Setup in multiple GCE regions. Optionally setup for Azure If you're really paranoid, have an on premise instance somewhere local to you (or a metapod in house or something similar.)
Containerization makes all of this vastly simpler than in the past.
As many others have mentioned - don't trust anyone to be up all the time, trust that at least one of them will be up all the time.
Ridiculous. While non Republicans (Dems, Libertarians, whatever) are made up of fallible human beings just like Republicans - this story is interesting BECAUSE it's a Democrat acting like a Republican. The majority of Dems are for Net Neutrality in some shape or form that most people would recognize as 'neutrality', the majority of Republicans are against those forms of Net Neutrality.
It's like saying that because there are (something like 4 or 5) pro-choice Republicans that "Republicans are just as beholden to the pro-choice mafia as Democrats." (I'm pro-choice myself by the way, and independent.)
Isn't its methodologies - it's the fundamental premise that it's a solution for everyone and every thing.
If you're building custom solutions for anyone (consumer, SMB, Enterprise) - Agile is likely your friend. Go with Agile.
If you're building a consumer facing web application - Agile is possibly your friend, it depends on how clear a vision you have. If you're not sure - go with Agile.
If you're building a PRODUCT (something you expect to use unchanged - excepting, of course, new additions and features) for the Enterprise - Agile is NOT your friend - but it is most certainly the friend of the integration team who will be deploying your PRODUCT into that enterprise.
Agile is hugely beneficial in the right scenarios - usually a scenario where the people who want something don't know what it is they actually want - they just know they need something fixed.
Agile is hugely detrimental in the wrong scenarios - for example when you have a company that hires 'Agile Product Managers' who are NOT domain experts; ergo, they have no idea what is or is not good for the target market verticals.
The other problem with Agile is that they created (somewhat accidentally) a strawman argument to establish themselves - that if it's not agile it's some kind of horrifying version of 'waterfall.' In other words, a black and white situation that's simply bullshit.
I've run teams where Agile was the only reasonable approach - and it worked well for us. I've run teams where Agile would have been a disaster for us and a waterfall/spiral type of approach worked well for us.
Tools in a toolbox people - just like operating systems, languages, patterns, testing methodologies - et cetera. Right tool, in the right place, at the right time.
Know them all (or as many as you can) - know their strengths and (sometimes more importantly) their weaknesses.
The really interesting time is when you build a startup and as the company matures, so does everything inside of it (technology, operations, organizations, processes, et cetera.) You may spend 90 days head down and very NOT agile, and then at seed round embrace Agile because it's right for you. You may be agile for a year or two until you close an enterprise deal - and then perhaps you re-evaluate using Agile - or modify it.
The point is (that I am very poorly making) - You need to know when Agile, and/or some particular aspect of Agile, is or is not appropriate for you and either embrace it or distance it. Don't fall for marketing hype, or the legions of people who cover their incompetencies (primarily in the world of Product Management) by hiding behind it.
...you trained a multi-layer perceptron on gruesome images, then submitted 'impossible' to classify images to it and it matched up against the only other things it's seen before?
Wow, who could have guessed that would be the outcome...?
...and I don't mean we're all baby boomers, I mean that baby boomers are the same people with the same motivations that I see around me every day. The immediate gratification and status and symbol seeking culture.
Baby boomers just happened to be the generation where it started rolling downhill faster. The current generation in their late 30's and early 40's (as one example) is simply pushing that faster and faster as the gears of our economy and society work more and more loose.
Want someone to blame? There's someone you can - it's YOU.
Out of honest curiosity, does CloudFlare have a reputation for this type of thing or are you exercising your paranoia about potentialities (which in matters like this is a GOOD thing.)
Many companies, including my own, obtain patents for defensive purposes. I have zero interest in attacking someone, but you will find it virtually impossible to obtain seed (much less VC or strategic) funding without a plan for providing even rudimentary protections for your IP - most especially if you're building something for an existing market (where doubtlessly there are existing patents.)
That doesn't absolutely guarantee you wont be sued by some other asshole who uses patents to attack, but it keeps them from trying to make a quick buck off of you, and it makes it significantly less likely.
I care. I'd like a Samsung Gear S3 Frontier that's waterproof - or similar. I'd like to get to the point where I don't carry a phone around to make calls, I just wear my watch. I'd like to get to the point where my watch is my BYOD for basic usage at work/elsewhere with wireless display and wireless keyboard - no dock. Et cetera...
Slashdot Mirror
Weren't there some 'Java processors' a while back that did something like this (terribly)? Certainly an interesting idea; however, everything comes down to cost in the end.
...but take lessons from the warts in the runtime.
Moving their macs off of Intel is a terrible idea as people will then only be purchasing the cheapest possible mac as a compiler host for iOS (if they need to do so.)
I have a MacBook Pro right now because I can triple boot it between Linux, macOS, and Windows - they do this and I'd rather just have one of the new minis sitting on the corner of my test for iOS builds...
Unless that ARM chipset will support x64/x86 instructions (which is technically possible but would be weird.)
Because it's simple to write an app for the watch that doesn't require you to fiddle with it to cheat - which means the teach would have to be able to see all the kids watch faces (which is circumventable by having the accelerometer hide/unhide the ui with arm movement.)
...and we wonder why they live at home until they're 30...
...the only way a social media company can maintain a sense of decency is to be a private company. Publicly traded companies are required, by law no less, to seek ever greater and greater revenue. Google has done an AMAZING job of straddling this line (and sometimes going past it) - but it'll get them eventually too.
...it's an easy way to get good prices, quick and easy delivery (especially if you are a Prime customer), and an excellent return policy.
I'm not sure that same set of factors applies to Whole Paycheck - oops, I mean Whole Foods. A brand that has quality items, but is infamous for being ridiculously overpriced and having a mindset akin to Gwyneth Paltrow (asparagus water for $6 - seriously?)
I'm sure Bezos will get this sorted - but it may take a while and not be an obvious win for Amazon during that period.
To avoid the Agile crowds inevitable "but, again, that's not agile" (even though that's the agile that exists out in the world) - just change the scenario to:
Customer: I want a house at this location...
Development team designs and builds a house.
Every two weeks development checks with customer, customer is happy!
24 Weeks Later
Customer: Hey everybody, here's our new house.
Another Department at the Customer: We need a house we can drive to the lake.
That's the stuff that happens constantly.
You can follow Agile perfectly and yet customer satisfaction is vastly more complicated when you let them design your software. They don't know to tell you that you can't encrypt certain things because it breaks the workflows of tools they didn't even know their company uses? Or that you can't change the formatting of something because it breaks another tool. That you can't augment the data in their system because it now violates GDPR because they don't know wtf GDPR is? Et cetera, ad nausem...
Let's create a fictional company by which we can answer your questions.
CoolSoft has a vision to create a revolutionary product that crushes the 3D content creation pipeline market (think 3DSMAX/MAYA market.) They're going to call this product Cool3D (ugh...) and their primary target are AAA game development teams.
"Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer
through early and continuous delivery
of valuable software."
DUMP - Christ almighty, yes, dump this hideously inappropriate idea. Instead, find world class technical directors that have been living/breathing/eating 3D content pipelines for at least 10 years and who want to create something great - in other words pay for DOMAIN EXPERTISE so you can build the bedrock of your product by relying on their expertise augmented by your own and your teams' synergies.
This one? "Minimally Viable Product" is not a fit concept for a product or technology related company? Really?
NOT AGILE - Classic Agile zealot straw man - as if coming to market as soon as you think you will benefit is something new, LULZ. Of course you build to MVP, people have been doing that for 40 years - this is not an 'agile' thing, only the ubiquity of the term MVP is. It's not a question of keep, it's something you always do, whatever your methodology is (never heard of one that said to over develop for your market...)
"Welcome changing requirements, even late in
development. Agile processes harness change for
the customer's competitive advantage."
DUMP - Late significant changes should require a drastic evaluation of how you came to your, and require a change control process that includes identifying why your highly paid team of domain experts totally messed up. It's possible the reason is legitimate, and if the opportunity cost balances out the loss of market - go ahead and make the changes. PMs shouldn't count on getting bonuses though.
Do you really think your Product Manager is really infallible? That he won't take advantage of knowing the resulting product/technology as it's going on to perfect his own mind and vision? Really?
DUMP - Cool3D only hires PMs who were designers and/or implementors of AAA art content pipelines for 10 years or more. Nobody knows more than they do, that's why you hired them. They can, of course, make mistakes - but it's incredibly unlikely they'll make mistakes that damage your software in the marketplace.
"Deliver working software frequently, from a
couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a
preference to the shorter timescale."
DUMP - Cool3D thinks this is criminally stupid. It's going to take them 12 months minimum to get to better, and that's not counting the suite of tools necessary for multi-platform integration and their SDKs (ios/android/ps4/xbox/pc.)
See MVP. And then, if you can't produce a working piece within two months, rethink very carefully, since you probably don't understand it well enough as to put your time/money on it. If after deep thinking, you really think a given piece of your solution really takes that long, go ahead, on your own peril. These, after all, are just "principles", not Law from God carved in stone.
DUMP - You clearly have only worked with limited types of software and software companies (maybe not even software companies) because you seem to be unable to imagine scenarios that totally invalidate that type of thinking...
"Business people and developers must work
together daily throughout the project."
DUMP - Holy f*** no - this is the single biggest problem with Agile - and it's almost always wanna-be bullshit PMs (who are really poorly trained project managers) who love to use this crap - because they then have ZERO RESPONSIBILITY for the result. They don't need to know shit, just ask the customer. Cool3D wo
...its pervasiveness.
It's a valuable tool IN A TOOLBOX.
If you're NOT an ISV, and you make software solutions for individual customers (which is what the vast majority of software developers find themselves doing) - then Agile is probably the right way for your company to go.
If you ARE an ISV (and Independent Software Vendor makes products, unlike the folks above who work on PROJECTS) then use Agile at your peril.
ISVs that use agile are those that tend to have "Product Managers" who are not actually Product Managers, but are instead "Project Managers" with a penchant for making products up out of virtually thin air ("Oh, a customer wants this, so this must be part of the 'product.')
ISVs that know what they are doing start with Product Managers - because a Product Manager has DOMAIN EXPERTISE that means they actually know what the market wants - not just a single customer. The problem for wanna-be ISVs is that real Product Managers are expensive and difficult to find (but they're out there) due to the Product Management market being swamped with Project Managers calling themselves Product Managers.
If your company has a technology or product related vision - you should not use Agile.
If your company has a market dominance or growth related vision, and you make software tailored to a specific customer's needs - you should probably use Agile.
...and post them all over FaceBook now that they're "free speech"
BTW, it takes a little over 200 million years to completely rotate around the center of our galaxy (i.e. a 'cosmic year')
You seem to be forgetting that the neutrino has been traveling to us for, apparently, 4 billion years. The speed at which galaxies move over 4 billion years is significant - not to mention the rotation of our galaxy relative to the orientation of the speculated galaxy is huge.
How could they possible track where the neutrino came from given their incredibly sporadic observability for measurement, a spinning earth, a spinning solar system, a spinning arm of the milky way - and 4 billion light years distance?
The article says they notified astronomers of a patch of sky that was a candidate for the source - how could this be correct if our galaxy is spinning?
Again, apologies if this is a dumb question, but thank to Einstein I think everything's relative - especially the orientation of bodies ;).
If you're not going to be hybrid (which gives you other opportunities) then you simply DNS load balance between regions AND cloud providers. Easiest way? Containerize.
The complexity comes into play around your databases, but there are a myriad of well known solutions to all of these problems.
There's no other rational way to provide solid service that to spread your risk.
Setup DNS Failover (or load balance if you prefer)
Setup in multiple AWS regions.
Setup in multiple GCE regions.
Optionally setup for Azure
If you're really paranoid, have an on premise instance somewhere local to you (or a metapod in house or something similar.)
Containerization makes all of this vastly simpler than in the past.
As many others have mentioned - don't trust anyone to be up all the time, trust that at least one of them will be up all the time.
Ridiculous. While non Republicans (Dems, Libertarians, whatever) are made up of fallible human beings just like Republicans - this story is interesting BECAUSE it's a Democrat acting like a Republican. The majority of Dems are for Net Neutrality in some shape or form that most people would recognize as 'neutrality', the majority of Republicans are against those forms of Net Neutrality.
It's like saying that because there are (something like 4 or 5) pro-choice Republicans that "Republicans are just as beholden to the pro-choice mafia as Democrats."
(I'm pro-choice myself by the way, and independent.)
Isn't its methodologies - it's the fundamental premise that it's a solution for everyone and every thing.
If you're building custom solutions for anyone (consumer, SMB, Enterprise) - Agile is likely your friend. Go with Agile.
If you're building a consumer facing web application - Agile is possibly your friend, it depends on how clear a vision you have. If you're not sure - go with Agile.
If you're building a PRODUCT (something you expect to use unchanged - excepting, of course, new additions and features) for the Enterprise - Agile is NOT your friend - but it is most certainly the friend of the integration team who will be deploying your PRODUCT into that enterprise.
Agile is hugely beneficial in the right scenarios - usually a scenario where the people who want something don't know what it is they actually want - they just know they need something fixed.
Agile is hugely detrimental in the wrong scenarios - for example when you have a company that hires 'Agile Product Managers' who are NOT domain experts; ergo, they have no idea what is or is not good for the target market verticals.
The other problem with Agile is that they created (somewhat accidentally) a strawman argument to establish themselves - that if it's not agile it's some kind of horrifying version of 'waterfall.' In other words, a black and white situation that's simply bullshit.
I've run teams where Agile was the only reasonable approach - and it worked well for us. I've run teams where Agile would have been a disaster for us and a waterfall/spiral type of approach worked well for us.
Tools in a toolbox people - just like operating systems, languages, patterns, testing methodologies - et cetera. Right tool, in the right place, at the right time.
Know them all (or as many as you can) - know their strengths and (sometimes more importantly) their weaknesses.
The really interesting time is when you build a startup and as the company matures, so does everything inside of it (technology, operations, organizations, processes, et cetera.) You may spend 90 days head down and very NOT agile, and then at seed round embrace Agile because it's right for you. You may be agile for a year or two until you close an enterprise deal - and then perhaps you re-evaluate using Agile - or modify it.
The point is (that I am very poorly making) - You need to know when Agile, and/or some particular aspect of Agile, is or is not appropriate for you and either embrace it or distance it. Don't fall for marketing hype, or the legions of people who cover their incompetencies (primarily in the world of Product Management) by hiding behind it.
...you trained a multi-layer perceptron on gruesome images, then submitted 'impossible' to classify images to it and it matched up against the only other things it's seen before?
Wow, who could have guessed that would be the outcome...?
...and I don't mean we're all baby boomers, I mean that baby boomers are the same people with the same motivations that I see around me every day. The immediate gratification and status and symbol seeking culture.
Baby boomers just happened to be the generation where it started rolling downhill faster. The current generation in their late 30's and early 40's (as one example) is simply pushing that faster and faster as the gears of our economy and society work more and more loose.
Want someone to blame? There's someone you can - it's YOU.
I thought they were a 'freemium' model; ergo, they don't need to make money off their free customers...
Out of honest curiosity, does CloudFlare have a reputation for this type of thing or are you exercising your paranoia about potentialities (which in matters like this is a GOOD thing.)
Many companies, including my own, obtain patents for defensive purposes. I have zero interest in attacking someone, but you will find it virtually impossible to obtain seed (much less VC or strategic) funding without a plan for providing even rudimentary protections for your IP - most especially if you're building something for an existing market (where doubtlessly there are existing patents.)
That doesn't absolutely guarantee you wont be sued by some other asshole who uses patents to attack, but it keeps them from trying to make a quick buck off of you, and it makes it significantly less likely.
Isn't this what a DMCA takedown request is for?
...whatever person posted it to Twitter?
I care. I'd like a Samsung Gear S3 Frontier that's waterproof - or similar. I'd like to get to the point where I don't carry a phone around to make calls, I just wear my watch. I'd like to get to the point where my watch is my BYOD for basic usage at work/elsewhere with wireless display and wireless keyboard - no dock. Et cetera...
Oxford is not a leftist institution, it's more conservative than Cambridge and Cambridge isn't some hippie hotbed of progressive thinking either...