the point is to define components that correspond to specific areas of the business domain.
If people were capable of that, they wouldn't be in the problem to begin with. Their system would already be suitably modular.
So you're basically saying: they can't fix it because if they could they wouldn't have to fix it. So from the get go you're already in patch mode. That's the best way to set yourself up for failure.
Here's the key to improving things: you don't compromise when you're at the whiteboard. You compromise once you have a clear picture of where you want to get and once you know that the gap between your current state and the desired state is too large for your current resources. And even then you don't change the goal, you just set a realistic roadmap.
Rolling it out in microservices just means some have issues and others not, making it more confusing and less cohesive.
I don't think you understand what a microservice is.
The point is not to randomly package web services; the point is to define components that correspond to specific areas of the business domain. That way, when you upgrade or deploy a specific microservice, you know exactly what part of the business you're impacting, and this makes governance a lot easier. Instead of having a handful of managers snoozing in CAB meetings and rubberstamping changes that are not clear, you can get the thumbs up from the right people and leave the rest alone.
This is by far the easiest way to avoid rogue or hidden commits making their way to production. And microservices are not a "fad", they're the latest iteration of a concept that's been around for quite a while (SOA) and that just needed a bit of further thinking.
Stop guessing stuff. A "good chunk" is NOT on research and patents. Of the $2.8B loss, a bit over $2.6B went to drivers. Uber is trying to kill the competition by subsidizing their drivers with investors money.
Even if it was to work, it's still not worth it.
Do the math. Average cab fare: $14. In NYC there's about 240 millions taxi trips per year. So roughly. that's a revenue of $3.4B. About half of it goes to car expenses (acquisition, fuel, repairs, etc). The other half goes to drivers.
On a national scale, the revenue is around $11B. This means that if Uber was to take over 100% of the taxi market and replace those 250,000 cars with self-driving cars (that don't exist yet) that are not more expensive than existing non-self-driving cars, they would stand to make an annual profit equivalent to what Facebook makes in profit every quarter. And they start with a huge debt of almost $10B.
There's no money in that business. Costs are too high.
When people are worried about changes in "many layers of the stack", it's usually a good time to re-architect the system and build microservices. Basically, you get the entire stack in every microservice and you stop worrying about ripple effects; you upgrade or troubleshoot things at a much smaller scale.
That wouldn't even surprise me. Making all kinds of noise about their money problems to position themselves for an acquisition by a company that has the means to make this business work.
But really I don't think it's going to happen. Google isn't buying companies like they used to, and the profit margin on transportation is razor thin, so it would be unlikely that a lot of companies would be interested to take on the massive debt.
isn't a lot of money given what's at stake. If Uber pulls off what they're trying to do they'll become the defacto transportation system for basically the entire modern world.
Uber is losing money on every single ride. That's where the $2.8B went last year: paying drivers. If that money-losing model become a "defacto" transportation system for the entire modern world, it will mean that the bulk of the GDP will be spent on paying drivers to move people around. This is so fucking absurd I really don't get how educated people can even consider that as a serious possibility. The numbers just don't add up.
There's only 2 way Uber can turn a profit: 1) increase their prices to a point where cabs are a lot cheaper 2) use self-driving cars that are cheap to build and operate, and find someone to subsidize production on a massive scale
If they were anywhere near a breakthrough with their self-driving cars, things would be different. But they're not. They've used the worst possible strategy for their business: acquire shitloads of customers long before they can be monetized. They started on that path at a time when it was all the rage in Silicon Valley (case in point: Twitter). But that's not going to work. Tesla, Amazon and Google are all in a much better position to take over this market if it ever becomes cost-effective because they will have the technology to make it happen. Uber only has an app that a handful of RoR retarded programmers could recreate in a week.
All things considered, $2.8B USD isn't a whole lot.
Are you trying to be cool by association, dropping big numbers like that, or are you just terrible at math? $2.8 is a whole lot of money.
If Uber continues to succeed, they will be among giants such as Delta Air Lines and Greyhound but in a more local realm.
Uber has lost more money in 2016 than the entire revenue of Greyhound. Two more years of such losses and Uber will have lost more money than the entire fleet, equipments and offices of Delta are worth.
These guys are WAY more efficient than the public sector transit solutions and are more efficient than the government-sponsored Taxi Cartels. Uber only needs to not be shut down to grow and succeed.
No they're not. The bulk of the $2.8 loss is money paid to the drivers by Uber. Their business model is not sustainable unless they figure out a way to make self-driving cars work. Knowing the current state of technology, it's unlikely to happen before investors pull the plug.
a self-drive feature that won't self drive if you are doing anything but going through the exact motions of driving strikes me as almost completely useless.
Like with that Buffalo newspaper Warren Buffet bought. When they installed folding machines, because of unions they had to keep the people who used to fold newspapers, so those people were making empty gestures in the air as the newspapers went by on the conveyor belt.
Ruby is better at string manipulation and unix integration than any other language, including Perl.
No it's not. Just because *you* can't do string manipulation in other languages doesn't mean those languages are not as good as ruby. It just means you're a one-trick pony.
There are many languages I personally don't like, such as Go, Scala or C++. But I can see why someone would choose one of those for a specific project, because they each have specific advantages.
But there is no aspect of ruby that another language isn't better at. Even for the "casual programmer" niche Python is much better.
And don't get me started on RoR. it's been a long time since I've heard of RoR projects in contexts other than getting rid of them and rewriting them in something that works. Whoever invented ruby and RoR owes the IT world billions of dollars wasted on nightmarish maintenance and abysmal performance.
One time I was on an Agile project where the Scrum Master was a PM and the Backlog was a MS-Project file (because he needed "actuals", not just burndown...). The Sprint Planning meeting was people telling him how long such or such task would take so he could adjust his Gantt chart but most of the time he would suggest a new number to make tasks fit his deadlines.
It was a big team and the daily Scrum meeting was done sitting down in a big conference room and people answering one by one the questions asked by the Scrum Master. It was a long hour, we used to call it going to church.
There was even a Kanban board but it had swimlanes named after top-level WBS.
And somehow, that guy (and that company) promote their Agile experience.
Regardless of your intent, your statement insults both drafted and enlisted.
No they don't, and there's no point in you in being offended on their behalf. Veterans are not fragile children that must be protected from possibly controversial discussions, they're normal people who happened to have been to war. If a veteran comes here and start using his military background to support his accusation of cowardice aimed at other users, he's opening the door to questioning his own courage. This is not disrespectful of military service, don't SJW-ize it.
There is no agile method I'm aware of where business users are part of thr sprint planning. What would be the point if that!?
This is the role called "the Product Owner". That person is the link between the product and the users, and if you don't have one in your team, you're not doing Agile.
In my experience, when people ask why a Product Owner should attend sprint planning meetings, it's because they're not doing agile, they're pretending to.
I laugh when I hear twerps like you talking shit you absolutely do not and never will have the courage to back up
That's not a philosophical argument. That's someone using his military background as a trump card to shut the other person up. It shows neither bravery or wisdom, it's a pissing contest pure and simple, and if the person decides to use the fact that he was drafted as evidence of his courage, it's more than fair game to challenge it.
I guess "The Pragmatic Programmer" is one book I'll never buy.
Ruby is the Toyota Corolla of programming languages. It isn't especially well-suited for any specific task; it doesn't scale well, it doesn't optimize well, it has none of the advantages of similar languages like Python or Groovy. I see no reason why someone who doesn't already know ruby would find it useful to learn it. It's as pointless as Pascal.
Based on my experience, it is. I haven't seen a lot of truly agile project succeed. I've seen a lot of "fragile" and a lot of cargo cult agile ("we do stand-up meetings and we have a JIRA backlog so we're agile") and those are indicators of a fad.
I think the true value of agile has been to break the monoculture of MS-Project thinking and that's a good thing. But I don't think it has achieved much in organizations that have larger teams; those still consistently fail to deliver projects.
Says the guy who believes in studies sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry.
Did you take a minute to check the link? This study was done at Virginia Tech.
This work was supported by the Medical Informatics and Systems Division director's fund at Virginia Bioinformatics Institute. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Slashdot Mirror
Your ignorance is astounding and frightening.
Amusing, coming from someone who claims to know "the most widely deployed OS in the universe".
Prove it. (And then make sure to share your data with NASA).
the point is to define components that correspond to specific areas of the business domain.
If people were capable of that, they wouldn't be in the problem to begin with. Their system would already be suitably modular.
So you're basically saying: they can't fix it because if they could they wouldn't have to fix it. So from the get go you're already in patch mode. That's the best way to set yourself up for failure.
Here's the key to improving things: you don't compromise when you're at the whiteboard. You compromise once you have a clear picture of where you want to get and once you know that the gap between your current state and the desired state is too large for your current resources. And even then you don't change the goal, you just set a realistic roadmap.
Rolling it out in microservices just means some have issues and others not, making it more confusing and less cohesive.
I don't think you understand what a microservice is.
The point is not to randomly package web services; the point is to define components that correspond to specific areas of the business domain. That way, when you upgrade or deploy a specific microservice, you know exactly what part of the business you're impacting, and this makes governance a lot easier. Instead of having a handful of managers snoozing in CAB meetings and rubberstamping changes that are not clear, you can get the thumbs up from the right people and leave the rest alone.
This is by far the easiest way to avoid rogue or hidden commits making their way to production. And microservices are not a "fad", they're the latest iteration of a concept that's been around for quite a while (SOA) and that just needed a bit of further thinking.
You really should read that book, it's worth it.
Stop guessing stuff. A "good chunk" is NOT on research and patents. Of the $2.8B loss, a bit over $2.6B went to drivers. Uber is trying to kill the competition by subsidizing their drivers with investors money.
Even if it was to work, it's still not worth it.
Do the math. Average cab fare: $14. In NYC there's about 240 millions taxi trips per year. So roughly. that's a revenue of $3.4B. About half of it goes to car expenses (acquisition, fuel, repairs, etc). The other half goes to drivers.
On a national scale, the revenue is around $11B. This means that if Uber was to take over 100% of the taxi market and replace those 250,000 cars with self-driving cars (that don't exist yet) that are not more expensive than existing non-self-driving cars, they would stand to make an annual profit equivalent to what Facebook makes in profit every quarter. And they start with a huge debt of almost $10B.
There's no money in that business. Costs are too high.
When people are worried about changes in "many layers of the stack", it's usually a good time to re-architect the system and build microservices. Basically, you get the entire stack in every microservice and you stop worrying about ripple effects; you upgrade or troubleshoot things at a much smaller scale.
I highly recommend this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Buildin...
It explains how to achieve this, including how to deal with the tough parts like the database layer.
That wouldn't even surprise me. Making all kinds of noise about their money problems to position themselves for an acquisition by a company that has the means to make this business work.
But really I don't think it's going to happen. Google isn't buying companies like they used to, and the profit margin on transportation is razor thin, so it would be unlikely that a lot of companies would be interested to take on the massive debt.
Drivers. Basically Uber is spending $1.55 for every $1 people pay for their ride.
https://techcrunch.com/2016/12...
isn't a lot of money given what's at stake. If Uber pulls off what they're trying to do they'll become the defacto transportation system for basically the entire modern world.
Uber is losing money on every single ride. That's where the $2.8B went last year: paying drivers. If that money-losing model become a "defacto" transportation system for the entire modern world, it will mean that the bulk of the GDP will be spent on paying drivers to move people around. This is so fucking absurd I really don't get how educated people can even consider that as a serious possibility. The numbers just don't add up.
There's only 2 way Uber can turn a profit:
1) increase their prices to a point where cabs are a lot cheaper
2) use self-driving cars that are cheap to build and operate, and find someone to subsidize production on a massive scale
If they were anywhere near a breakthrough with their self-driving cars, things would be different. But they're not. They've used the worst possible strategy for their business: acquire shitloads of customers long before they can be monetized. They started on that path at a time when it was all the rage in Silicon Valley (case in point: Twitter). But that's not going to work. Tesla, Amazon and Google are all in a much better position to take over this market if it ever becomes cost-effective because they will have the technology to make it happen. Uber only has an app that a handful of RoR retarded programmers could recreate in a week.
All things considered, $2.8B USD isn't a whole lot.
Are you trying to be cool by association, dropping big numbers like that, or are you just terrible at math? $2.8 is a whole lot of money.
If Uber continues to succeed, they will be among giants such as Delta Air Lines and Greyhound but in a more local realm.
Uber has lost more money in 2016 than the entire revenue of Greyhound. Two more years of such losses and Uber will have lost more money than the entire fleet, equipments and offices of Delta are worth.
These guys are WAY more efficient than the public sector transit solutions and are more efficient than the government-sponsored Taxi Cartels. Uber only needs to not be shut down to grow and succeed.
No they're not. The bulk of the $2.8 loss is money paid to the drivers by Uber. Their business model is not sustainable unless they figure out a way to make self-driving cars work. Knowing the current state of technology, it's unlikely to happen before investors pull the plug.
a self-drive feature that won't self drive if you are doing anything but going through the exact motions of driving strikes me as almost completely useless.
Like with that Buffalo newspaper Warren Buffet bought. When they installed folding machines, because of unions they had to keep the people who used to fold newspapers, so those people were making empty gestures in the air as the newspapers went by on the conveyor belt.
the most widely deployed OS in the universe
You're really good at making unsupported claims.
Ruby is better at string manipulation and unix integration than any other language, including Perl.
No it's not. Just because *you* can't do string manipulation in other languages doesn't mean those languages are not as good as ruby. It just means you're a one-trick pony.
There are many languages I personally don't like, such as Go, Scala or C++. But I can see why someone would choose one of those for a specific project, because they each have specific advantages.
But there is no aspect of ruby that another language isn't better at. Even for the "casual programmer" niche Python is much better.
And don't get me started on RoR. it's been a long time since I've heard of RoR projects in contexts other than getting rid of them and rewriting them in something that works. Whoever invented ruby and RoR owes the IT world billions of dollars wasted on nightmarish maintenance and abysmal performance.
Ruby is objectively superior to both Python and Groovy
You forgot to put a smiley at the end of your statement so people could tell you're joking and not being stupid.
One time I was on an Agile project where the Scrum Master was a PM and the Backlog was a MS-Project file (because he needed "actuals", not just burndown...). The Sprint Planning meeting was people telling him how long such or such task would take so he could adjust his Gantt chart but most of the time he would suggest a new number to make tasks fit his deadlines.
It was a big team and the daily Scrum meeting was done sitting down in a big conference room and people answering one by one the questions asked by the Scrum Master. It was a long hour, we used to call it going to church.
There was even a Kanban board but it had swimlanes named after top-level WBS.
And somehow, that guy (and that company) promote their Agile experience.
Regardless of your intent, your statement insults both drafted and enlisted.
No they don't, and there's no point in you in being offended on their behalf. Veterans are not fragile children that must be protected from possibly controversial discussions, they're normal people who happened to have been to war. If a veteran comes here and start using his military background to support his accusation of cowardice aimed at other users, he's opening the door to questioning his own courage. This is not disrespectful of military service, don't SJW-ize it.
There is no agile method I'm aware of where business users are part of thr sprint planning.
What would be the point if that!?
This is the role called "the Product Owner". That person is the link between the product and the users, and if you don't have one in your team, you're not doing Agile.
In my experience, when people ask why a Product Owner should attend sprint planning meetings, it's because they're not doing agile, they're pretending to.
Maybe. But the guy said this:
I laugh when I hear twerps like you talking shit you absolutely do not and never will have the courage to back up
That's not a philosophical argument. That's someone using his military background as a trump card to shut the other person up. It shows neither bravery or wisdom, it's a pissing contest pure and simple, and if the person decides to use the fact that he was drafted as evidence of his courage, it's more than fair game to challenge it.
My go-to languages are still Ruby for most things
I guess "The Pragmatic Programmer" is one book I'll never buy.
Ruby is the Toyota Corolla of programming languages. It isn't especially well-suited for any specific task; it doesn't scale well, it doesn't optimize well, it has none of the advantages of similar languages like Python or Groovy. I see no reason why someone who doesn't already know ruby would find it useful to learn it. It's as pointless as Pascal.
It's way off topic, but why do you (seem) to hate Agile so much? We are a Scrum shop, and frankly it seems super great...
Are you truly Agile, or are you simply using Scrum techniques to manage a backlog of features?
Do you have business users as part of your sprint planning meetings? Do they perform acceptance tests at the end of each sprint? Etc.
Being Agile is more tedious than it sounds.
Agile, a fad since 2001.
Based on my experience, it is. I haven't seen a lot of truly agile project succeed. I've seen a lot of "fragile" and a lot of cargo cult agile ("we do stand-up meetings and we have a JIRA backlog so we're agile") and those are indicators of a fad.
I think the true value of agile has been to break the monoculture of MS-Project thinking and that's a good thing. But I don't think it has achieved much in organizations that have larger teams; those still consistently fail to deliver projects.
Cherry picking results to match your confirmation bias doesn't mean you're right.
The question here was not "is it right", it was "is it a study sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry".
and obviously knows more about courage than you since you lack even the most basic critical thinking capability
Critical thinking is the opposite of that emotional outburst you're making.
When you say that people who didn't run from the draft showed courage, you're insulting people who volunteered.
There's some very vested interest in keeping us hooked on these things.
There's also some opposition to that, like in France where they banned work email after 6pm.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...
They could do like Marissa Mayer and rent people to take care of their kids, even though they work 10 feet from them.
Says the guy who believes in studies sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry.
Did you take a minute to check the link? This study was done at Virginia Tech.
This work was supported by the Medical Informatics and Systems Division director's fund at Virginia Bioinformatics Institute. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.