The resolved ones get removed so the harder and harder notes remain. The main obstacle is usully that someone needs to actually go to the location, take notes and edit the map. It’s a lot of work.
The resolved ones get removed so the harder and harder notes remain. The main obstacle is usully that someone needs to actually go to the location, take notes and edit the map. It’s a lot of work.
No thanks. It’s way more fun to be part of the decision process. If a manager can anticipate all of the requirements and quirks of the project before it even starts, it’s probably going to be a really boring, vanilla project at which point it’s probably just better to but the software.ä somewhere else.
Creating something new is an art in itself. Why would you not want to be a part of that?
Also: Isn’t it cheating to compare the two approaches when one of them is defined as having all the planning “outside” of the project scope? I would bet that the statistics in this report disregard ll those projects that died in the planning phase, leaving only the almost completed, easy project to succeed at a high rate.
It would be interesting to also compare the time/resources spent before each project died. My hunch is that for failed agile project, less total investment has been made before killing it off, as compared to front loading all of that project planning before the decision is made not to continue.
Complementary to this, I also think that Agile can have a tendency to keep alive projects that should have failed on the planning stage. “We do things not because they are easy, but we thought they would be easy”. Underestimating happens for all project but for Agile, there should be a higher tendency to keep going because “we’re almost done”, forever.
Plus, the news of this would already be priced into the stock, so if anything the price is already low and these companies would need to pivot their business (which would increase the value again) or die (which would lower the price marginally, to zero). Either way, shorting is a bad strategy in this case.
Btw, how do I embed images? Do I have to download the image first?
I tried finding an image where René isn’t smiling. It’s hard.
Edit:
.
Nice. Just in case you weren’t joking: it’s from the movie The Mummy.
I think the point is that if it can be sabotaged by a central authority, it sucks. Both Apple and Google suck.
That’s not how Apple works at all. They have had iMessage for a long while now and refuse to open up the technology. They want to monopolize the communications so that they can keep controlling it.
My guess is they are just trying to sabotage any attempts at an open standard.
What I mean is that it might not be so simple as not giving them access to it if other institutions persist in forcing it on them.
In Sweden, it was mandatory for kindergartens to have “digital learning tools” up until a year ago. I wonder who came up with that brilliant idea.
Heart disease causes you to eat more salt? Shit.
But it actually makes sense with technology. If you need help, you want there to be a large community and corpus of knowledge to draw from.
Music is getting worse though. Spotify is bloating all searches with stuff you don’t want. The “Artist top songs” is rarely the most popular songs and is limited to 10 song. In the beginning you could list all the songs from an artist and sort it on “Plays”.
Join the Factiorio cult
I think Americans have bigger issues to deal with than chargers or net neutrality (e.g. playing world police, or starving children, abortion laws). Thankfully the EU can step up.
Yes speaker. On the bus. On the subway. On the street. In a cafe.
This doesn’t make sense because they have the monopoly on video now. By monetizing a bit they are creating a a huge demand for a competitor, risking their monopoly.
Is it less rape it you use a condom? What if you ask her if she’s on the pill and trust her?
That’s not true at all, mathematically. That’s why we have a measurement for co-variance or correlation. If two dimensions are 100 correlation, they can most definitely be reduced to one.