Readit News(I'm referring to how this comment, objecting to the other comments as unduly negative, has been upvoted to the top of the thread.)
(p.s. this is not a criticism!)
What's the point? You can't fix them anyway
Edit. For a condition which supposedly affects only a few percent, the reaction to this article here and on Twitter contains a suspiciously high rate of people being surprised to find out they've got this and shocked that everyone else hasn't.
The more I read about this the more I feel that the variety in reported inner experience is more to do with the variety in reporting than of the experience itself.
I find myself able to relate to descriptions from both sufferers and non sufferers alike, but then again could often take extracts from each and be hard pressed to say who was claiming to be which.
(Edit: word choice)
On the surface the ability of banks to steal from folks seems like largely a different type of power than what the economist is talking about, which is the ability of metrics (and the people who define them) to shape human behavior. But maybe it just looks that way because it's difficult or impossible to really perceive the full extent of how living in a non-DLT world is affecting our behavior.
We don't live in a 'non-DLT world though, DLT exists in this world right?
Sorry I agreed with your previous comment and then the mention of DLT lost me so I'm trying to understand the context I'm missing.
(Edit: spelling)
This is particularly candid moment I happen to find: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGjvFyRk_4I&feature=youtu.be...
edit: I wasn't aware of the negative opinions regarding his ego, but from listening to this meeting I can say they aren't unsubstantiated!
There are no personal attacks, just critiques on the thought process, output and plan (or lack of planning), all of that is fair game. The dev(?) even admits at ~25:40 that they should be taking notes and fixing what is pointed out.
Everyone eventually dies alone, but do not let that sadden you. A full life is measured in the depths of sorrow from that truth, not in avoiding it.
Open plans are much better than cubicles. The transition to open plans and standing desks has been a boon for social interaction in teams, more role-crossover, and just more physical movement in general.
Office Space is a timeless and incredible film, but one aspect of it that seems almost like fantasy is the idea that people primarily working on software might sit down in cramped cubicles and prefer fake privacy to real social interaction.
edit: Look, I know that some people like cubicles. If you do, that's fine. But if you actually seriously like small, cramped, stuffed cubicles in Office Space (or The Matrix) - which absolutely existed in the late 90s and early 2000s in IT and seem to have largely disappeared - I'd really like to hear why. If you do like cubicles: how do you move? Do you really have the discipline to get up and walk around every once in a while? Or do you end up having much less body movement than open plan participants?
Be careful with this. Something I've seen at least a few times, and it's always gone badly...
1. A manager (or exec) has real experts on their staff telling them one thing.
2. The manager not only doesn't know enough about the domain, but they don't know how good their own people are.
3. The manager goes and consults someone outside who they think is more expert (e.g., someone they know who worked for a company that pays better, or who is, say, a professor of what the manager thinks is the domain).
4. The outside 'expert' makes some small offhand remark without realizing how big a question it was, or shoots off their mouth without having hardly any accurate information about the actual situation. (ProTip: Professional analysis is different thing than casual recreational chattering on HN.)
5. Manager comes back and overrides the team, based on what the outside 'expert' said.
6. Bad decision is implemented, morale is destroyed, the good people leave, and (AFAIK) that manager doesn't get referrals from the people who left.
Trust. Easily lost, hard to win and all that. If you don't actually trust those you manage you're not really operating at your best, let alone bringing out the best of your team.
It's a humbling experience tbh, requires putting your faith of success in other people, which in my experience is harder to teach (and is often learned through tough failures) than any kind of computer skills.