If people can only ever get into the goldilocks 'not too strict, not too loose zone' 1% of the time, then it the process is by default not fit for purpose in almost any circumstance.
Likely the 1% of the time it works is the rare case that you have a small and exceptional team working together, in which case the project management methodology is unlikely the reason they are working well.
You don't have to, just find what works for your team and use it. It may not be perfect or exactly how it is supposed to be but if it works then use it.
To defend management a little bit, these massive companies have existed through many eras of technology with many different managers. They work with many external companies in many different ways. They have an exceptionally complex, but functioning tech stack, that allows all of these many dependencies to function together. Lastly, they are successful as they are!
It's not usually an issue of immaturity, it's just really hard. To make things worse, often people don't really want to do the work because literally any other data engineering job would probably be more enjoyable.
Simplifying the tech stack would probably require simplifying their business operations, which probably means less revenue.
Starting over is often literally not possible because there are so many interconnected systems that aren't all necessarily owned by the company trying to make the decision...
Nike's success in the marketplace has approximately zero to do with their tech stack. That's why their tech literacy is so bad. It just doesn't matter to their business.
This is the most succinct point in defence of management really. Tech stack has no impact on business results, so quite rightly they don't make it a priority to 'fix' it.
> Simplifying the tech stack would probably require simplifying their business operations, which probably means less revenue.
I don't understand this perspective. Simplifying the tech stack might mean taking multiple services in multiple languages, and deprecating some in favor of migrating that functionality to the most maintainable codebase. This shouldn't mean "simplifying their business operations", or affecting their business operations in any way.
I agree there probably are areas were they can simplify with no impact to operations.
But I would imagine there are a lot of pieces of apparent cruft hanging around that is actually there because if you remove it things break.
Maybe a large retailer that you rely on requires an integration with an old version of SAP, and then a logistics partner only provides files over FTP, and you need to use OCR to retrieve any data from the files they're sending.
Management can't just mandate that you will 'simplify the tech stack'. Even refactoring smaller parts of the tech stack is often a pretty massive job.
I don't have any experience building an open-source community, but I do have a lot of experience in marketing. With that context, here's some thoughts – hopefully they're helpful, if they're not, I guess you can just ignore them.
1. Link everything together. If I'm on your github it should be obvious how I can get to your discord/slack/website/forum and vice versa, don't make me work for it.
2. Build a regular rhythm to your comms/emails etc. If people opt-in to hearing from you, you need to hold up your end of the deal and commit to regular, quality updates. This will become the heartbeat of the community.
3. Pick 1 or 2 'brand' assets. Try to make them distinct, and then use them consistently everywhere. Your logo is probably a good one, but some kind of color combination/sound/flair should be distinctively you. Use these assets everywhere so that it becomes a visual shortcut in people's brains.
Ultimately, keep it simple, and just start. Don't overthink everything, you can always pivot and change as you move forward.
Thank you so much! I got it written down, and we will check account links separately. I understand about the updates. I heard that regular updates are important for GitHub also, to know which projects are alive and which are dead. Interesting, thanks!
I worked in a large company that had a remote desktop instance with 256gb ram running a PG instance that analysts would log in to to do analysis. I used to think it was a joke of setup for such a large company.
I later moved to a company with a fairly sophisticated setup with Databricks. While Databricks offered some QoL improvements, it didn't magically make all my queries run quickly, and it didn't allow me anything that I couldn't have done on the remote desktop setup.
I wonder if it's fair to revise this to 'your data set fits on NVME drives' these days. Astonishing how fast and how much storage you can get these days.
Based on a very brief search: Samsung's fastest NVME drives [0] could maybe keep up with the slowest DDR2 [1]. DDR5 is several orders of magnitude faster than both [2]. Maybe in a decade you can hit 2008 speeds, but I wouldn't consider updating the phrase before then (and probably not after, either).
I think the point is that if it fits on a single drive, you can still get away with a much simpler solution (like a traditional SQL database) than any kind of "big data" stack.
I always heard it as "if the database index fits in the RAM of a single machine, it's not big data". The reason being that this makes random access fast. You always know where a piece of data is.
Once the index is too big to have in one place, thing get more complicated.
980 is an M.2 drive, PCIe 3.0 x4, 3 years old, up to 3500MB/s sequential read.
You want something like PM1735: PCIe 4.0 x8, up to 8000 MB/s sequential read.
And while DDR5 is surely faster the question is what the data access patterns are there.
In almost all cases (ie mix of random access, occasional sequential reads) just reading from the NVMe drive would be faster than loading to RAM and reading from there. In some cases you would spend more time processing the data than reading it.
PS all these RAM bandwidth rates are good for the sequential access, as you go random access the bandwidth drops.
Several gigabytes per second, plus RAM caching, is probably enough though. Latency can be very important, but there exist some very low latency enterprise flash drives.
As a New Zealander that travels a bit, even with modern technology I can say that it's bloody hard to get to and from NZ (read: it's close to nothing).
Incredibly impressive that people were able to find NZ on boats. I can hardly navigate a few streets without GPS.
I used Flock but it was no better than FireFox - the skin/theming was nice though.
It was another VC funded project that nowhere when it came how do you actually make money , that said I hope them the best - Firefox showed us the way to building a better web browser so maybe who knows.
It was definitely fun when it worked! It's a shame Firefox (well, Gecko) isn't nearly as repackageable/embeddable as it used to be. Alternative gecko browsers like Camino were so good.
In some ways that makes it worse. When Hamas abuses the population we can at least say that the majority of people have never had a chance to vote for anyone else. In contrast the Israelis chose Bibi. This is what the majority of the population wants.
Isn't there some form of governance that chose Hamas as leaders? I might not understand the distinction from how Gaza is governed vs. Israel though.
I'm also curious if the motivation for abuses as call it matters. I think there was some significant event that Hamas coordinated that then prompted a response from Israel?
There was an election eighteen years ago in 2006; Hamas won a plurality but not a majority. So most Palestinians didn't vote for them then, and since then none have. Most Palestinians alive today weren't old enough, or even alive, to have voted in 2006.
So you really can't call Hamas's rule democratic in any meaningful sense.
A country doesn't become a dictatorship simply because not everyone is allowed to vote in elections. The US used to require land ownership to vote, then women weren't able to vote, and even now felons can't vote (at least in some states). None of those things meant that the US was or is a dictatorship.
I'm not saying "everything is just fine over in Israel". But the original context was about not trading with dictatorships, which Israel is not.
Yes, just like apartheid SA had free and fair elections.
Palestinians have no rights in their homeland, Israel invaded it and every time they take more land they simply claim the original occupants aren’t part of the country their home is/was in.
There's a lot to say about Israel, but what you said isn't true.
Israel didn't "invade" the land. Jews moved into the land legally, and then the rulers of the land at the time gave it to the UN to recommend what to do with it, given that there were two peoples there. The UN recommended splitting it into two parts, one for each people (the Arabs and the Jews). The Jews agreed to this plan, the Arabs didn't. The Jews then declared independence, and other Arab countries launched a war on Israel, urging the current Arab inhabitants of that land to flee, and return when the land is taken away from the Jews.
Some of the original Arab inhabitants fled (there are massive debates on whether they fled because of the urging of the Arab leaders, or out of fear). When Israel won the war, these original inhabitants were unable to return.
Other Arab inhabitants of that land stayed, and they and their descendants are now Israeli citizens, that have full rights and can vote just like any other citizen (Arab Israelis make up 20% of Israel).
So:
> Palestinians have no rights in their homeland,
Not true. 20% of Israeli citizens are Palestinians.
> Israel invaded [their homeland]
No, Israel didn't exist, and the Jews who came to Palestine weren't "invading" anything, they arrived legally for the most part (and many were turned away, even during the Holocaust, and ended up dying).
The Zionists conspired to take over Palestine since before they even set foot in the middle east. Your historical account is carefully crafted propaganda to make it seem like the Zionists didn't simply bully their way into Palestine, but that is exactly what they did and no amount of biased twisting of facts will ever be able to explain how the Palestinians who are the natives of that land, ended up landless and stateless, whereas the Zionists stemming from foreign European and Middle Eastern countries ended up with a fully recognized state.
Your forgot to mention the Zionist terrorism, the Zionist pogroms and massacres, the very biased western diplomats involved in splitting a land that was not theirs, and the fact that neither the Turks nor the Brits had any legitimacy over Palestine.
The Palestinians did nothing wrong, but they ended up the victim of a bunch of fanatical ethnonationalists who wanted to build a Jewish state on their land.
> Israel didn't "invade" the land. Jews moved into the land legally, and then the rulers of the land at the time gave it to the UN to recommend what to do with it, given that there were two peoples there.
Right, and remember, slave owners didn't kidnap people, slaves were legal property.
Moreover, there were not two people living there, there were the people who had been living there for thousands of years, who had been claimed by Britain (though not colonized). Claiming there were "two people" is revisionist BS.
> The UN recommended splitting it into two parts, one for each people (the Arabs and the Jews). The Jews agreed to this plan, the Arabs didn't.
That is, the government sold half your home to a stranger, they agreed to this, you however unreasonably did not. What an asshole you are.
> The Jews then declared independence, and other Arab countries launched a war on Israel, urging the current Arab inhabitants of that land to flee, and return when the land is taken away from the Jews.
The jews, who just moved into a country, and seized a pile of land and property from the occupants of that country without the occupants consent "declare independence", starting a war. Civilians flee there home so as to not be killed, these are called normally called refugees, but in this case they are Palestinians which Israel has established are not people. When the fighting ends, the refugees returned to their homes to find that the Israeli government had now given their homes to yet more settlers. Opposing that is a criminal offense.
I don't know about you but this sure as shit sounds like their homes were illegally invaded. To back up my assessment: Israel has never stopped doing this, and it has been found to be explicitly illegal every single time it has gone to court.
> Arab Israelis make up 20% of Israel
Right, except 100% of Israel is Palestine, and the overwhelming proportion of the Palestinian population has been forced into ghettos that are not considered part of Israel and have no voting rights in Israel, despite Israel having near total control of all food, water, medical care, ...
You're playing BS semantic games, and by your logic SA could have claimed to not be apartheid by just saying that the black South Africans were part of a "different" country that just happened to significantly overlap .. South Africa.
I want to be absolutely clear, these BS arguments about Israel not be a colonial invader are no different from claiming that there was nothing illegal when the US government sold the land of native Americans to colonists, and allowed them to eradicate those inhabitants.
I get it, you're pro-Israel, and believe the Palestinians don't have any rights to their own homeland, but pretending that Israel is not an invading colony, and pretending Palestinians have equal rights to Israelis (or lets be honest, Israeli jews - the discrimination against muslims and even arabic jews in Israel is well documented - is objectively false. Just say you don't believe Palestinians are people so didn't have any right to their homeland.
Prior to British Mandatory Palestine, everyone living in the territory you're talking about was a subject of the Ottoman empire; the British --- certainly not the heroes of this story --- didn't steal any self-determination from the people there, because none existed.
I don't see the commenter you're replying to saying that Palestinians don't have any rights to their own homeland, for what it's worth.
Always useful to keep in mind that this is an immensely complicated struggle, not well captured by any slogan or argument that fits in an HN comment, and that it is extraordinarily unlikely that we're going to resolve it on HN at all.
You're both great commenters on this site. If you're at an impasse over this, maybe agreeing to disagree is a strong move here?
> Just say you don't believe Palestinians are people so didn't have any right to their homeland.
This kind of comment is not warranted. It is beneath the standards of Hacker News. It's putting words in my mouth which I vehemently disagree with. I will attempt to answer the rest of your comment civilly, but if you think that anyone who disagrees with you is evil, may I suggest your worldview is... incorrect.
> Moreover, there were not two people living there, there were the people who had been living there for thousands of years, who had been claimed by Britain (though not colonized). Claiming there were "two people" is revisionist BS.
Not sure why you think so. There had always been a minority of Jews in Palestine. By 1890, that was a 10% minority. By 1947, that was a 30% minority. What exactly is bullshit about saying this?
> That is, the government [the UN] sold half your home to a stranger, they agreed to this, you however unreasonably did not. What an asshole you are.
Or how about: the UN, the representative of all countries, which was given custody of the land by Britain, who had owned that land, recognized that there was an issue, both because two different peoples had legitimate aspirations for that land, and because many Jews who had managed to survive the Holocaust had nowhere to go. Given that Jews were by this point a 30% minority on that land, and given the many Jewish refugees, the UN decided to suggest a compromise.
And like I said, you can think this was a bad decision by the UN, it's certainly debatable, though I'm not sure what you think should've happened instead (either to the Jewish refugees of the Holocaust, or to the Jews living in Palestine). Was starting a war probably aimed at wiping out Jews really the correct alternative?
Either way, I don't think calling it "an invasion by Israel" makes any sense, since Israel didn't even exist.
Btw, serious question - what would you have suggested if you were the UN? What would you think should've been done in Palestine, and with the Jewish refugees?
> The jews, who just moved into a country, and seized a pile of land and property from the occupants of that country without the occupants consent "declare independence", starting a war.
It wasn't a "country" into which the Jews moved, it was part of the Ottoman empire in the early 20th century, then later British territory. Also, which land did Jews "steal" from the occupants of that country before 1947?
> When the fighting ends, the refugees returned to their homes to find that the Israeli government had now given their homes to yet more settlers. Opposing that is a criminal offense.
> Right, except 100% of Israel is Palestine, and the overwhelming proportion of the Palestinian population has been forced into ghettos
After the war, the Palestinian refugees were actually taken in by Jordan and Egypt. They didn't "return to their homes" and "get put in Ghettos". I'm honestly not sure what you're referring to. The Palestinians that stayed in Israel were kept under some kind of military rule, but eventually made equal citizens.
As for 100% of Israel is Palestine... ok. What do you think should happen to the 9 million Israeli citizens on that land currently (or 7 million Jews if you prefer to split it by ethnicity)?
> You're playing BS semantic games,
I'm really not, I honestly think you're just wrong on many actual facts, as I pointed to above. These are not at all semantic distinctions.
> I want to be absolutely clear, these BS arguments about Israel not be a colonial invader are no different from claiming that there was nothing illegal when the US government sold the land of native Americans to colonists, and allowed them to eradicate those inhabitants.
"Israel" being a colonial invader makes little sense, since Israel didn't exist before that. You may mean "Jews" were colonial invaders, which is more understandable, though still not really in line with a lot of facts, like that they moved in mostly legally, and that most Jews in Israel were actually refugees themselves. Not exactly scheming colonial invaders. Most Israeli Jews had and have nowhere else to go.
As for the legal status of what Americans did in the colonies - firstly, Israel never "eradicated" the Palestinians. Secondly, even assuming your history is 100% spot on - what now? Because of the past, should the Americans living in American now be.. what? Removed? And sent where? Similar questions to what you think should happen to Israelis now.
> pretending Palestinians have equal rights to Israelis (or lets be honest, Israeli jews - the discrimination against muslims and even arabic jews in Israel is well documented - is objectively false.
Let's leave aside "arabic Jews", which is not how most of that group chooses to identify for various historical reasons (and which make up the majority of Israelis, btw).
Yes, there is a lot of discrimination and racism against Israeli-Palestinians. Yes, things are not perfect, not by a long shot. But legally, Isareli-Palestinians have the same rights as any other Israeli citizen, including voting rights. (And including there being many Arab members of the Israeli parliament.)
But legally, [non-Jewish citizens of Israel] have the same rights as any other Israeli citizen, including voting rights.
How does this square with the Nation-State Law, which states that the former group has precisely zero rights to "self-determination"? And while you're at it, can you tell as about the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law and how that affects the right to apply for citizenship rights for one's spouse, in practice?
(Correcting the term used for this group, given that the vast majority of them do not self-describe as "Israeli", per numerous polls).
> How does this square with the Nation-State Law, which states that the former group has precisely zero rights to "self-determination"?
I highly dislike the Nation-State law. That said, its effect in practice is almost nothing, it is mostly symbolic. I disagree with the symbolism, but it doesn't negate what I said. This is confirmed by the Israeli Supreme Court:
> The court's majority opinion concurred with arguments that the law merely declares the obvious—that Israel is a Jewish state—and that this does not detract from the individual rights of non-Jewish citizens, especially in light of other laws that ensure equal rights to all.
Question - is your criticism of what I said only because of that law? It was passed in 2019. Did you have no criticism before that?
> And while you're at it, can you tell as about the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law and how that affects the right to apply for citizenship rights for one's spouse, in practice?
Israel defines its citizens in whatever way it wants, just like any other country. It has immigration laws, just like any other country. Trying to analyze this as something unique is just wrong.
Just like I can't just go to France and instantly become a citizen, unless I have some kind of French ancestry, as defined by France itself, in the same way someone can't just become a citizen of Israel without having what Israel considers Israeli ancestry. Since it was started specifically as the homeland of the Jews, as a place for Jews who had nowhere else to go cause everyone else was too busy killing them, that's what it uses for ancestry.
People try to make this seem weird, but this is pretty consistent with how most democracies work.
> Not sure why you think so. There had always been a minority of Jews in Palestine. By 1890, that was a 10% minority. By 1947, that was a 30% minority. What exactly is bullshit about saying this?
There were the indigenous inhabitants of the region. Then European powers started funding and arming a mass migration into Palestine, and in a totally unsurprising turn of events that increased the proportion of that region that were jewish. This is like saying america was not invaded, people just migrated to it, and suddenly there were more europeans than the indigenous population.
And much like america, the non-invading migrants ended up with all the power and resources.
> "Israel" being a colonial invader makes little sense, since Israel didn't exist before that.
Israel is the name the invaders gave to the country after they seized control of it from the people who lived there prior to the invasion. We could call it a European invasion, because the colonizers were from all over Europe, and were funded by Europe, if that helps?
> Yes, there is a lot of discrimination and racism against Israeli-Palestinians. Yes, things are not perfect, not by a long shot. But legally, Isareli-Palestinians have the same rights as any other Israeli citizen, including voting rights.
I just checked, and indigenous Palestinians can't vote in Israel's elections, so I'm not sure where your getting this claim that they have equal rights? Yes there are _some_ Palestinians that are allowed to vote by magically being classified as Israeli, but the overwhelming majority are not permitted to because Israel decreed that only specific parts of Palestine count as being Israel for the purpose of having rights.
We're still waiting for an answer to this most crucial question that you were asked above, as to what should happen once Palestine becomes truly "free":
What do you think should happen to the 9 million Israeli citizens on that land currently (or 7 million Jews if you prefer to split it by ethnicity)?
Whoah. The majority of Israeli Jewish people are not European; they're people of MENA origin. And, of course, there are over 2 million Israeli-Arab citizens.
> There were the indigenous inhabitants of the region.
That region has a long history. How do you think those inhabitants got there in the first place? They also migrated there. Long in the past, Jews were there, and were probably there before these current "indigienous" population, if they weren't all part of the same group (Jews and Palestinians are basically cousins, genetically speaking).
But does any of that really matter at this stage? Does the fact that there were 250k Palestinians in that land 200 years ago really mean that all that land now rightfully belongs to them and no one else is ever allowed to live on it, despite it being home to 15 million people now? Does the fact that at this stage, multiple generations of Israelis have been born and raised in Israel not mean anything, because "they weren't there originally"?
> Israel is the name the invaders gave to the country after they seized control of it from the people who lived there prior to the invasion. We could call it a European invasion, because the colonizers were from all over Europe, and were funded by Europe, if that helps?
Why do you insist on calling it an invasion at all? Are the Chinese "invading" the US because some people from China have legally moved to the US?
Invasion implies this was illegal and/or done using force, neither of which is true of the Jews that moved to Palestine.
> Yes there are _some_ Palestinians that are allowed to vote by magically being classified as Israeli, but the overwhelming majority are not permitted to because Israel decreed that only specific parts of Palestine count as being Israel for the purpose of having rights.
There's nothing "magical" about it. Some Palestinians fled Israel when it was founded, for various disputed reasons. Some fled to Jordan, some to Egypt, some to Syria I think, etc, and they had various different statuses until 1967. Some are still in refugee camps in Syria, for example. The ones in Jordan were given Jordanian citizenship. None of these are Israeli citizens, nor did Israel have any control over their lives until 1967.
The Palestinians that didn't flee but rather stayed in Israel, became Israeli citizens, and now have full rights.
The reason Israel has any control over the Palestinians who are not citizens is that there was a war with the Arab countries surrounding Israel, and in that war, Israel captured a few territories from its neighboring countries - Gaza, the West Bank, and the Sinai peninsula. The Palestinians in the West Bank have since then been under military occupation, the ones in Gaza were under occupation until 2005, when Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza and left them to govern themselves (though some people consider it still under some form of occupation because of the blockade and other reasons).
(Worth noting that the Sinai was given back to Egypt for a peace agreement with them, a peace that has held for 50 years.)
The Palestinians themselves, in the Oslo agreements, recognized Israel as a state, and got a form of self-government. They are not Israeli citizens and are not trying to be Israeli citizens; at least officially, the representative of the Palestinian people work towards a two-state solution, which would mean a Palestinian state side-by-side with an Israeli state.
This has unfortunately not been achieved yet, for many reasons, with Israel definitely sharing a lot of the blame IMO. But it is the agreed-upon end-state by almost anyone with any actual position among the Palestinians.
What do you think is a good end-state here? You raise a lot of legit grievances that Palestinians have, and though I dispute much of the details of your history, I don't disagree that Palestinians in some ways got the short end of the stick here. Still, that was 75 years ago - relitigating the past is different from actually trying to solve the situation today, and I wonder what you think should happen.
Invasion implies this was illegal and/or done using force, neither of which is true of the Jews that moved to Palestine.
"Invasion" perhaps isn't the best term to use, as it implies some sort of one-shot military deal. The actual process involved multiple steps of course -- Resolution 181 (imposed by European powers); the additional land gains by 1949 (unequivocally by force); the annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967 (same); and of course the fact that very few people were allowed to return after they were brutally expelled and/or temporarily left during the course of events.
Which after all was said and done, from the perspective of the vast bulk of the pre-1947 inhabitants -- amount to pretty much the same thing.
Resolution 181 was the UN looking at a complicated situation that had arisen, an area that contained two different people who wanted to build a homeland there, and trying to figure out how to deal with it. It was accepted by the Jews, just as they had accepted even earlier plans that gave them even less land. It was rejected by the Palestinians.
The Arab states instead attacked Israel, which is why additional land was gained in 1949. It's true that it was by force, but it's just as true that it was unequivocally a defensive war the Israel fought. If you launch a multi-state attack on another state and you lose, it makes sense you'd lose territory.
1967 is a more complicated story. Israel considers the things Egypt were doing to be tantamount to declaring war, so it launched a pre-emptive strike on Egypt. Israelis usually consider this a defensive war, though I think majority opinion outside of Israel is that it was an Israeli attack.
> Which after all was said and done, from the perspective of the vast bulk of the pre-1947 inhabitants -- amount to pretty much the same thing.
This is simply flattening the actual history. Look, there were legitimately two peoples on that land at the time. They both wanted a home state. One group, the Jews, agreed to every single compromise put forward. The other refused every single one, and with their neighboring friends, launched a war of annhilation against the Jews.
You can't refuse every single compromise without offering an alternative, launch a war to force your way, and then complain when you lose!
It's also worth noting that Arab countries controlled the WB and Gaza for twenty-something years after the founding of Israel. And yet none ever did anything to give Palestinians independence or create a Palestinian state on that land, the same land that everyone is shouting "free Palestine" about, including all those Arab countries.
There were mitigating factors, to be sure. But it sounds like, to a first-order approximation, we agree: the land was taken by force.
I'm not trying to flatten history - just to get to the basic point. The other aspects that you're bringing up (Arab aims during 1947-1949; which side has been more intransigent since, etc) touch on narratives that are hotly contested as you know, but in any case are even further from the original topic of this thread (which had something do with Microsoft and Minecraft, apparently).
So if you like we can keep our powder dry in regard to those, and concentrate on hopes for some form of de-escalation and a cessation of massive bloodletting in the current moment.
And of course of further attempts at encroachment upon anyone else's land.
Edit: I removed language that, on reflection (after it being pointed out by my co-partner in this discussion), I shouldn't have used.
> There were mitigating factors, to be sure. But it sounds like, to a first-order approximation, we agree: the land was taken by force.
While it might be a "true fact", it's gaslighting to suggest that despite Jews agreeing to a non-violent plan, despite Israel being attacked with the probable intent of wiping it out completely, despite all that, it's ok to characterize the land capture to help protect itself in this defensive war as "land taken by force". That's just not how most people would use that phrase.
> So if you like we can keep our powder dry in regard to those, and concentrate on hopes for some form of de-escalation and a cessation of massive bloodletting in the current moment.
This I can agree with wholeheartedly. I have no idea what is best for the future (I don't see any peace being achieved with Hamas in place, frankly) but the current situation is awful and has to change.
I apologize, I wasn't trying to be offensive or hurtful, I was just reaching for an example and phrased it poorly and thoughtlessly.
(I'll also edit my comment.)
> And I think I'd prefer not to pursue this line of discussion any further.
Fair enough.
For the record, from what I've read of your comments so far, I think we mostly agree about things, apologies that I let the topic make me talk in a way that is inappropriate. (I also like your username for the record)
Apology accepted, and I appreciate the thoughtful clarification.
I'd pick up on the other topic (the Nation-State law, etc), but apparently there's a very insecure person out there right now who is vindictively flagging nearly all of my recent posts -- including the one just above your, just now.
Okay, it seems in one post I was quick to misread someone, so I can see an issue there. But definitely not in all of them).
> but apparently there's a very insecure person out there right now who is vindictively flagging nearly all of my recent posts -- including the one just above your, just now.
I'm sorry that that's happening to you, looking at your comment history it doesn't seem right. I'll try to do what I can to stop this, though it might be worth reaching out to dang and ask him to look at this.
Likely the 1% of the time it works is the rare case that you have a small and exceptional team working together, in which case the project management methodology is unlikely the reason they are working well.
reply