While I agree that we need to put sanctions against bad actors, I see that many of the actions being carried out are either media influenced or could be percieved as PR stunts. Namely, are you asking the same from the people in Saudi Arabia, Israel, and US? Because at the very same time, these countries are bombing other countries and killing the civilians there. We should act the same to all bad actors, not just select few.
I’m not a native speaker, so this might be a dumb question. So far, I always associated word “discover” with “something is there, someone just managed to stumble upon it while wondering around”. Thus, I find the word’s use quite strange when it comes to scientific work, especially equations —- the authors probably didn’t wonder around and invested quite a lot of work to come up with the equation.
Does it make sense to say “someone discovered an equation for X”? If not, what would be a better word?
I don't think discover implies anything about the effort put in on its own. If anything I'd say it leans towards deliberate effort, even if not always an expected result.
If it's just a fluke then more often and not I'd expect to see that spelled out as either context, or with the words you used: "stumbled upon".
At any rate, I think the reason it's used in this context in particular is because it represents that the 'equation' is not just a mathematical construct someone came up with, but that it represents observable reality in a way that is novel and perhaps unexpected. It wasn't something someone made up, it's something that usefully describes phenomena that are outside human control. Thus, they did not invent, instead they discovered.
Whether equations are invented or discovered is actually a matter of philosophy... somewhere in the areas ontology and epistemology. And the debate is not really settled, I believe.
Maybe "not maintained" was a bit harsh. Until end of 2020 ThoughtWorks spent a lot of resources on developing new features. This has stopped now, so I'm a bit concerned that while GoCD seems to be actually maintained (there are some very recent bugfix commits in the repo), general development of new features might be slow/nonexistant in the future.
Why going through all of that (honest curiosity)? 4 people quit and you had panic attacks just to deliver something for a company that didn’t care much. Wouldn’t it have been easier that the whole team left early on? Your mental health would be way better, as well as of your teammates.
When you’re in the thick of it, the fog of war is real.
It’s hard to overstate how hard it is to leave this kind of project as a manager. You spend years of your life building relationships with engineers and trying (and sometimes failing, admittedly, but trying) to protect them. You know the situation is a disaster and you want to get out of it. But you’re afraid of letting down your people and hurting their careers. You’re afraid the next person won’t be able to protect them as well. You’re afraid of losing the years in your resume and not accomplishing anything. You’re afraid of being a failure if you give up. When your body is breaking down due to the stress, you’re afraid to lose your health insurance.
You’re right - I should have quit as soon as it was clear it was a death march. But in the shit, I found it almost impossible to lift my head up and say “this is literally killing me, I quit”. When each individual day is at your maximum trauma threshold, it’s hard to work up the time, willpower, or ability to interview prep and change companies.
Thanks for clarifying, and really sorry that you had to go through all of that. As I read, I see that there were many factors at play, some of them personal, some of them cultural -- in my country, the health insurance doesn't depend on employer, for example. But on the other hand, I also saw some people here killing themselves to work, mostly not to let down others.
> We did not have the option of abandoning it, due to a meaningful fraction of the company’s revenue riding on its success. We did not have the option of more resources for the usual reasons. And we did not have the option of more time, because executives had already de facto announced when it would be done.
And immediately concluded that the company has already committed to suicide and it's time to start sending resumes. Cross-team sabotage is icing on the cake but actually doesn't change anything here.
Dunno, I can't speak with certainty that I wouldn't stay and leave, as everything depends on the situation, but switching to a less demanding job and lower pay seems as something that would benefit me in the long run. My mental health and family are worth any price difference, that is, they can't pay me that much to stay in a shitty situation.
Ah, I love how people love to paddle flawed ideas in order to protect their mindset.
This article goes into great depths to explain all the fallacies when it comes to energy and bitcoin: https://www.ofnumbers.com/2021/02/14/bitcoin-and-other-pow-c.... tl;dr is that bitcoin is just wasting energy and no amount of text will help improve that situation. It should be outright forbidden.
A. It's only speculated that Trump has some sort of special relation with Putin; it's by no means certain, and if so, this might not be part of their relation.
B. A relation between Trump and Putin doesn't have to mean much for the rest of the administration.
C. Assange is just a pawn.
D. Why would Trump draw even more attention to himself?
When Iran coordinated attacks on American soldiers, Trump almost started World War III. When Russia coordinated and put bounties on American soldiers' heads, Trump tried getting Putin invited to the G7 summit.
Saying that Trump has a special relationship with Putin isn't even close to speculation. It's an easily observable understatement of the decade.
Maybe people do notice, but it’s not easy to report back? Or they notice the system runs slowly? Or they just accept the fact that all systems (extrapolating from several banking, public service, and publishing sites) are crap, and need to live with it?
> Through a controversial discovery process, Chevron obtained, among other things, Donziger’s private diary entries. But the company’s central piece of evidence was the testimony of their sole witness: Alberto Guerra, a disgraced Ecuadorian judge who’d been removed from the bench over allegations of corruption and who had accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars and other benefits from the company. After meeting with Chevron’s lawyers 53 times, Guerra testified that Donziger and his team had offered the judge in the original trial a $500,000 bribe and had ghostwritten the 2011 decision against Chevron. In a related case three years later, he admitted he had lied in his testimony.
Maybe, but again, the article doesn't really explain. Is this the author's research, a statement the author was able to confirm, or just Donziger's unconfirmed characterization of how the case went?
