Although I have remained sceptical of Scrum, I do find it a bit strange that many of the negative comments about Scum here seems to be related to not doing Scrum (The old, you are not doing Scrum properly). All the talk about managers, and being told what to do in a sprint etc. None of that sounds like Scrum to me. Isn’t the whole idea of Scrum about self organising teams (?), independent of management etc. All you have is a Scrum Master to facilitate the process, and a Product Owner (part of the team) who prioritises the backlog because that role has an understanding of what is needed to solve the problem at hand (in terms of functionality needed).
This! Like much else, these kind of movements (FOSS etc.) depends on having good “institutions” that work. In this case e.g. the documentation project and similar. They are fundamental building blocks ...
Basically because the current philosophy of the US justice department anti trust prosecutions is whether market dominance of the player harms ordinary people or causes them to incur higher cost. It is not really about actual monopoly power. Google has been pretty careful to stay consistent with this philosophy.
This wasn't always so in the US and it's not the same philosophy in EU. However, it is a valid and consistent view.
Counterpoint: If you strongly want your government to change its approach, organize to change the government.
In US, it's very safe to do this without violence but even in significantly less safe places, people have successfully done this peacefully [1] [2] [3]
The current interpretation of antitrust law in the United States is fairly new (it's only been around for 50 years or so, and as I understand it, largely driven by The Antitrust Paradox by Robert Bork [yes, that Bork]). Before that, there was broader enforcement in the antitrust sphere.
Why don’t people use their power as consumers and stop shopping there? I have never understood why people let large companies walk all over them. Get organised and get even!
Because of home economics and lack of affordable choices - sometimes lack of choices at all. Folks that have some money do make those choices.
If Wal-mart is the cheapest retailer around you and you make $15-$20,000 a year, they are basically your only option for everyday household goods. Even if you are saving $20 per month, that's $20. Or perhaps you get more food that way.
Where I was at in the states, it was the cheapest place. We did have Aldi in some areas, but one couldn't buy everything there and the opening hours weren't great. Some areas didn't have this option either. (You can survive on food at aldi, but aren't going to find underwear and bras there either. Not to mention the lack of name-brand soaps if you had sensitive skin).
Decentralised or distributed does not necessarily imply blockchain just because the blockchain has these features it could also be other things such as activitypub etc...
True that the text doesn’t say this, but several of the privacy authorities in the different jurisdictions in Europe have been stating this publicly in interviews. The last one I saw was the ICO in the UK today on BBC Click saying exactly this...
The share of our attention captured by isolated bank failures is disproportionate to their effect relative to the systemic banking failures created by centralized banking systems.
I would argue that the negativity toward such things as the wildcat banking era is a result of cognitive biases like this that manifest when dealing with complex social systems.
>>Indeed, the all-around record of U.S.-style free banking improved significantly as the Civil War approached. Even banknote discounts — another consequence of unit banking that has been wrongly treated as a necessary consequence of having multiple banks of issue — had become almost trivial by the early 1860s. According to my own research, someone who, in October 1863, was foolish enough to purchase every non-Confederate banknote in the country for its full face value, in order to sell the notes to a broker in either Chicago or New York, would have suffered a loss on that transaction of less than one percent of his or her investment.[9] That's less than the cost merchants incur today when they accept credit cards, or what people typically pay to withdraw cash from an ATM that doesn't belong to their own bank.
