The fundamentally different aspect is also at the user end - you need fb account to run these gadgets, spend money associated with this account and when someone tries to “hack” that account (because it is public), you loose it without a chance to ever get back the account or money. There is no way how to contact any living person for support, most you can get is their faq.
I cannot imagine such situation with gmail.
Why do you assume that its devs who are slacking in waterfall? Devs enjoy deving, usually there are either discoveries during execution or change of mind of client or pms figure out that their guestimation for year ahead was not exact. Surprise, surprise and who is going to have crunch time? Devs of course.
I didn't say they were slacking, but they may be working on the wrong things, or prematurely optimizing things at the expense of other priorities. Ironically, it's the author who suggests implicitly that devs can slack more in waterfall ("Sprints never stop").
Since the client is involved in every sprint, any change of mind they have during the development process (and keep in mind that changes of mind are a virtual certainty in either case)is at least better informed than if the touchpoints were much less frequent (or as is too often the case in waterfall) all back-loaded towards the end of the project.
Does scrum eliminate crunch time? Of course not. But if it's done well, the impact is minimized because there has been so much more opportunity for course correction throughout the project.
It’s that culture of fear that I don’t understand: devs working on the wrong thing. More often than not, it usually means: Is the dev spending more time than me (who is not doing the work) is willing to give him? Every professional understands priority and expectations. And communication is all that is required. But PM usually don’t understand the nature of software development and fear of losing control (the bad ones). The good ones just let people work after they made it clear what should be worked on.
>Every professional understands priority and expectations. And communication is all that is required.
Sure--the kind of communication that is ensured by a brief daily standup (communication within the team) and a regular progress review with the stakeholders, like say, a sprint review every few weeks (external communication).
While it's true that every professional understands the idea of priority, the global priorities of a project may be very different from the individual priorities of a developer. A diligent, conscientious developer can still get caught up in a narrow problem that doesn't really move the project forward, even after the PM has "made it clear what should be worked on." Fire-and-forget is not a strategy for project success. Continuous communication and regular reviews/resets are a better way.
As for someone who grew up in post-soviet 90ties with Disney comics and would like to get to know what the other kids (and adults) of the world were reading - what would you suggest me to search for?
This is a strange article. There are slow writers, there are fast writers. It seems that each writer is in a way different like… like any person! So..?
But are they prolific due to speed or consistency? I think consistency plays the bigger role.
Stephen King writes about 1,000 words per day, consistently. Some other writers may do much more in a single day, but are more sporadic, “when inspiration strikes.”
Eminem has been prolific and is well known for his writing. I read an account from Akon working with Eminem in the stupid where he said Eminem treats music like a job. He shows up in the morning, works, takes his lunch break, works, and is done at 5pm. He’s showing up consistently, and he’s writing constantly, most of which will never been seen.
Jerry Seinfeld also famously wrote a joke every single day, not breaking the streak.
With this much practice, it would make sense that they’d get faster of time, but someone who is slow and consist will be much more prolific throughout the course of a lifetime, than someone who is fast, but inconsistent.
> …someone who is slow and consist will be much more prolific throughout the course of a lifetime, than someone who is fast, but inconsistent.
In this parable¹, the teacher divided a ceramics class into two groups. One was graded solely on the quantity of work they produced, and the other solely on its quality. The result was that the "quantity" group also created higher-quality work.
King is a "quantity" guy, which means that the quality of his work is inconsistent, but he releases a lot of high-quality work.
GRRM is a "quality" guy, which means he may not finish the A Song of Ice and Fire series before he dies.
George Lucas hates writing. He only got the screenplay to Star Wars: A New Hope written by locking himself in an office with a pad of paper and pencils for eight hours every day, through several drafts. Whether he actually wrote anything varied day by day.
I think the value in this case is for the slow writer (or slow creator of anything) who perceives it to be a race (gotta go work for Big Corp and crank out PRs faster than the next guy).
When a person is stuck in that belief, which they often don’t explicitly realize, to have the realization that slow-but-high-quality is a viable path is a big unlock, and potentially a huge weight off their shoulders.
Sure, attitude should be right, but this as well could be a survivorship bias - Chen has been working for a couple of years and turned out to be a success. Was the conclusion made from one example?
I just tried to enable it for 10 minutes and I will never enable it again. This is also a reason why I can not work on non mac laptop trackpads - they are unreliable, accident taps happens all the time.
I use tap-to-click, two-finger tap to right-click, three-finger drag for dragon drop operations. Never noticed an accidental click.
I do, however, see canceled clicks often (I clicked, the item I touched changes color, but nothing happens.) Since I’m here, same thing happens on iPad and iPhone - touch, color change, no action.
My main browsers are Safari and Brave. Then Chrome for google stuff only. Then Edge. Then Firefox.
I was a primary Firefox for many years and finally gave up about 3-4 years ago when it just got too bloaty and buggy to bother. This might have been when I discovered Brave, but not sure.
Unskilled people are more random with their self assessment that skilled. It has nothing to do with unskilled people thinking that they know everything.
> Unskilled people are more random with their self assessment than skilled
This is a statistical claim, supported by the DK graph (but not the random data thought experiment from the article).
> It has nothing to do with unskilled people thinking that they know everything
This reads to me as a claim about the psychological reason for the statistical pattern, which I don't think is either supported nor contradicted by data, both in the article and in the original paper.
"Unskilled people often think they know everything" is pretty much the colloquial use of 'Dunning Krueger' to label people who insist that they know better than the experts from a position of relative ignorance
But I think that's consistent with the statistical pattern: if the distribution of self-assessment [amongst unskilled people] of their relative abilities is random or near random, it logically follows that the set of unskilled people includes a lot of people who significantly overestimate their ability at something. Dunning and Kruger don't really talk about the propensity of excellent test performers to underestimate their skill as much (though the Nuher study results somewhat justify their original focus on the ignorant by finding that more skilled groups like professors and graduate students make smaller average prediction errors of their test scores than undergrads).
Dunning and Krueger's contention in the original article is that "incompetence robs people of their ability to realise they're incompetent". Similarity of the prediction errors to a random walk isn't a rebuttal of that (although it's a fair critique of the presentation) because the null hypothesis is that people who find a test particularly difficult shouldn't be [almost] as likely to believe they achieved above average performance as the people who aced it. There might be other reasons for that (like the test being pretty easy for all participants and raw scores in a fairly narrow range, or test takers wrongly assuming their lack of understanding was being compared against the general population rather than other smart undergraduates) but in general people ought to be able to incorporate knowing that they didn't know how to answer a lot of questions into their self-assessment of how they performed.
The one reproduced in the article doesn't show the density of points, so it's hard to conclude anything from it. Figure 4 from the Nuhfer et al. paper does seem, to me at least, to support DK's conclusions.
It does show the lack of extreme values for higher-skilled people, surely this has some statistical significance ?
Especially in a situation where you would expect the distributions to be of the same type ?
Unless they had messed up in failing to normalize the number of points per group, and so this might come from the law of large numbers failing + sheer randomness failing to create extreme values on higher-qualified, but lower population groups ?
Don't want to sound arrogant, but it seems that projects like this was a good lesson for you. With one lesson (among many others), that "I carefully explained all my suggestions and backed them up with UI conventions..." will not work with some people (technical ones) and there should be other styles of communication in your toolbox. I learned this the hard way when I wanted to be a freelancer and had to do everything (coding, managing project, accounting) on my own. Now I work at a company as a coder and project managers are "shielding" me from clients eccentric needs.
