I have my complaints about Agile, but a bit different from this list. Teams I’ve worked in have generally tried to spec in quality control measures into story points, to prevent some of the issues mentioned, for example.

My issue is almost always just that the top half of the organisation does not, and will never, conceptualise a software project like agile demands. Business will always want X scope within Y time. And Agile demands that at least one of those to be variable. The backlog represents scope organised by time. Want X features complete? Check the backlog to see when they’ll be done. Want to deliver after Y time? Check the backlog to see what features will likely be ready by that time.

But business will not accept that. They have scope requirements and deadlines to deliver within.

Given the fact that the government won’t leave us alone, you can sod right off with your “nobody cares what you do” nonsense.

They very, very obviously do care.

They want a small government.

Specifically small enough to fit in your doctor’s office, your bedroom, and your womb.

And I hope the community disobedience continues in response. If they replace the superintendent, just completely refuse to acknowledge them, shun them from every aspect of life these parents have any control over.

I know it’s not simple. But I think it’s time people start to make enforcing their nonsense as miserable and resource-intensive as possible.

Good. Student welfare and learning environment comes first. More places should refuse to enforce conservative’s ridiculous crusade.

I tried a couple of times to get Docker running rootlessly on my local machine, without just granting root-like permissions to the user. Spent a few hours reading just the worst documentation that tells you to do things with absolutely no explanation of why, feeling like an idiot.

Then I installed Podman. It worked more-or-less out of the box, and I got on with the rest of my project.

I’ve always wondered why some people tout “forcing a consistent appearance across environments” as a pro for spaces. That’s a bad thing.

To be honest I’m surprised code format converters aren’t ubiquitous. Let the repo have it’s master format, enforced on commit. Then converters translate into each developer’s preferred standard dialect on checkout and back again on commit.

The fight for women’s suffrage, for instance, started in 1847, while the 19th Amendment wasn’t passed until 1920, a good 70 years later. The Stonewall riots were in 1969, and it took nearly fifty years for marriage equality to arrive. This stuff is hard. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth fighting for.

Worth noting that those rights were not won by merely voting, let alone merely voting for milquetoast candidates…

They were won by rather more extreme measures, precisely because merely voting didn’t accomplish the goals.

I am sure shilling your political party is a priority to you

Where the hell have I done that? Go read my comments. And pull your head out. I’m quite obviously no fan of neolibs.

but most of us just looking to shake things up.

Then actually DO SOMETHING! Because what you are proposing is doing LITERALLY NOTHING. Not voting does nothing. Even third party is mathematically doing nothing. You might not like that, but it’s true.

If you want actual change, vote for progressives in local elections. Vote out the neoliberals one by one. And in the mean time, build alternative power, organise in your workplace, unionise, build mutual support networks.

But a third party will likely never be viable in within the lifetimes of people alive today, unless the Democrats suddenly decide to overturn FPTP voting.

So understand what you are asking of people. People are more than “frustrated with the lack of progress”, they are enraged because they recognise that the current system will NEVER deliver them real justice and dignity. That they will be faced with this exact same situation every single election. And you are asking them to be content living with their rights and well-being on a knife-edge, likely for the rest of their lives. Because while the Democrats won’t give them justice, the alternative is fascism.

So you are correct, the Republicans are objectively worse, and people should vote for the most progressive viable candidates possible. But the neoliberal tendency to demand that leftists stop complaining while they give up everything in the name of “compromise”, and then tendency to blame leftists for neoliberal losses anyway, is galling.

I literally just said that “voting is not enough for real change”. The implication being that one should vote AND agitate for change via other channels.

Because what you are proposing, is doing nothing. Your choice not to “support” the system, accomplishes zero.

You are within your rights to do nothing, but don’t pretend that it is anything other than that.

No. Don’t leave power on the table.

Voting is not enough for real change, but that doesn’t mean you don’t vote. You vote, in every damn election you can, for the most progressive candidate that you can. Because at the end of the day those election will still put people into positions of power. You are not undermining the system by not voting.

The US uses a First-Past-The-Post voting system. Third parties are non-viable in such a system. Mathematically.

That is why you have this inane conversation every four years. Because any progressive third-party candidate becomes a “spoiler” for the Democrats, rather than forcing coalitions and compromises, as it should in an actual functional democracy. So every four years we get to hear how leftists should “compromise” by completely giving up their entire position to support a neoliberal candidate because to do otherwise allows the Republicans to continue to hurt women and minorities.

Nothing will fundamentally change until the voting system changes. So of course neither political party is especially motivated to change it.

Of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these:
Stallman was right again.

Thank you for that paper, that’s a great analogy honestly.

We’ve had mountains of evidence all pointing towards the same conclusion for many years. They aren’t interested in being convinced.

There is no practical way to blind HRT treatment. Even if you attempt to with a placebo, within about two weeks the patient will know what they are receiving.

Anybody demanding a double-blind study is trying to set the standard for evidence higher than is possible.