Eh, Rare was putting out multiple games in a short timespan of larger size in programming teams fairly small in the 90s. The tools themselves don't seem specific to inducing incredibly large development times when the game developers before Blow managed to do it faster and better.
Your point still stands (there's research floating around proving it) but Blow isn't the best example.
You might be a decade behind, but there's still diminishing returns kicking in hard even just a few years in. That's disregarding inefficient learning and what else which may close the gap further.
Your latter point is far more important to the matter. Those who treat it as a passion more so than a job, are more likely to be the trendsetters. Growing up and being free from responsibilities makes it easier for that thing to become your passion.
And let's also not forget, a few decades ago, computers weren't exactly a cheap thing for parents with little understanding to let their kids tinker with at will. Being born in a family with enough wealth to get a computer, enough wealth / understanding to let a kid tinker with it, was an immense boon. A long with anything that type of family tends to have going for it alongside wealth. It's not that far-fetched an idea that it's the other things, rather than the early age interest of the kid itself, that got them into such a position later in life.
>but this is the issue addressed with planning poker.
It isn't. Having a team which is both intimately familiar enough with the set of features as a whole, and understands how to use the system to get around the inevitable 'A does it in X while B does it in X*3', are both prerequisites. Suffice to say, with the amount of discussion based around Scrum being done wrong alone, neither of those are even remotely a given. This also doesn't take into account turnover and new features being able to remove a team from meeting those prerequisites at any point.
Too often it just devolves into people raising eyebrows at one another and either it becomes 'X will do it, so X's estimate becomes the value' (why even bother doing poker then) or 'take the average or minimum' which screws over anyone who estimated higher.
I mean it is literally the issue that planning poker addresses - identify differing expectations without influencing the initial estimate. People can then totally ignore that, and ignoring something makes it pointless, but that's true of literally anything.
It identifies a lack of a shared understanding of the task. Or framed differently, it identifies when you probably all have the same expectation and you can move on.
That still doesn't solve the prerequisites being exceedingly rare in most teams. A system solving an issue under rare circumstances is barely worth considering, doubly so if it doesn't solve the issue in your specific circumstance. That's, again, disregarding that the modus operandi of most management teams directly interferes with planning poker itself (high turnover, high focus on increasing scope and scope per person).
Or we can dive into technicalities where it technically does solve the issue but does it poorly, and just happens to be better than any other system we know (also questionable).
I honestly do not understand what you're describing as the prerequisites.
You ask people how hard something is to do, make everyone actually answer before hearing others opinions and if people disagree you talk about it to understand why. These are all short term features.
The two things it deals with are:
* get everyone to say how big of a thing it is, find out if there's misunderstandings about what the task involves
* avoid people from being influenced by the fastest to answer person
I'm sure that's how it was intended but tbh I have only seen it used in settings where the person in charge would still want to assign a value to the ticket "so that we can move on" even if the devs were not at all in agreement about how big something was. Whoever gets the ticket in the end is stuck with the estimate, even if it was shit from the very start.
If people are unable to solve the problem themselves but instead defer to someone else’s estimate then they should not be participating in planning poker
>We go through life making a lot of guesses and utilizing a lot of prior probabilities. Work history is, in my experience, one of the stronger signals available to us.
Research continues to fail to support this. At what point is your experience a self-fulfilling prophecy?
I'd really like to see on what basis you're writing this when many other things point to either the opposite or the numbers being equal.
>because society's attitude towards checking out has become too lenient and soft to keep most these boys
Society has been actively shaming and demonizing men for decades now, trying to get them to accept working through what feels like an untraversable valley. A valley which was in many ways easier to traverse before. Society took away the incentives, and now tries to replace it with punishments. What do you propose that won't cause severe animosity in a group historically known to destroy societies when pushed to the edge?
The extremes aside, this is the reality behind most 'boys' checking out. Men are biologically wired to try and excel if they see opportunities. They aren't seeing them anymore.
"Society has been actively shaming and demonizing men for decades now, trying to get them to accept working through what feels like an untraversable valley"
But I agree with you! I empathize with these boys who have laid their lives to waste. As I mentioned, I don't (entirely) blame them for growing up in a society where manly nature is scorned and called toxic.
"Mostly boys[...] "
Look at stats on higher education. The stats that show girls equalling boys are partially by more girls signing up, but it's also explained by boys' enrollments collapsing.
I have three kids, two girls and a boy. Im worried sick for them. Will my girls find a quality [1] husband (much harder today than before)? Will my boy fall into the traps newly laid out for him?
[1] I don't mean fancy degrees. The man could be a moron as long as he's caring, hard working, honorable and trustworthy. But a smart ass who watches porn and plays video games all day? Hard pass.
> Code where the project manager didn't believe in encapsulation, or refactoring, or none of that "architectural nonsense"
If anything I find the largest proponents to have drunk too deep from that well and cause the rewrites to never be considered, as the time required to do it becomes far too long to be worth the pay-out.
This excludes the worst kind: the overarchitectured old mess in need of a rewrite as it was based on the wrong assumptions and is now boggled down by 10 layers of abstractions and indirection which don't do anything.
It depends on the level of the architecture. Architecture that splits the project into chunks that you can take a meat cleaver to and refactor at will is great. "Architecture" that takes one of those chunks and adds 15 abstractions to it is awful.
The former lets you recover from the latter without a full rewrite, which I'm guessing is where advice like "never rewrite" comes from.
Posts that are pro/anti 'architecture' could refer to either, so I never know whether to agree with them or not. They're kinda meaningless out of context.
And if you are wrong, are you also willing to apologize for hasty decision making? Or will you hide behind the crowd and say 'well everyone else said X!'
Because that's what is happening right now. People's lives are ruined on the assumption of someone being the big bad. Then when it turns out the situation is far more nuanced and delicate, the social damage is already done. Not just the big guys like Brand, who got enough millions to throw lawyer after lawyer at the case should he be innocent, but also the small guys who have a far weaker position socially and financially.
Suddenly this is the thread that has snapped for you and said this is wrong? For most of modern history an accusation was all that was needed to have you removed from your job. The cops showing up at your office and just 'questioning' your behavior around minors without even making accusations is generally enough to ensure you don't come back the next day. It's one of the reasons I don't post as little information about myself online as I can. Doxxing can have terrible outcomes.
> The cops showing up at your office and just 'questioning' your behavior around minors without even making accusations is generally enough to ensure you don't come back the next day.
For the record, 16 is the age of consent in Britain. No doubt it's fair to have the ick about a 31 year old involved with someone so young, but Brand was never alleged to have been involved with minors.
>Suddenly this is the thread that has snapped for you and said this is wrong?
How about we take our own advice, stop making assumptions and "be nice" as you put it, hm?
>The cops showing up at your office and just 'questioning' your behavior around minors without even making accusations is generally enough to ensure you don't come back the next day.
I'd like you to honestly think deeply about this a few times. Has this really been the same as it was a few decades ago? Why do some countries or areas feel far more comfortable with leaving children around with men, while it seems the US in particular has trouble even imagining a dad wants to spend time with his kids? And why is it primarily the men, when it's become more and more obvious women are just a much perpetrators?
Yes, false accusations and ruining people's lives over them has been a thing since we exist. You ever wonder why so many people freak out the moment they are accused, despite being innocent? But as a society, we can fight and be critical about this. Just like we got rid of witch hunts, so too can we think twice about companies facing next to zero repercussions by hiding in the crowd despite their disproportional power.
All I'm saying is, if you're the coward throwing others under the bus over your own gain, don't be surprised if a rebel fed up with your cowardice decides to do the same. Turnabout's fair play, after all.
And for real: it's just an apology. I'm not telling these companies to pay damages or get dragged to court. It's just a 5 minute effort to say "Oh we were too quick in our judgment, sorry about that". It isn't enough, but it's the bare minimum they can do without having to drag them to court to force it or threatening to take away their position of power. The fact they can't even do that speaks volumes.
>Why do some countries or areas feel far more comfortable with leaving children around with men,
I cannot answer for other countries, but for the US I can answer that we've allowed the "boys will be boys" excuse for pretty much ever when it comes to sexual misconduct. I've made it a point in my life to be a person available to talk to when other people need that. Maybe I've just had bad luck in who has opened up to me, but when a very large percentage of the women I've talked with have talked about sexual misconduct, sexual abuse, or outright rape against them that I realize we have a massive problem in this country. Even worse is I've talked to people decades later that explained confusing things that occurred when I was a teenager and went to church. When you find out the church covers up sexual assault, convinces people not to call the police, and pays for the pastor to move elsewhere you get a grim view on the people in power. It turns out when you cover up for evil behavior, you have to be suspect of all those around you.
If you don't want people to be destroyed by allegations, you need a system that actually investigates discretely, and prosecutes those with evidence against them. In the US we can't even process the back log of rape kits we have around.
>And if you are wrong, are you also willing to apologize for hasty decision making?
Yes, although it would be a first given the severity of the accusations.
But more importantly that's entirely besides the point. You don't need a good reason, or even much of any reason at all to not do business with someone. Case in point, you can decide to not sell a wedding cake to a same sex couple because that offends your religious beliefs. That's a pretty silly and homophobic justification by most people's standards, certainly more controversial than not doing business with a suspected criminal.
But it's a good thing that right exists. If someone is innocently accused take that up with the accuser, don't interfere with the freedom of private business. It's not any third parties decision that ruined them, it's people spreading falsehoods.
Consoles aren't going to be obsolete anytime soon while the alternatives, PCs and laptops, are more expensive, worse at the same price range, and provide worse handheld experience. Less of a market share maybe, but still a viable niche.
I wonder if the Steam Deck might challenge that. It's already sold more units than I think anyone really expected. It has a library and other capabilities that no console maker can ever hope to match while retaining consoles' convenience.
>And should mediocre CEOs that fail or otherwise perform poorly get golden parachutes? No, of course not
So start there instead of making it seem like your few specific examples speak for the entire population of CEOs. Talk about the CEOs who fumbled completely during COVID despite having a great position, demanded benefits despite their huge reserves and are now crying about having to pay it back while their profits are up.
Talk about the CEOs dumping their toxic waste straight into the rivers to avoid having to pay costs. And the CEOs who push for every trick in the book to pay a close to zero net tax. And the ones who will lobby and keep almost any potential upstart from ever becoming a threat. And those who have solidified themselves in their branch thanks to first mover advantage, and can do whatever they want and still succeed despite our 'competitive free market' (yeah right).
>They deserve to earn drastically more than the average worker.
They already did in absolute terms. Percentages compound. How about explaining why CEOs need an even bigger advantage in both absolute and relative terms than they had before? Did the workers not contribute to their success?
And why are the workers the first to feel the headwind whereas the CEOs are the first to feel the tailwind?
Only Japan would remotely apply unless you're cheating the system by checking only hotspot cities and trying to claim they are the entirety of their country. Suffice to say, most people don't live near Amsterdam, let alone able to afford it.
Your point still stands (there's research floating around proving it) but Blow isn't the best example.