|
Perhaps the branch manager fell off the twig? 
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
One with little backing exposes headless horseman (8)
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
modified 29-Nov-17 5:10am.
|
|
|
|
|
one with little backing - Outsider
exposes - outs
horseman - rider
headless - ider
|
|
|
|
|
We have a winner!
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
At work I am working on a product rework, let's call it v2 (with the original product being v1).
It feels like 1,000 years ago I was pulled out of v2, because "there was just that 1 super critical thing to fix in v1"... still on v1 today!  
Oh well, such is life of a software developer I guess! 
|
|
|
|
|
It can get even worther: if the bug in v1 is fixed, that managment can change their minds and say "Now that the bug is fixed, we dont need a v2" 
In product reworks I learned the lesson that refactoring is fun when the original code is written "clean code" 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
Been there done that!  , if it so supercritical to fix it in V1 wouldn't it be better to let us Finish V2...
|
|
|
|
|
glennPattonWork wrote: f it so supercritical to fix it in V1 wouldn't it be better to let us Finish V2...
Yes that's what microsoft does, (vs2013, 2015, 2017, now talking up 2019)
and the result is there are no more finished version. And it's another reason ms is loosing trust of it's customers.
So no, it's NOT better to let you finish V2,
you should fix the V1 before giving users the new headaches of V2
- it's poor service to do otherwise (notwithstanding V1 was supposed to be delivered working properly)
|
|
|
|
|
Engineer's thinking: V1 is not fit for purpose. It was written by an idiot; it's hopelessly over-engineered and it would take more effort to get the damned thing working than it would take to replace it with the clean, simple app that was required in the first place. Given that this garbage is going to cost us a veritable fortune to maintain, a rewrite will save us pouring a whole heap of good money after bad.
Bean-counter's thinking: We've already spent a huge amount on V1 and if we were to take nothing from it but lessons, that would be money badly spent. The future is for Nostradamus to predict, I'm trying to square last year's balance sheet.
The world is, of course, run by bean-counters rather than engineers. This is actually a very good reason for this: In a world run by engineers, things would just work and there'd be very little for either engineers or bean-counters to do. Whereas in a world run by bean-counters, neither engineers nor bean-counters will ever be short of work. Don't see it as stupidity, see it as an ingenious job creation scheme!
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
PeejayAdams wrote: Don't see it as stupidity, see it as an ingenious job creation scheme!
Can't those idiots just build pyramids and temples, as they always have when they needed something to do?
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
|
|
|
|
|
CodeWraith wrote: Can't those idiots just build pyramids and temples, as they always have when they needed something to do?
That's just crazy talk!
Why build the Taj Mahal when you could build a massively dysfunctional PO system for the same price?
You clearly didn't spend enough time at bean-counting school!
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
PeejayAdams wrote: ou clearly didn't spend enough time at bean-counting school!
I'm not even sure if we are of the same species, and what follows is yet another exciting episode of 'Planet of the Apes'. 
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont get how much of the entire western world is so backwards, so LUdditeish, so incapable of recognising that the lose employment model exemplified by Uber, which is the RESULT of modern western business practice, is the future!
IT contractors, many builders, work this way. And today there are websites for example where you can register a task of only a few hours and get someone to come around and do the work. For example clearing out junk from a garden.
This is the future of work, self employed, flexible, serving the needs of the market in a dynamic way. Uber is perfect example of this.
|
|
|
|
|
I expect that the "working for a single employer" model will not disappear; the Government (and many companies) have a constant need for skilled workers in particular fields; interviewing new workers for each new project is inefficient.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, it depends on the company and its needs, but as I pointed out with the building industry we have had this lose arrangement for many years. Peoples (governments) reaction (hostility) to Uber is quite frankly staggering. Did horse shoe makers halt the adoption of the motor car? Why the hell do we allow luddites to do the same to Uber.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think that has anything to do with the article, UBER as a company seems to be thoroughly rotten, their internal culture smells rotten, mysogeny, espionage, treating staff like crap and having the morals and ethics of a wolverine does not make for a nice corporate entity.
I agree that the concept they are pushing is valid but the way they push it is not.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: I don't think that has anything to do with the article
Yes, I was just ranting.
Mycroft Holmes wrote: UBER as a company seems to be thoroughly rotten
I dont know. What I do know is that many people are out to ruin it, so I suspect alot of what is said is unjustified. But I dont know for sure.
What you say here could be aimed at McDonalds for example.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: What you say here could be aimed at McDonalds for example.
No. There are magnitudes of differences between the ethical behavior of Uber and most other companies, including Lyft. For example, McDonalds didn't get their market share by undercutting their competition so much they lost more money than any other fast food company in history.
|
|
|
|
|
Uber lost money?
Go on, provide some proof of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: Is that any reason to hate Amazon?
Don't mistake pointed criticism as hate. Likewise, just because an idea sounds good, doesn't mean you should gloss over the problems in its execution.
(BTW, that article is from 2002. Amazon lost less money in 7 years than Uber loses every six months. Uber has been increasing it's losses every year, not reducing them. Add to that its mismanagement problems and its a wonder that it's still around. Given its cash flow, I don't expect Uber to just disappear, but rather to be heavily restructured. The new CEO, Dara Khosrowshahi, strikes as a very smart guy with a good track record. It will be interesting to see what he does with Uber.)
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: mysogeny, espionage, treating staff like crap and having the morals and ethics of a wolverine hemorrhoid
There are a lot of people who embrace this model.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: For example clearing out junk from a garden.
Never, ever, ever, ever get somebody to clear the junk from your garden, if you respect your local countryside.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
