That is very likely an option, but probably not used a lot. I have worked with several people that had a similar schedule, but they did not start at the company with that schedule and of course took a pay cut due to the lower hours.
It is very difficult to argue for hiring someone that is not 40 hours. HR and management thinks in terms of full time (40) or part time (<30). The 30-39 hour schedules seem to be used to keep someone they really don't want to lose and not offered to new people. I have seen it with people getting close to retirement and people caring for someone sick or small.
Roman concrete is not like modern concrete. The process in modern concrete does not stop and eventually makes it too brittle and falls apart, Roman concrete does not do this and can last a very long time.
I am not even sure it aims. It aims to make the team look "professional" or something.
Given that at most organisations the biggest problem always turns out to be communication, stand-ups are probably thought to be a remedy, but in reality they are more of a symptom than a cure.
Where communication works, there is no need to waste anybody's time with stand-ups. Where it does not work, stand-ups fix nothing. Just another cargo-cult practice.
Well, the manager is not supposed to be there. A scrum master is supposed to keep it organized and time boxed, but the team is supposed to self police/organize themselves.
It's supposed to be like a restaurant where all the waiters share tips. It is in everyone's interest that one, all customers are being served well and two, that all waiters are pulling their weight.
Yeah which never happens in reality, as it's completely incompatible with a normal (risk averse) corporate environment. And the main premise is that there's recurring daily obstacles that the scrum master somehow can resolve, which never ever happens in reality. The daily is just an idea that never work out that way in reality.
Why would I wait for some meeting the next morning?
You wouldn't. Why are you under the impression that scrum prohibits communication outside standup?
Daily scrum is a floor on communication, not a ceiling. It guarantees that focused communication happens at least once a day. Sometimes people miss slack posts and emails. Scrum makes sure the entire team is aware of progress and blockers. It's a tiny slice of the day when it's done properly.
Almost always the best way to solve an issue or a blocker, is for the person to simply continue to work on the task, alone. Very rarely is it productive to involve other people, and when it is, the person who is closest to this part of the work should be involved. To have a generic "issue solver" that solves everybody's issue is just not a good idea on a software team.
Almost always the best way to solve an issue or a blocker, is for the person to simply continue to work on the task, alone.
No. There may be occasional cases where that's true, but it's almost always better to get another pair of eyes (and accompanying different experience) on a problem. There is some great software that comes from solo devs, but most commercial projects are simply too big for one person to accomplish in the time necessary. Business software is very much a team sport.
If you read the agile manifesto, there are no specifically prescribed steps or rituals, and in my experience, most teams implementation of scrum is entirely counterproductive to actually being agile. The core tenet of being agile is essentially people over process, and things like daily stand-ups, extremely formulaic retrospectives and backlog grooming meetings do nothing to empower the people and allow them to be truly agile.
It's supposed to be "people over process", yet most "scrum" is all about process: too many meetings and other assorted bullshit like filling out your sprint planning and retrospective report every 2 weeks.
Scrum is about getting people to talk to each other and that's what all the process is about. If you already have good communication between developers and those making the business decisions, then sure scrum is probably a waste. Places that actually have that communication without having scrum force those people into a room aren't common. It's also common that places that don't really do scrum don't have empowered PO's or devs, so the meetings are wasted time.
Yeah, but devs can be finicky about waking up early. Half my team was fine with 9am and the other half preferred working more of a 11am-7pm shift. We experimented with asynch Slack standup but it fizzled out after a few weeks.
Since this is not a public service, then no rationing is not bad. In the US, a lot of the homeless shelter are faith based and each only have so many beds to go around each night.
There are not more since someone has to put up the money for the investments. And entrance fees would not likely work for anything new and not novel. Only the government can spend more than it makes.
I don't think you would be permitted to have a faith-based test for entry into a homeless shelter in the US, though, even if the shelter were faith based. I'm not a lawyer but I've seen enough fair housing act noticed when buying, selling, and renting housing.
Interesting, but since no money is changing hands I wonder if there are exceptions. I mean I can see some people preferring people sleep on the streets than see a faith-based test allowed to exist, but surely those people's irrationality doesn't prevail?
I mean, you could ask the same question for a race-based test, and come to the same basic conclusion: that it is "irrational" to prevent it.
I think you have to leave look a little deeper to reach a correct conclusion. Namely: I don't think significantly more free housing would in fact be offered without these regulations. So it would not be rational to allow this type of discrimination. The regulation in essence provides an anchor "price" for free housing, while not distorting the "market" very much. This is a good type of regulation to have.
Telsa is only a level 2 self driving car, but it has been sold as something way more advanced (Telsa has since pulled back some of the hype). A lot of people don't understand that there are even levels at all.
A lot of people don't understand that there are even levels at all.
People shouldn't really have to. The phrase "self driving car" is a binary yes/no in common, regular English. I don't know if this is Tesla's fault or some committee's fault (SAE?), but it's really terrible marketing to call things "self driving cars" when they can't drive by themselves.
Cars shouldn't be allowed to be marketed self-driving, or autonomous, etc., until a driver isn't required.
I'm certain the colloquial use will remain, but "doesn't require a driver" should really be the one to get it's own name. Fully Autonomous Vehicle or Driverless Autonomous Vehicle.
"Self-driving car" is just woefully inadequate to describe the capabilities it encompasses. A century old Model T with a brick on the accelerator could be accurately described as a "self-driving car". It's not very good at driving, but neither are drunk people and we still say that they're driving.
Likewise, I would argue that a car that can maintain speed and steer itself to stay in it's lane is conceptually closer to a "self-driving car" than it is a "fully manual car".
> Cars shouldn't be allowed to be marketed self-driving, or autonomous, etc., until a driver isn't required.
That's going to be a licensing thing. Frankly it probably is time for the government to step in and create some kind of licensing for cars that indicates they're fully autonomous. Even if they aren't going to issue any at the moment, it would be good to set the direction that only cars with whatever government seal are actually able to operate without a driver. Then it'd be a little harder for companies to play word games.
> People shouldn't really have to. The phrase "self driving car" is a binary yes/no in common, regular English. I don't know if this is Tesla's fault or some committee's fault (SAE?), but it's really terrible marketing to call things "self driving cars" when they can't drive by themselves.
It's Tesla's, they're the ones calling their system "autopilot" (conjuring the idea of the car driving itself in the 99.99% of the population which has never flown a plane with an autopilot and has no idea how limited they can be) and literally selling a "Full Self-Driving Capability".
Other companies have generally been careful to bill their tech as assistive (Volvo's automation system is even carefully called "Pilot Assist").
And SAE is levels of automation, describing how little / how much automation there is in the driving system, it doesn't intrinsically imply self-driving capability, only that some aspects of driving can conditionally be handled automatically. SAE levels 1 and 2 are specifically worded in terms of assistance as well, here's SAE2:
> The driving mode-specific execution by one or more driver assistance systems of both steering and acceleration/deceleration using information about the driving environment and with the expectation that the human driver performs all remaining aspects of the dynamic driving task
Where I live I have seen Tesla owners riding in the passenger seat (driver's seat empty).
One of these douchenozzles has a sticker that says 'I'm probably not driving'. This particular tesla has whatever 'drive like an asshole' package where the car is accelerating unsafely, weaving between cars/lanes... as this lady is reading a book.
I followed it for a while just out of curiosity. Once it got to a shopping center with dog-legs to turn left, the tesla lost its shit. It began for no reason to ride the curb, and I mean ride it. Brand new tesla just ate up both its driver's side rims to the point sparks could be seen. The lady reached over and did something that did not work, and it just kept going until she slid over and regained control.
If tesla can't even get the simplest of shit right how tf can they claim self-driving? And does it matter that if this person kills someone they are at fault? No one would have died if Tesla hadn't lied about their capabilities.
How many people must die before they are stopped from doing this shit? Tesla says they aren't misleading anyone, but then why do so many of their customers drive hands-free?
There is no such thing as a "level 2 self driving car". Tesla does not have any form of a "self driving car". It has "level 2 automation" just like basically every other large manufacturer (Honda has some production cars with "level 3 automation").
In a safety culture oriented organization drivers would have to receive training before operating a machine like this. Some please explain why exactly isn't that the case with Level 2 self driving cars? Drivers clearly don't understand the limitations of the system.
You have to pass a driving test at age 16 (in US), after that you never need to test again (sometimes eye checks when you are old), cause um... nothing changes about driving or cars or rules in the next 64+ years it would seem.
I think believing that is one thing, posting it on a social media site's comment section that largely exists for entertainment purposes only is quite another.
It is very difficult to argue for hiring someone that is not 40 hours. HR and management thinks in terms of full time (40) or part time (<30). The 30-39 hour schedules seem to be used to keep someone they really don't want to lose and not offered to new people. I have seen it with people getting close to retirement and people caring for someone sick or small.