Lol sorry for the misleading click. We named it libretto after the term in theater, inspired by Playwright. No retro gaming here, just browser automation!
> I have so far not see an organisation that would be following scrum, as it is described in the scrum guide; or kanban, as it is described in the kanban guide. I have seen or heard about various organisations that use these words, but they have little resemblance to what was actually proposed.
If that's true, wouldn't it point at the process being impossible to implement?
It is a myth. There exists a version of Agile that could be implemented, and it would be the true Agile. The pure, honest experiment that would just work, because Agile cannot fail, you can only fail to Agile.
It signals to me that the process doesn't work in reality. You are better off doing something else.
It doesn't really fail any worse than other inflexible top-down process mandates from management.
That's where it becomes "impossible to implement"—you can't impose it as a cookie-cutter solution driven and controlled by management, and get much good out of it, yet that's the usual way it manifests in the wild. But that's not so different from anything else management might push in its place.
> There exists a version of Agile that could be implemented, and it would be the true Agile. The pure, honest experiment that would just work, because Agile cannot fail, you can only fail to Agile.
"Agile" is a very vague and shapeless idea which is hard to design an experiment for; but I would settle for clean experiments with well-defined methodologies/frameworks/strategies/whatever. Specifically, for scrum or kanban. Whenever people talk about these two, they seem to misunderstand them more often than not.
>It signals to me that the process doesn't work in reality. You are better off doing something else.
Whatever you do instead, you will also cargo-cult to some degree and fail equally as badly at.
For all the "You're doing it wrong!" I've seen in industry with respect to agile, I've also felt that every team I've been part of that did some version of it, seemed to function OK. I always found the "Agile Manifesto" a completely silly nothing-burger, but always understood the core tenet of 'agile' to be "employ tighter feedback loops", which... is sort of mostly how it plays out in practice??
I've belonged to numerous teams that followed some form of agile, to varying degrees of success (or failure).
The shape of what Agile meant in each of those teams was very different from one another. It would be disingenuous to say "the ones that succeeded were truer to Agile".
If Agile can be summarized as "employ tighter feedback loops", the whole Agile thing was beyond useless. A single sentence, as useful a tenet as it may be, does not a philosophy make. And this idea was not even new by the time the Agile manifesto came out (as explained in the linked blog post).
> If Agile can be summarized as "employ tighter feedback loops", the whole Agile thing was beyond useless.
Not just that, Royce's original paper that coined the term "waterfall" in 1970[1] can be summarized as "employ tighter feedback loops" compared to top-down design (figures 2-4 in the paper).
If OP's story is true, it is commendable. Not everyone will choose principles over money.
I was in the past in the position of working for a corporation I personally consider to be vile, damaging to the world and society. Took me about 3 years to move elsewhere. I was not in the position to just quit, both due to finances and due to visa requirements.
I don't fault the common man for having to put up with things. But I will commend those that have the fortitude to at least turn and walk away.
Brother, the only value VC aims to create is the value in their pockets in an exit event.
Either by having the company acquired by the usual suspects or the jackpot of an IPO where the general public will be bagholders. The damage their investments caused to society is immaterial, negative externalities they don't need to account for.
> It might be a bit facetious, but if I had 10m invested with them I'd be asking questions about their investment thesis.
The obvious answer is that the sort of people that have 10m invested with them just care about ROI.
> When did Hacker news start becoming a luddite, bad takes everywhere I look, feels like everyone is '50 year old burnt out guy' that has no idea what is going on vibe?
Much to the opposite, I think healthy skepticism is a sign of maturity. The overeager embracing of hype cycles is extremely cringe.
> I just got back from a SAIRS conference at UCLA and talked directly with some of the presenters and engineers at Google.
Cringe, as I was saying.
Conferences are just mutual fart smelling, swagger, and expensing trips on company momey. I am not against it, but treating your participation in some conference as a sign of the future is very silly.
Every conference I participated always overhyped every current bullshit.
If you only played it once without knowing the ending, I strongly recommend a second playthrough. Some dialogues and poems have a wildly different meaning once you know things.
Also, I fully recommend DDLP+ too. The extra stories don't have any real gameplay, but they are really good, and add.some depth to the characters.
I'm not sure I could tolerate a second play through. One part in particular that just goes on and on and on for what feels like forever is really tough to get through and resume the plot.
That’s why every visual novel (well, almost every visual novel) have a skip function. I know exactly the stretch you’re talking about… I think. Just ctrl-skip through it.
Then I clicked and realized it's just some other AI shit.
reply