TheHarpyEagle @ Theharpyeagle @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

620

Joined

2 yr. ago

I definitely agree, but that's true of any system. The particulars of the pitfalls may vary, but a good system can't overpower bad management. We mitigate the stakeholder issue by having BAs that act as the liason between devs and stakeholders, knowing just enough about the dev side to manage expectations while helping to prioritize the things stakeholders want most. Our stakes are also, mercifully, pretty aware that they don't always know what will be complex and what will be trivial, so they accept the effort we assign to items.

Use my desktop for gaming, use my laptop for development and travel. It's nice to be able to sit in the living room while someone is playing a game, or sit out on the patio while I work on something.

Genuinely, what difference does it make? Regardless if he has done so via official legal action or not, he has made his position clear.

Honestly a little confused by the hatred of agile. As anything that is heavily maligned or exalted in tech, it's a tool that may or may not work for your team and project. Personally I like agile, or at least the version of it that I've been exposed to. No days or weeks of design meetings, just "hey we want this feature" and it's in an item and ready to go. I also find effort points to be one of the more fair ways to gauge dev performance.

Projects where engineers felt they had the freedom to discuss and address problems were 87 percent more likely to succeed.

I'm not really sure how this relates to agile. A good team listens to the concerns of its members regardless of what strategy they use.

A neverending stream of patches indicates that quality might not be what it once was, and code turning up in an unfinished or ill-considered state have all been attributed to Agile practices.

Again, not sure how shipping with bugs is an agile issue. My understanding of "fail fast" is "try out individual features to quickly see if they work instead of including them in a large update", not "release features as fast as possible even if they're poorly tested and full of bugs." Our team got itself into a "quality crisis" while using agile, but we got back out of it with the same system. It was way more about improving QA practices than the strategy itself.

The article kinda hand waves the fact that the study was not only commissioned by Engprax, but published by the author of the book "Impact Engineering," conveniently available on Engprax's site. Not to say this necessarily invalidates the study, or that agile hasn't had its fair share of cash grabs, but it makes me doubt the objectivity of the research. Granted, Ali seems like he's no hack when it comes to engineering.

I'm confused, isn't the article talking about the solution?

Moderators will never be able to fully eliminate this problem because it is an inherent part of the behavior of a subset of humanity and humans are involved in the activities where this harassment takes place

I'm not suggesting they can, I don't think anyone is.

If you expect every person you meet, online or in person, to respect the rules you are going to be disappointed

I don't, but I expect if someone starts yelling rape threats at a restaurant that they'll be kicked out, rather than the waiter saying "well why didn't you just move to another table?" The rules are there for a reason, there should be consequences if they are broken.

Well yeah, that's why part of Riot's solution seems to be adding more mods. I'd be more understanding if Riot didn't have the resources to add more paid mod support, but I truly don't think that's the case. So yeah, pay more mods and use more advanced technology to flag communication, I think that's an attainable goal.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't still protect themselves by blocking harassment, but I believe it's perfectly within devs' abilities to at least attempt to remove the most heinous bullies from the game.

I cannot get behind the sentiment of "online communication is awful so we shouldn't even attempt to do anything about it." Yeah at some point you have to learn to shake it off to protect yourself, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't make any effort to moderate online spaces as well. Don't give assholes quarter in your game if you want to retain your community.

You can't remove the suck from people, but you can remove the people from your community.

I understand your passion, but I cannot trust any entity to use that amount of personal data responsibly.

Why do game makers need to be the responsible party? I've never played a game that didn't let you block and/or mute people you're playing with. That doesn't make assholes disappear but it stops the problem from impacting you. Why add a middleman to the equation?

Because the devs/mods have the power to at least attempt to remove the person from the game before anyone else has to suffer their comments.

It's much simpler to let players decide what they will tolerate on their own.

It's pretty simple to enable mod actions, too. Game devs make a list of rules about what you can and can't say. You agree to those rules when you start playing the game. Breaking the rules earns you a punishment. If you don't like it, you don't play the game. If the rules are unfairly restrictive then people won't play the game and it will fail. This is how internet moderation has worked since forever.

I think this is actually a more dangerous mindset. Any animal can be unpredictable, can do something you've never seen them do before. Maybe there were signs, but maybe there weren't. Either way, it's dangerous to wait for a "sign" before you start to set boundaries on how your pet interacts with any person.

Being a good pet owner and/or parent means understanding that animals can be unpredictable. It's not a slight to the animal, it's reality. .

Yes, as much as I love dogs, unfortunately they can be unpredictable even if we've had them for years. Whether it's aggression (possibly around food or toys), prey drive, playing too rough, or just pure accident, they can cause a lot of harm to small bodies. I would not leave any dog unattended when an infant.

I try to leave comments when I figure something out, especially when the thread is a top Google result. It's like leaving one of those little rock piles for others to find.

Unfortunately Reddit is still an incredibly useful archive of advice and help, and I care more about helping some poor soul avoid hours of frustration than chipping a spec of dust off of some training dataset.

All I know is that projects like this rarely go as planned. I mean, just ask Australia, they've had a couple animal control schemes gone terribly wrong. The truth is that we don't always know every function of a particular animal within an ecosystem, and messing around with them could have difficult to predict consequences.

To add to this, there are some cis women who grow facial hair (usually because of PCOS) and just rock it.

You don't know the same guys I know

Windows into I went to college for development and decided to check out this Linux thing. At the time, I wanted something as different from Windows as possible, so I went with Ubuntu with Gnome 3 (I know) for about a year. Tried out Fedora, couldn't get my sound to work and accidentally uninstalled the desktop environment trying to fix it, slunk back to Ubuntu, tried out a Debian briefly, and eventually ended up on Linux Mint with Cinnamon and KDE.

At one time I really wanted to try a bunch of stuff and probably would've hopped a lot more if Fedora didn't shatter my confidence, but nowadays I want as little disruption between machines as possible. I have to use Windows for work, so I keep my Linux setup pretty vanilla so I don't miss features between the two very much. I'll probably still play with other distros every now and then on old laptops, but I've fallen into a "if it ain't broke" mindset with my daily machines.

They have a great YouTube channel, too, with a whole series on how they developed their own sours!