The idea with story points is you assign them consistently, so the team's velocity is meaningful.
One team might deliver 30 points in a sprint while another delivers 25 and they deliver the same amount of work
Of course management want to be able to use story points for tracking, they want to compare teams using them, so you end up with formulas for how many points to assign
Of course if they score you on points, they get more points, not more work and story points become useless
The estimate is not a promise, it's a guess. I prefer to estimate in sprints because that's about the resolution we can have confidence in, but management want hours so my process is to estimate the number of hours in a sprint (73.5 for us) plus one sprint
200% overruns are common, especially when requirements change significantly
Nothing is ever a generation's fault. There are and were good and bad among every generation. Some had luck buying into housing or business at just the right moment that value went up
Boomers, X, and older Millennials all had more luck than younger Millennials; at least the Millennials and later had recognition of autism and ADHD.
My autistic friends weren't diagnosed until their 40s, some had to work it out out on their own after the internet became popular
I have a friend who's sure I'm on the spectrum, and points at things I talk about as my current hyperfixation. Meanwhile I'm talking imprecisely forgetting detail.
If I'm on the spectrum, I suck at fixating on stuff
Aussie copyright law gives us the right to circumvent protections in order to make copies to watch on a device the original can't be played on.
Linux out of the box is remarkably incompatible with DRM protected content and so makes an excellent thing on which one might want to watch, listen to, or read a thing
Like most herbivores, they have one male and many females in a mob (kangaroo equivalent to a herd)
Males outside that mob form loose groups for defence and within that they fight to establish dominance and the top roo may challenge the male lead of a mob to take it over
I used to do that in the swimming pool (I have always lived far inland) it's often called dangerous on the mistaken belief that it's like shallow water drowning where someone hyperventilates to swim underwater longer; since those people have blown off so much CO2 they don't get a signal to breathe and suffocate.
Our method doesn't involve hyperventilation, and wow does the need to breathe get strong
Linux uses "magic numbers" to determine file types, extensions are just for people who like them and MS Windows
For shell scripts the magic number is '#!' and is always followed by the path to the shell that interprets the script type (eg the first line might be '#!/bin/bash')
Evolution isn't aimed. A T-Rex needs to be good enough to hunt enough food.
Our ancient ancestors smashed the skulls of animals killed by African predators to eat the brains, smashed bones to eat the marrow.
Later as our ancestors became bigger and stronger they hunted and needed to communicate with each other to effectively track and take down an animal. Maybe they needed twenty words. Chickens have three words (or cluck patterns)
At the same time women collected stuff and needed to share how to identify this from that with younger women. They might have needed a hundred words.
Then those who could talk better were more attractive to the other sex than those who couldn't (even now being well spoken is attractive) then a few millions of years later we're making stone knives, hammers, axes; then ten minutes later aeroplanes and machine guns
In short: we had it hard enough we needed to share information. We later found communication sexy. T-Rex had no such trouble. We seem to be the only animal that solved "scavenging is dangerous" and "hunting is hard" with talking to each other rather than by getting bigger and getting claws or vicious teeth
I understand we selected for tall by fighting humans
The idea with story points is you assign them consistently, so the team's velocity is meaningful.
One team might deliver 30 points in a sprint while another delivers 25 and they deliver the same amount of work
Of course management want to be able to use story points for tracking, they want to compare teams using them, so you end up with formulas for how many points to assign
Of course if they score you on points, they get more points, not more work and story points become useless