fruitplants

CnH

I may be wrong but I think it's mostly for things like enterprise support in case something goes wrong. IBM has had a large footprint in enterprises (WebSphere MQ, etc). People don't want disruptions in case your own kafka cluster with in-house engineers accountable for everything. So having enterprise support for product/ infra gives a sense of safety. At times rightly so. Depends on a lot of factors- risk appetite, capabilities of in-house engineers, what's at stake, and mostly psychological safety, etc.

Does anyone know if Springer has any subscription discounts, access via library, etc? ACM does not include Springer.

Calvin's dad was quite a character, wasn't he?

Indian Premier League (Cricket) is not a US league. Some reasons mentioned in the post apply to IPL. And IMO some don't (nerdy billionaires). There's even an acquired.fm episode on it. https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/indian-premier-league-crick...

"So successful in fact that it is the fastest growing major sports league in the world, growing 20x in value since 2008 to be worth more than $16 billion today."

In a lighter vein, let me suggest reading the Psmith series by Wodehouse. If not the entire series then Leave It To Psmith, at least.

IMO at Apple the feedback loops seem to have gotten longer. They took a lot of time to discontinue the butterfly keyboards, bring magsafe back, etc. So it's likely that they'll double down on this OS/ UX than correct their path soon. I am not saying that they don't care. But I haven't seen statements like 'we made a mistake', or even 'you are holding it wrong', etc. This- not caring to be answerable to the end user, along with other perceptions in this thread (like siloed teams, bugs in their own apps) makes me think that Apple has become a somewhat dysfunctional enterprise. If they are going down that path, maybe they should hire SAFe Agile consultants. :-)

Disclaimer: Don't follow Apple or HN a lot. And these opinions are maybe more of my perceptions than facts. Open to corrections.

> We humans love to make patterns out of everything.

Not sure in which vein you meant: 1. Humans exhibit some behavioral patterns.

2. Cognitive bias where the brain thinks that there is a pattern when no such pattern exist.

I think you meant the second one. I used to think I am good at noticing patterns. But then I realized that this perception about myself clouded my vision of looking at a given problem or system because my brain tried to pattern match problems and solutions. While it worked in some cases, it did not in others. And just telling myself that while I think that there's a pattern here, there may or may not be a pattern helped- just being aware of cognitive bias.

I used colima cli on M1-M2 Mac. A few memory related settings were required as some of old apps were huge. But apart from that it worked great. Nothing bad podman, just preferred colima.

Yes, but as sibling comment says there's that thing about softball.

I think Ballmer was better than how he was perceived. So I did expect some justification, etc in their MS episodes. But these points seemed, to use your word, numerous. I think they must have done this because in preparation for those MS episodes, they did talk to Ballmer, and expected him to listen to the episodes. Comparatively their Bernard Arnault, LVMH games take on episodes like LVMH, Hermes seemed somewhat balanced.

My reading: the comment meant that encouraging diversity became a goal and it led to unintended consequences.

edit: lead > led

Has stack ranking worked well anywhere? Genuine question.

edit: Not relevant for stack ranking thing but I will highly recommend the book Lights Out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_Out_(book)

> I think you can actually do a lot with average people, if you have...

This is an important perception. Possibly due to general (and HN) bias towards talent and hero worship, this reality is overlooked at times. But at scale in a normal distribution, not all people will be within some stringent bounds of sigma. And companies once they become big will have some 'business to run'. Of course, on small scale I have seen a few skunkworks projects and have seen them work well.

"... two minutes into that Ovaltine thing and I just couldn't take it anymore."

I agree with thinking a few steps ahead. It is particularly useful in case of complex problems or foundational systems.

Also maybe simplicity is sometimes achieved AFTER complexity, anyway. I think the article means a solution that works now... target good enough rather than perfect. And the C2 wiki (1) has a subtitle '(if you're not sure what to do yet)'. In a related C2 wiki entry (2) Ward Cunningham says: Do the easiest thing that could possibly work, and then pound it into the simplest thing that could possibly work.

IME a lot of complexity is due to integration (in addition to things like scalability, availability, ease of operations, etc.) If I can keep interfaces and data exchange formats simple (independent, minimal, etc.) then I can refactor individual systems separately.

1. https://wiki.c2.com/?DoTheSimplestThingThatCouldPossiblyWork

2. https://wiki.c2.com/?SimplestOrEasiest

I am Frank Costanza's lawyer.

It's pronounced thermometer. :-)

Gábor Domokos (mentioned in the article) talked about this on one QI episode:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggUHo1BgTak