> The irony is that scrum itself is often just a wrapper for a waterfall process with all the problems it comes with
I worked as an external employee in an environment that had a very functional scrum implementation. You had groomings, plannings, dailys, retrospectives. Every task was defined, estimated, time on them tracked to get better in estimating. You had scrum masters, capacity plannings. On the surface, it was all very functional and productive.
But the reality is, business analysts and product managers who had little knowledge of how the system works were in charge of talking to clients, writing specifications, getting them approved and ready for development, and very little possibility to iterate if there was a problem in the definition.
It was very efficient at building a bad product. :D
I saw a quote recently from Erik Dietrich that said, "A lot of people mistake activity for productivity” and that describes every scrum implementation I’ve ever seen.
While this has been a more recent development for (Ex) Yugoslavia, nations and nationalism followed a similar pattern elsewhere. You can see a lot of diversity between regions in i.e. Germany, Spain, Italy which is more or less unified by a shared history narrative.
Not arguing it's good or bad. Just saying it's about how and when you define what a nation is.
edit: And to clarify some more, the reason why divisions here are harder is due to the lack of the shared history narrative. :D
Also, there are more sw devs aged 20-30 today than there were 20-30 years ago. Those who would be 50 today never existed in such numbers, so dev population is skewed towards younger generations.
Even if you don't know the economy will slow down, the uncertainty alone will still make companies extra careful.
Where a lot of IT budgets were only guidelines, they are becoming rules now. Layoffs send a message internally and externally about it. Any reasonably sized company will have people who aren't really contributing anything, this is just an opportune moment to cut some of them and avoid the backlash since "everyone else is doing it".
Most photographers alter colors, lighting, remove signs, wires, lampposts or even people from their images. A lot of them crop, or alter perspective in post. As mentioned here, most documentaries are montages of completely separate footage to tell a story they want to tell. Is any of that cheating as well?
Some photography books aimed at beginners even suggest editing in more dynamic skies into photos.
It's a matter of style if not anything else. Some photographers will accept only what comes out of camera, others will take more liberties with their work. It's not like any fake claims are made here.
I feel Darktable is a lot more powerful and the UI is a little easier to use (small things, like the way sliders work with mouse and keyboard). Masking in DT is great as well.
What I like about Raw Therapee, the starting point when processing RAW files is a lot closer to out of camera JPEG, and for just minor tweaks it's simpler and faster.
I guess there are both kinds, and the person you describe is usually someone who's company you'd prefer working in, as it's more likely they reward work over politics.
Perhaps it would work in DE, but it can create wrong incentives.
Here in Croatia, we had "free" public transport in some places for i.e. students travelling to school. But the price was still paid for by the cities/government to service operators. Which led to inflated prices for the service because there's always a way for the operator and some officials to collude together for extra profit. And the increases weren't transparent until at some point the tickets were no longer "free", and suddenly their cost was way over what it was before it became "free".
Corruption always finds a way, with or without free transport. What I mean, that cannot be a reason to not provide some service, because also the paid transport is getting (or can be) corrupted I suppose, just like everything else.
> Corruption always finds a way, with or without free transport.
Indeed. I've taken the train in Romania with a Romanian friend. The ticket for both of us would have been X$, say, but she talked to the conductor and paid him 1/3 X$ in cash to "look the other way" and ignore us. Conductor pocketed that, we traveled cheaper, and the company lost the revenue.
