531–540 of 543 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Premature optimization is the root of all evil
You say that, but the other side of this argument is having to rebuild every. Single. Part. Of a program because nothing was designed with forethought and scalability in mind. Great code is both simple and has the ability to scale if needed in the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
waiting lists "can be long" – it's time to stop parroting these misleading statements. They can be, if your test/operation isn't urgent. Urgent things are treated right away. Frankly, as an American, I think we have shit quality of health service, based on the insurance cos' red tape and restrictions and paperwork alone. Getting healthcare in this country is a bureaucratic nightmare. Maybe the docs and meds and tests…
I'm in Canada. In 2010 my son was unwell, having issues with lethargy, balance and vomiting. We took him to the local children's hospital and he had a CT scan within 2 hours and an MRI an hour after that. As part of his ongoing treatment the hospital scheduled an MRI every 3 months for a year, then every 6 months for 5 years, and now it's annual. The scans happen on time every time. Waiting lists are prioritized base…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fyi I downvoted you because I'm based outside of the US.
That's fine, some people are of course. But when you look at what people mean when they provide no jurisdiction, it always seems to mean the US. That's all I meant by de facto US based, because if it weren't, wouldn't people state the jurisdiction as "US"? They don't, so it must mean that the US is what is assumed.
Indeed this seems to be the case. Being based outside the US, I find that somewhat annoying :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My company pays $3,000/month for health insurance for my family of 5. I assume it's pretty good insurance at that price, but we still have to fight the insurance company tooth and nail whenever we have medical bills.
That is insane. Here in the Netherlands we pay ~€100 per person, and healthcare is mostly free for everyone under 18. Isn't $36000/year above the US average income? How is that even possible?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Contractors can buy the public option are actively discouraged from doing so because they are on the hook for both the employer and employee contribution. Also ofc there is the "if you have ever been privatly insured you cannot simply go back to public". But for contractors with 2-3 kids public might still be cheaper than private.
It wouldn't have even occurred to me to switch over to private if I became self employed, just assumed you would price the employer contribution into the day rate. Is switching to private widely expected? I would've thought that Germans were more biased towards the social solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Contractors can buy the public option are actively discouraged from doing so because they are on the hook for both the employer and employee contribution. Also ofc there is the "if you have ever been privatly insured you cannot simply go back to public". But for contractors with 2-3 kids public might still be cheaper than private.
It wouldn't have even occurred to me to switch over to private if I became self employed, just assumed you would price the employer contribution into the day rate. Is switching to private widely expected? I would've thought that Germans were more biased towards the social solution.
All of this being said I think the German private/public hybrid is pretty bad. Sure, they make it harder to go back to public when you get older but you can always accept a part-time job for a while and be "forced" to buy public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are formal codified processes and there are informal tribal ones True but misleading. A lot of the time the difference is simply doing a bunch of process activities versus not doing them. E.g. imagine team A develops software in a more-or-less sensible way, and team B spends 80% of their time doing the same things that team A does and 20% of their time estimating how long those things are going to take. It se…
I’m not sure we’re talking about the same thing. What you’re talking about is the difference between value-added processes vs busy work disguised as risk mitigation. Both are processes but of differing value. Pointing out bad processes does not refute the point that processes exist and they exist because somebody is trying to mitigate a risk. It’s just a comment about the effectiveness of the process design.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not sure we’re talking about the same thing. What you’re talking about is the difference between value-added processes vs busy work disguised as risk mitigation. Both are processes but of differing value. Pointing out bad processes does not refute the point that processes exist and they exist because somebody is trying to mitigate a risk. It’s just a comment about the effectiveness of the process design.
In that case your claim is completely unfalsifiable. I might equally well claim that processes exist because they're works of art, and the fact that some processes are not aesthetically pleasing doesn't refute that.
You not agreeing with the risk assessment is not the same as denying the intent. It’s also not the same as saying it’s effective at managing the risk.
If there’s a required review, you may think it adds no value. But you may also be ignorant of the downstream risks it mitigates. “You” may not care, but somebody downstream does. “Your” ignorance of the situation doesn’t invalidate the process, although it may speak to poor leadership in terms of making sure people understand why the process exists. You can, however, invalidate the process by interrogating the intent. E.g., maybe the downstream interaction has changed and the review is no longer necessary. Maybe the probability has dropped enough to become a negligible risk because of a design change. The process can be falsified in terms of meeting the intent because the risk would no longer exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In that case your claim is completely unfalsifiable. I might equally well claim that processes exist because they're works of art, and the fact that some processes are not aesthetically pleasing doesn't refute that.
How is “the intent of a process is to mitigate a risk” completely unfalsifiable? Is your claim they exist simply because they exist and have no underlying purpose? You can evaluate the risk, as well as evaluate the effectiveness of the process at managing the risk. You falsify the intent by describing the relevant risk severity/probability reduced by the process. You not agreeing with the risk assessment is not the s…
If the answer is “none”, it validates your point that the process is needless and the claim about risk is proved false. But most responses will be able to articulate what the risk is, whether it’s relevant to your position or to someone else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is “the intent of a process is to mitigate a risk” completely unfalsifiable? Is your claim they exist simply because they exist and have no underlying purpose? You can evaluate the risk, as well as evaluate the effectiveness of the process at managing the risk. You falsify the intent by describing the relevant risk severity/probability reduced by the process. You not agreeing with the risk assessment is not the s…
Re-reading this, I realize it’s needlessly wordy. To condense my point, you can simply ask, “what risk is this process trying to mitigate?” If the answer is “none”, it validates your point that the process is needless and the claim about risk is proved false. But most responses will be able to articulate what the risk is, whether it’s relevant to your position or to someone else.
Not my experience at all. Most responses to the question as phrased would be "huh?"
I would claim that most processes are not born of an intent to mitigate risk; in my experience there's rarely an intent at all, people cargo-cult the idea that they should have processes without understanding why or even conceptualising that there should be a why.