Second, the numbers _are_ arbitrary. Completely, 100% arbitrary. It's a _relative_ difficulty scale. Say you've got 3 tasks - A, B, and C. A and B are approximately as hard as each other, they're 1 story point. C is more difficult than either one - it gets 2 points. That's it. Story points are not, and should not be used as, a unit of measurement. The biggest utility is to identify big, scary tasks with lots of unknown factors.

The fact that they are _numbers_ is what tricks so many teams/PMs/management/etc into thinking that story points are more meaningful than they were ever supposed to be. Incidentally, this is also why some planning poker teams use t-shirt sizing (S,M,L,XL,XXL, etc). No numbers means people are less tempted to punch them into a spreadsheet while deluding themselves into believing that showing numbers going down is the same thing as "showing progress".

If you're curious what the modern state of server-side HTML Rails can be from the user's perspective, head over to hey.com and sign up for their free trial.

But when it gets to dozens/hundreds, plus requiring vendors to have their own copies, it quickly multiplies into a massive burden. And that's not even getting into the open source issues.

Not to mention the fact that you might not know if you NEED the ISO until after you've already bought it.

This expert did the professional version of a facepalm when she recounted the times when these health experts failed in their drills. She made it clear that the public will look to them as experts, so be clear, be informative, tell the truth, give actionable steps, etc. Because if these experts _don't_ do these things, the public will look elsewhere. And that "elsewhere" will likely be random yahoos on the internet. Doctors saying "wear a mask" will have greater overall benefits, even if people follow that advice BADLY.

Not sure how that is supposed to apply to people like the Canadian employee referenced in the article. Canadians don't exactly have much say in American elections.

Made every single day a death march and a company that survives purely on the sunk cost fallacy on the part of the investors. They've already dropped $MILLIONS into building this thing, and the CEO swears that this next big deal will be what finally pushes the company into the stratosphere. As miserable as it was to work there, I'm honestly impressed they're able to keep that zombie moving.

Seriously though, that man's sense of ethics were... well, when he first found out about the GDPR, his first and only question was "how do we circumvent this?" There's a bunch of reasons why he's a FORMER boss.

A former boss of mine once bragged about how he killed a union effort at a previous job. He worked a corporate job for a chain of restaurants that was threatening to unionize. He was given the task of showing up pretending to be a union-affiliated, bafflingly incompetent asshole. He went to individual employees to discuss the "benefits" of joining the union, because in a group he was more likely to be called out by somebody actually union-affiliated.

That got really hammered home when I showed up to a job interview in a button-down shirt and slacks and I was _far_ more dressed-up than the CEO. Getting bounced for not being a "culture fit" cleared up any lingering ambiguity.

That's where I'm at. My workplace put out a survey to see how people felt about going back to the office next month, and I don't think anyone was willing to risk it. We'd be wearing masks, taking public transit to/from the office, and sanitizing our hands every 15 minutes.

Having spoken to some management people, this survey is mostly being done just to confirm that we should discuss getting rid of the office entirely. Which would be a huge cost saving for us.

That's exactly what they're doing. The third sentence in the article:

    Russian athletes will be allowed to compete in major
    events only if they are not implicated in positive doping
    tests or if their data was not manipulated, according to 
    the WADA ruling.

The CEO insisted it wasn't pivoting, it was "refinement", but he also had a really annoying tendency to redefine X to mean "what we do", so he could tell clients and investors "we do X".