Value and use are not always synonymous.

My counter-argument: the full expression of human achievement is not genetic; it depends on the resources given to the human; If we accept that someone cannot reach their entire potential if living in poverty, and we accept that a lot of the advantages of rich children are due to the environment and opportunities that wealth provides, then it naturally concludes that we could get all of the advantages that pro-natalists look for by creating a higher standard living for all existing children.

Only when we can provide the sustainable resources for all people on the planet can we accept the idea that we have room for more.

That said, if you are a smaller company, you absolutely could kill Jira pretty quick.

I do not believe it will ever again make sense to build open source for business. the era of OSS as a business model will be very limited going forward. As sad and frustrating as it is, we did it to ourselves.

But you're right - you can visualize your workflow without using Kanban - I think it's weird how the term gets appropriated here.

And in modern stacks, it almost necessitates a man in the middle - tailscale is common but it's still a central provider. So is it really the most inefficient way possible?

The cost of those remaining maintenance items are the issue. That said, it's a reasonable hypothesis to say that this is an economies of scale issue.

(Also, as I understand it, tires are used up more quickly on EVs still, but tire companies are learning to adapt to EVs so that may not be as true today.)

It says that understanding risk (as operationalized by understanding probability) has a larger effect.

But it is also saying that the more external impact someone has, the more they regret saving more -- in the United States but not Singapore.

The study is explicitly saying that internal motivation does not seem to matter. And the article is arguing the reason why.

Otherwise, people will take every time savings possible. If I'm using AI for anything, it's because it's important enough to someone else for me to do but not important enough to sacrifice my own time.

I don't think it's about people being scared, at least from what I've seen. It's about people being exhausted.

It turns out it's very slow to evolve a protocol. How long did it take for IRCv3 to handle channels having persistent history? How about channel takeovers via network splits? We knew these were problems in the 20th century but it took a very long time to fix.

Oh, and the chathistory Extension is still a draft! So is channel-rename! And account-registration?

And why is it still so painful to use Mastodon?

That's but one of many examples. Consider how the consolidation of HTML and HTTP clients was the only way that we ended up with any innovation in those services. People have to keep up with Chrome who just does their own thing.

I want to want a decentralized world governed by protocols, but good software that iterates quickly remains the exception rather than the rule.

It absolutely does happen. But I have also seen people rise through the ranks by just being there long enough and being competent. That said, it is not a way to maximize wage growth or general career progress by any stretch.

I discussed some of this in https://www.ebiester.com/agile/2023/04/22/what-agile-alterna... and it gives a little bit of history of the methods.

We are nearly 70 years into this discussion at this point. I'm sure Grace Hopper and John Mauchly were having discussions about this around UNIVAC programs.