On Hacker News, banned accounts can still comment, but those comments are immediately dead until vouched.

The best environment I've ever worked in was, ironically enough, fully invested in Scrum, but it wasn't what's typical in the industry. Notably, we had no bug tracker[0], and for the most part, everyone was expected to work on one thing together[1]. We also spent an entire quarter out of the year doing nothing but planning, roleplaying, and actually working in the business problem domain. Once we got the plan together, the expectation was to proceed with it, with the steps executed in the order we agreed to, until we had to re-plan[2].

With the rituals built in for measuring and re-assessing whether our plan was the right one through, e.g., sprint retrospectives, we were generally able to work tomorrow's opportunity into the plan that we had. With the understanding that successfully delivering everything we'd promised at the end of the sprint was a coin toss, if we were succeeding a lot, it gave us the budget to blow a sprint or two on chasing FOMO and documenting what we learned.

0: How did we address bugs without a bug tracker? We had a support team that could pull our andon cord for us whenever they couldn't come up with a satisfactory workaround (based on how agonizing it was for everyone involved) to behavior that was causing someone a problem. Their workarounds got added to the product documentation, and we got a product backlog item, usually put at the top of the backlog so it'd be addressed in the next sprint, to make sure that the workaround was, e.g., tested enough such that it wouldn't break in subsequent revisions of the software. Bad enough bugs killed the sprint and sent us to re-plan. We tracked the product backlog with Excel.

1: Think pairing but scaled up. It's kinda cheesy at first, but with everyone working together like this, you really do get a lot done in a day, and mentoring comes for free.

2: As it went: Re-planning is re-work, and re-work is waste.

0: This is basically everything after the three-on-the-tree/four-on-the-floor era. I have yet to drive anything with an overdrive gear that didn't require popping the clutch to crank the starter.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/05/17/the-law-of-...

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/05/27/136718112...

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/06/georgia...

https://www.politico.com/story/2011/06/ga-immigrant-crackdow...

https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/jul/07/immigration-...

> For me the only things that scare me are in the "I have no data on that" category.

I feel exactly the same way. It means that I have no idea what those things will wind up costing me, and that's the anxiety trigger as far as I'm concerned.

I know it's stuff I can't control, and that's sort of the point. I want to know what I can't control so that I can know what I can control, if that makes sense.

0: Otherwise known as "touching grass."

I largely agree, but...

> ... the database is you main source of invariants.

I guess my upbringing through strict typing discipline leaves me questioning this in particular. I'm able to encode these things in my types without consulting my database at build time and statically verify that my data are as they should be as they traverse my system with not really any extra ceremony.

Encoding that in the database is nice (and necessary), but in the interest of limiting network round-trips (particularly in our cloud-oriented world), I really would prefer that my app can get its act together first before crossing the machine boundary.

Exactly.

Another upside I've run into while doing things this way is that it gets me out of being relational database-brained. Sometimes, you really do not need the full-blown relational data model when a big blob of JSON will work just fine.

I'm unsure that I agree. The two examples you gave, establishing that IDs are unique and that updates to entities in the system are serializable (and linearizable while we're here), are plenty doable without having to touch the real database. (In fact, as far as the former is concerned, this dual approach to testing is what made me adopt having a wholly separate "service"[0] in my applications for doling out IDs to things. I used to work in a big Kafka shop that you've almost certainly heard of, and they taught me how to deal with the latter.)

That said, I'd never advocate for just relying on one approach over the other. Do both. Absolutely do both.

> I'm pretty sure "don't repeat yourself" thinking has led to the vast majority of the bad ideas I've seen so far in my career. It's a truly crippling brainworm, and I wish computer schools wouldn't teach it.

I brought up WET mostly to comment that, if there's one place in software development where copying and pasting is to be encouraged, testing is it. I'd like to shelve the WET vs. DRY debate as firmly out of scope for this thread if that's alright.

0: It's a service inasmuch as an instance of a class implementing an interface can be a service, but it opens up the possibility of more easily refactoring to cross over into running against multiple databases later.

I use both the mocked and real database approaches illustrated here because they ultimately focus on different things: the mocked approach validates that the model is internally consistent with itself, and the real database approach validates that the same model is externally consistent with the real world.

It may seem like a duplication of effort to do that, but tests are where you really should Write Everything Twice in a world where it's expected that you Don't Repeat Yourself.

It tends to work pretty well in an environment that both lacks a bug tracker (so that individual people aren't assigned things) and has a culture of pairing or mobbing.

In particular, Scrum is only there to establish rituals that enable empiricism in decision making. A sprint is a reporting period to keep the team from spending too much time in the weeds. A standup is there to keep the team working together. The andon cord (which is often missing I find) is there when the facts have changed so utterly profoundly that everyone needs to regroup.

Anyone who's been through RTC ("boot camp"), and even some who haven't but have lived vicariously through others, understand that being constantly yelled at by RDCs ("drill instructors") on how you make your racks and fold your clothes is all about building certain habits and only tenuously related to what you'll be doing after A-school. It all has more to do with building trust that the rest of the folks in your ship will help carry you when the going gets tough. Scrum, at its core, is kinda like that.

I really dislike the term "Scrum Master." They're a team captain. The more military-minded might be keener to use "gunnery sergeant" or "chief petty officer:" they're just the most senior person in the rating group^W^W^W^Won the team. (Though, I'd probably take more inspiration from the Marines than the Navy here: a culture of servant leadership seems to bring out the best in people.)

The most popular implementations of Scrum tend to come with a ridiculous amount of meeting and tool baggage, and it's so unnecessary.

Use Excel. Hold your standups at the close of the day so people can go home. Write your product backlog items in delivery order so that sprint planning is less about sitting in one room playing poker and more about just getting valuable shit done.

That said, what isn't unnecessary, however, is kneecapping command a little: the engineering officer of the watch has comparatively little understanding of the actual operation of the machine. They just know that they want operational excellence. However, that excellence also sometimes comes with the watch supervisor—a subordinate—publicly calling out mistakes that the watch officer makes.

(I actually use Yori[0], but it's pretty much to tcsh what cmd.exe is to csh.)

PowerShell leaned a little too hard into the structured data to be useful for me as a command shell. It's a pretty decent competitor to the Python REPL though.

0: https://github.com/malxau/yori

I am one of these depressives, and I definitely do not want to spend all day in bed. It is, however, a ground state that takes an amazing amount of energy to escape, so my usual inclination is to conserve energy and not escape. It may outwardly look to non-depressives as a strong desire to spend the day in bed and away from the world except through whatever portal the Internet gives us, but it's my experience that having someone to come by to help with the parts of living that fatigue me is direly, overwhelmingly underrated.

And, like, it isn't often chores or errands that are the most helpful. (Indeed, when my depression saps me enough, I find that just going on a cleaning binge is a cheap way to recover for a while.) No, rather, it's stupid shit like having someone make decisions for me so that I can get un-stuck from whatever mental hell I've fallen into. The challenge is usually articulating which decisions I need made because merely unpacking them has a high energy cost.

It's only when I've gotten a handle on the fatigue each day that I'm truly able to get moving.

A combination of both the fundamental theorem of algebra and Zeckendorf's theorem has allowed me to fill in the rest so far. For example, 25 mi = 5 * 5 mi, which yields 5 * 8 km = 40 km. As it turns out, that is how far Cleveland, TN, lies from Chattanooga.

0: https://usma.org/metric-signs/tennessee

The tooling will normally bail with a "would fork" message if a `fossil update` (and, hence, local resolution of those conflicts) wasn't undertaken before pushing, but this is not at all necessary to preserve useful operation.