Thanks for explaining. I still think “planning” is a weird way to think about what’s supposed to happen during standup-- It seems to me that the whole purpose of working in sprints (and the rituals that that typically entails) is to plan ahead so that during the week you can execute on well-groomed, properly-scoped work. Of course when you notice something is wrong, or needs to be reconsidered, you might need to pull the brakes and realign mid-sprint, but my sense is that if you’re doing planning every day, that might mean that your work isn’t groomed well enough beforehand, or you’re not locking in important decisions during sprint planning.

But it might depend on the work, and it might depend on what you mean by “planning.” If your planning just looks like “Hey are you free to pair on issue 123 this afternoon? Okay sweet, I’ll throw a meeting in your calendar,” then yeah sure-- I wouldn’t use the word “planning” for that, but it’s not crazy to. Or maybe the work is different than my work, and actually does warrant some amount of day-level of planning that wouldn’t make sense for teams I’ve been on. I’m open to that, too.

(Btw I tried to look up this “planning planning feedback feedback cycle” thing and the only search results I got were THIS LEMMY THREAD, lol… Cool to see Lemmy show up in search results)

Err… Is your team doing planning during standup? I’ve never heard of that, from either people who are on teams that use standups, or from any of the Agile/Scrum literature that I’ve seen. In my experience, standups are typically about either a) coordinating the execution of work that has already been committed to, or b) whoops just a status meeting and everybody’s tuned out.

Just generally not being a jerk, in a situation where people are often jerks.

In a narrow sense, it’s useful for like… e.g. location-based search…So of you search “cosmetic dentistry,” it’s useful to privilege results closer to you (or at least you could make that argument). But broadly, in practice, “personalization” is primarily optimized for the ad buyer or first-party company’s goals (e.g. engagement, click-through) as per phases 2 and 3 of the enshittification cycle… And we know what happens to secondary goals as systems become increasingly optimized.

So I’m not claiming that it can’t be los dos, and indeed in phase 1 it definitely is… I’m claiming that it isn’t los dos, in practice, at this moment in history.

Great question – Because the process of enshittification requires the subordination of the user’s interests to the interests of businesses (ad buyers, in Google’s case), which in turn will be subordinated to the interests of shareholders. In principle, it should be possible to balance los dos in a pro-consumer, non-cynical way, but in practice, more line go up. Line must go up. Enshittification optimizes for line go up.

A good example of a time where you really need to full-ass it.

Algebra is OP

No, no, they have a point: The original native population DID do a better job… But then Republicans and Democrats.

Small typo: You spelled “ad buyer” wrong.

Paywall :(

EDIT: Oh you can just open in a private tab to circumvent lol

Poor server-side error handling is a big turnoff for me, unsubbed.

Interesting. How do you find that out?

Look, they only had $70m to work with, okay? You gotta make some compromises when you’re on such a shoestring budget.

Yeah, it’s really strange. Talking about how it inspired a new generation of developers and stuff, like anyone had time to be inspired and start a game development career in the 3 weeks it’s been out, lol.

Let us not forget the revolutionary idea to-- now pay attention cause this is BIG-- to prioritize player experience! Can’t believe nobody has thought of that before.

What in the ChatGPT is this article? It’s like someone from LinkedinLunatics paid an aspiring content writer to write a vapid hype piece but insisted that it be about 6x too long.

Here are some highlights (although it was hard to figure out which sections were the cringiest):

This new studio represented more than just a business venture; it was the manifestation of Feng’s dream to create games that prioritized player experience over profit.

The team’s dedication to authenticity was unparalleled. They immersed themselves in Chinese mythology, reading the classical novel “Journey to the West” over 100 times. They visited countless cultural sites, drawing inspiration from ancient architecture, art, and landscapes.

The impact of Black Myth: Wukong extended far beyond sales figures. It became a cultural phenomenon, bridging the gap between Chinese mythology and global audiences. The game’s success inspired a new wave of developers to create games based on their own cultural mythologies and histories

Feng Ji: The Humble Visionary Despite the overwhelming success and adulation, Feng Ji remained characteristically humble. When asked about the game’s achievements, he responded with a touch of philosophy: "When you are at the peak of confidence, you are also staring at the valley of foolishness. This statement encapsulated Feng’s approach to game development and success. Rather than resting on his laurels, he immediately turned his attention to the future, focusing on expansion packs and maintaining the game’s quality

Jesus christ tone it down.

Leaf broth

Of course, they are very important!

Well it certainly gave us alot to chew on.

+1 for “it’s unusably slow!”

I tried this last year with Linux Mint, and I learned that a normal USB drive just doesn’t have the read/write speed to even e.g. operate Firefox smoothly. There are different ways to address that, none of which really did the trick for me, so the best bet is to just get a drive with the fastest read/write rate possible. I’ve heard that it can run tolerably well on one of those more performant drives, but I didn’t try it myself.