fghfghfghfghfgh

From a girlfriend who was my intellectually superior (which I had a hard time dealing with)

You are responsible for your actions - no one else. "But I did it because...". No. You chose to do it. You are responsible.

Other people are responsible for their actions. Not you.

She was/is right.

I don’t know Gilbert Ryle but I believe I understand the paper as intended.

What do they realize then instead?

Can you elaborate on why you think the paper is flawed please?

“… rules are coordination mechanisms that carry the capacity to destroy value” Excellent phrasing :)

> This is an abstract response to a concrete demonstration of usefulness.

Brilliantly articulated - thank you. I wonder if this is a generic pattern (like fallacies)?

It’s one guy. Making a useful tool. It even has an altruistic purpose.

Shame on you for twisting a well intended effort into a negative statement that suits your narrow identity political world view.

How has it been corrupted?

Because the word "housewife" invokes a fuller mental image of what general boring conditions those two women might be living under?

From a manager point of view:

In your shoes I would make a decision to either fix/improve the situation or leave immediately.

If you decide for the former then make sure you have support from your management and own that decision. Be the one who turned the subpar division around. If it is as bad as you say you can hardly screw it up any worse. That's a privileged position to start from - difficult to fail.

I doubt your colleagues are really below average IQ - but perhaps their skills could be better. So teach them. Be the leader and mentor they likely never had. Have patience and build a team.

Fix the high impact, low effort problems first. Get some fast successes - they inspire and breed appetite for more. Don't exhaust your resources. Chip away one small problem at a time. It adds up faster than you think.

Create a vision for where you want to be in one year. Communicate that goal at every opportunity. Believe in it and other people will believe as well. It doesn't matter if you reach it within an arbitrary deadline - it matters that it exists in the first place.

Whatever you do, don't coast.

You're right - not the best analogy in this case. Not sure about the race car though. I will think about that. Analogies aside...

Let's agree that estimation is possible to a certain degree. We know this and accept the inherent uncertainty.

Modern project management is whole sale copied from industrial construction and manufacturing. It seems no one stopped to ask whether the same logic applies to software creation. And it doesn't.

The business side of IT is stuck in a mental model build on construction and manufacturing. Yet the process of creating software contains neither of those concepts with the exception of automated build and deploy (and costs for those are negligible).

It is also interesting that no distinct vocabulary for software exists. We build, deploy, construct, have factories and so forth. Again copied from disciplines which are complicated - but not complex.

It is not possible to obtain the information you refer to by analysis. That's a property of a complex system. Analysis of parts neglects the interaction between parts and in software more or less everything is connected.

This is one of the reasons why we cannot forecast weather and why we cannot reliably estimate software.

Now, if I start my explanation this way I'm also sure to lose their attention. So what do we do? Which intellectual approach will captivate these people, retain their attention and at least plant a seed of doubt in the established way of working?

Complexity exists in interaction between parts - not necessarily the parts themselves. Breaking down a project do not take those interactions into account.

Even if we were to try considering interactions we would fail. Like the weather, and other topics in the complex systems domain, software is sensitive to initial conditions. A small change in input (change in data or code) creates a large change in output.

We generally accept the upper bound on weather forecast to be 7 days and even then we might bring an umbrella just in case. Forecasting software many months into the future is futile - if taken at face value. Used as a general guideline it is usually ok.

A paradigm shift is needed. Both inside and outside the industry. Software is not industrial construction, hence the same logic (project management) do not apply.

Software is creation, conduction and orchestration. Not production or manufacturing. We are not teams of architect, builders and operators. We are musicians in a orchestra.

How long does it take to write a symphony?

I make a distinction between physical violence and what you refer to as harm.

I do not believe people must be protected from harm in that manner. Words can be hurtful but they do not directly kill of cause injury.

Suppose this very discussion was causing you harm, as you define it, would that make it illegal to even discuss the topic?

Those statements are not in opposition to each other,

> Because obviously walking around and insulting people based on their race or religion is an act of violence

If you define an insult to be violent in the same way as taking a life then I see why we are so far from each other. I make a clear distinction between the two. Do you really think an insult is an act of violence? I'm curious why you would think that

Inciting to violence and performing a violent act is not the same thing. If they were one could defer responsibility to the actor who incited one to be violent. That ends all personal responsibility for ones own actions.

> I think you lack the historical culture and can't understand the context of these texts.

Such derogatory remarks does not further any conversation. I'm here to debate - to learn - to expose myself to different worlds. I hope you are as well. Question - don't assume.

> Plenty of people are being harassed in public for their sexuality, race, etc.

Harassment, regardless of motive, is illegal. Is there a need to make it more illegal?

> you don't need a 20 years long control study to prove that outlawing hate speech will improve their rights.

Restricting a collective right does in no way grant more rights to a minority. It may (superficially and short term) improve their lives but do you really thing people will be less hateful from being told they are hateful? I always found that conclusion odd

"Hate" is fuzzy. Some Jews believe hate is any kind of critique of Israel. "Racism" is fuzzy. Some black people believe it is racist to dance a certain way if you're not black. "Sexism" is fuzzy. Some women believe they have been violated by a compliment.

Definitions change. Most of the time irrationally. What was well-intentioned yesterday becomes hateful tomorrow.

This is a slippery slope my friend. Not many things in life are absolute but freedom to speak your mind must be one of them.

You're conflating the right to express oneself with the right to act violently. Those two are not the same hence the same logic does not apply.