• 75 Posts
Joined 1Y ago
Cake day: Jan 20, 2021


Iterative development is how software development was done initially. Then there was a misunderstanding and Waterfall was invented. The DOD spread the idea that you should be finished with the design before you start implementation. I think in practice barely anybody really did Waterfall because of common sense.

Maybe Agile can be understood as the correction (or over-correction in many cases). What the movement celebrates as huge innovation is mostly a regression toward the mean.

The question is how to turn it into a technical implementation.

We assume the situation is at least two people discussing and a moderator stepping in. Now the mod needs a button which makes the two write a shared conclusion. Lemmy could provide the means to write a “joint comment”, where both can edit and both need to sign it off. How to incentivize them though? The button probably needs to block the thread, post, or accounts until the joint comment is published.

The gold standard for me would be “adversarial collaboration” as described by Scott Alexander here and here. The first describes a conflict about psychic psi powers research. The amazing twist is that both sides wrote a paper together. The second article describes a similar collaboration about fact-checking. Essentially, this is “debate until they reach an agreement” with the additional requirement that they publish a joint statement afterwards.

So, if you are in an intense discussion with somebody, the best you can do is to write a blog post together. It requires both of you to present the evidence in a neutral way and derive conclusions such that you both agree with the reasoning. The process will make you work out where exactly you disagree (the quality of the sources? different values? missing knowledge?).

Is that realistic though? Such a collaboration is much more effort than a reply to a comment which triggers me. It is the best way to make progress in the overall debate.

Is that the goal here though? We don’t care so much about the result or progress of a debate but only to keep it civilized so everybody feels welcome to continue. An “unproductive” discussion is ok as long as all participants are nice to each other.

I just bought a used iPhone SE 2020 for 300€. The screen of my old Pixel 2 broke and its support ran out recently. Still a great phone otherwise. As a long-term Android user I miss a few things like SyncThing on iOS. However, with a strong focus on privacy, I’d say iOS wins over Android.

AstraZeneca seems to make a very rare illness (thrombocytopenia) less rare. As it affects mostly younger women, giving those another vaccine instead is an appropriate measure to me.

Created a Software Architecture community

Future home of insightful discussion about software architecture at least I hope so…


I fear there is currently little reason to leave reddit. We need a scandal like the recent WhatsApp uproar which gave Signal and Telegram more users.

A “hide” button to make submissions disappear from my frontpage even if the discussion goes on.

SlateStarCodex, Zettelkasten, Bogleheads, projectmanagement, ChrisRamsay52, rational

They are mostly about self-posts and discussions, so I cannot simply resubmit the stuff here.

In Germany, many are unhappy about the vaccination progress and pressure politicians to do something. In my opinion, they sound like sports fans where everyone knows it better then the pros.

If politicians get pressured into emergency activities, they might actually slow down the pharma companies.

The classic counter-argument is The ecosystem is moving by Moxie: Standardization slows down innovation.

Maybe it is simply too early to standardize on a messenger protocol. XMPP is a proper standard but Big Tech out-innovates it by providing additional features. For example, WhatsApp rolled out voice calls before an XMPP extension was available, if I remember correctly.

In general, I believe federation to be the ultimate sweet spot. P2P is too hard for most people but currently necessary in some cases like whistleblowing. Centralized services provide the best innovation speed. If run as a non-profit it is also ok (e.g. Signal) but ultimately the weak spot is that they are subject to a single nation and especially the US is not the best here with its shadow courts. Another option is to turn them into a government service. That would kill the innovation but something like Twitter does not need no innovate much anymore in my opinion.