|
"Instead, only try to realize the truth...there is no spoon."
|
|
|
|
|
"You know, waking up in the morning and not dreading to go to work."
Jeez, can't remember the last time I didn't do that...
|
|
|
|
|
Time to find a new job?
I mean, it's only like a third of your adult life... 
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm, with the commute, more like half.... 
Also, at 63  I'm not exactly best placed for moving jobs.
Oh well, two years to retirement, then I can spend more time on my main hobby - programming... 
|
|
|
|
|
Ouch, good luck those two years 
My retirement age is currently 67 and a bit 
Of course I plan on making lots of money and quitting A LOT sooner 
|
|
|
|
|
Leo56 wrote: Oh well, two years to retirement, then I can spend more time on my main hobby - programming...
Bravo !
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
lol imagine: Not getting paid to do what you love!!
|
|
|
|
|
In order to have a mixed match of personalities work together you need a respectable and authoritative leader. If, as in 90% of teams, such a leader is not present, it's much better to avoid the alpha-at-all-costs personalities because they will start fragmenting the group and clashing instead of collaborating.
Anedocte: I found out that engineers will cooperate much more than not formally trained porogrammers or non engineer programmers, at least in Europe. I believe it has to do with the absurd difficulty of our engineering programs, which make collaboration a felt necessity from the get go.
GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
den2k88 wrote: In order to have a mixed match of personalities work together you need a respectable and authoritative leader. If, as in 90% of teams, such a leader is not present, it's much better to avoid the alpha-at-all-costs personalities because they will start fragmenting the group and clashing instead of collaborating.
Impressive combination of vague generalities; what Sherlock said:Quote: It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. (Sherlock Holmes - A Scandal in Bohemia, Arthur Conan Doyle)
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
I respectfully disagree with conflict sometimes being a good thing.
I don't like having arguments or lengthy discussions at work. I do like dividing the work up, and completing it like a team, with people cheering eachother on and helping out when they can. And friday night we all go for drinks.
Idk, you can call me silly I guess. 
|
|
|
|
|
there's arguments, and there are fair fights.
there's argumentative style, and there is argumentative substance.
from my pov, a disagreement turns into an argument when the engaged parties take rigid stances, start to act from negative intention.
a leader who allows a meeting to turn into a melee of arguments is a poor leader. a leader who can recognize a focal conflict, make a decision as to whether exploring it furthers the work and group cohesion ... before allowing it to "take center stage:" that's a good leader.
i never want to be a leader !
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
Two key things, one, it was the occasional conflict, and two, the point of the management part is to keep it from being lengthy or argumentative. Setting clear expectations. If you've ever had a team building exercise they teach that conflict is part of creating an effective team. Changing a culture is even harder.
|
|
|
|
|
A voice of reason here !
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: Conflict/confrontation is not always a bad thing, and, imho, it's a program manager's task to channel conflict into "fair-fights" rather than sabotage, and inhibited productivity.
This should be any managers job and is a lost art. I've always said, chaos is energy. The trick is to control that energy.
|
|
|
|
|
I've sent several recent Dilberts to our HR director because they touch on this same exact issue. People are simply too easily offended.
|
|
|
|
|
If someone rolled their eyes at my code I'd ...
<insert nasty="" here="">
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: I'd like at least one a'hole on the team. Autistic: no problem if you write great code ! Painfully introverted: ditto. Obsessive-compulsives: you're hired. Caution for hysterics, and temperamental geniuses, however.
In my experience, such fringe personalities, especially when they're extreme, can become distractions or roadblocks to the team getting it's work done. The way you state your case makes it sound like you don't care how extreme those personalities traits are. Don't you worry about whether or not the team's productivity is affected by that?
What this mix requires, of course, is careful planning and allocation for who works on what. Do you ever run into cases where you can't get work done as quickly as possible because you don't have the full freedom to assign any available person to work on something? Sure, some people are better suited to a particular task, but oftentimes, task assignment just can't be optimal (or shouldn't be).
|
|
|
|
|
patbob wrote: The way you state your case makes it sound like you don't care how extreme those personalities traits are
That is your interpretation of what I said; I believe a careful reading of what I said does not evidence I am speaking of extremely dysfunctional behavior traits that would degrade productivity.
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
with the move toward webassembly and so much back and forth communication between client and server i wonder how long it will be before the web goes binary? didn't google already make an HTTP/2 proposal for a binary protocol?
i mean, we seem to be headed that way, and I'd say it's past due.
It's really interesting that there's things like "asm.js"/webassembly and JVM and the CLI that run on so many devices, making this all possible.
But i also wonder if webassembly/asm.js is just going to become its own VM
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm,
honey the codewitch wrote: But i also wonder if webassembly/asm.js is just going to become its own VM
I've worked on multiple teams at Microsoft in the operating systems group and I've been honored to contribute two system services that shipped with Windows 10. Like many of the members here on codeproject I have my hobby operating system that I've been writing for over a decade. What I find interesting is how humans seem to engineer operating systems like onions... if you start at the BIOS up to the HAL to ring0 then through the syscall gates to ring3 the operating system already looked like an onion... but we didn't stop there... we added additional layers on top of that.
When I see Windows 95 or Windows 2000 being booted with Webassembly... those operating systems are literally running up on the thirteenth floor.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
Scientiæ de conservata veritate.
|
|
|
|
|
Randor wrote: When I see Windows 95 or Windows 2000 being booted with Webassembly... those operating systems are literally running up on the thirteenth floor.
A machine within a machine within a machine ...
"it's turtles all the way down."
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't the DEC guys have 5 rings to work with?
I mean, why did you think 3 was sufficient?
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Tim,
These "rings" are mostly conceptual in nature with ring0 always at the operating system kernel. It gets even more complicated when you consider the modern UEFI BIOS. For example with the hypervisor enabled the hyperviser becomes "ring -1" and when it's disabled the BIOS becomes "ring -1".
Tim Deveaux wrote: I mean, why did you think 3 was sufficient?
I would make the argument that Microsoft Windows doesn't have 3 protection rings... I intentionally mentioned the HAL because it's technically sitting above the kernel and on top of the hardware layer. These protection ring concepts are subjective. If you asked three kernel developers you'd probably get three different answers.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
Scientiæ de conservata veritate.
|
|
|
|
|
0 to 3 would be four rings.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
ONE RING TO RULE THEM ALL
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
