ResearchCode

No, that is not obvious, more than you making money from corporate agile, which few software engineers seem to actually like. Too many meetings is one of the most common criticisms.

Playing "poker" at work and having agile helpers sounds like extreme dysfunction.

How far did the autonomous cars get since?

The LLM can replace the kinda smart "business person" easy before it replaces the computer scientist. Generating a kinda smart prompt in human language is really easy compared to good computer programs. LLM will write slide decks and spreadsheets before they write good computer programs.

Yes and "AI" isn't much different.

Employers need to increase the sign-on bonus. Relocating for at-will employment is very risky.

It costs nothing amortized over the hundred hires you wouldn't fire in the first month. If you fire often, this law is good to stop you from doing that.

Not really. Giving employees the choice to work from home or not is the opposite of controlling them. Just like giving employees the option to work only forty hours a week is not controlling them but giving them liberty. It's such a good thing it's law in many countries.

It has nothing to do with getting your way but working efficiently and with respect for the autonomy of your colleagues.

That's a bad argument. Sounds like we should not work from the office then. What comes after the "I like making others work in the office, because"? That's the quiet part not being said out loud. I'm interested.

That's not what I'm hearing or what you would read in an announcement for one the partial RTOs that have happened at some tech companies.

You don't need an argument for a preference. If you try to coerce other people according to your preference, you need an argument, as you would in any other context. For some reason, the RTO arguments are very bad. Is there some part the proponents can't say out loud?

No. It's possible my stock options would be worth more if the office workers adopted the more efficient form of work from home. Maybe the hybrid meetings would be more enjoyable fully remote. I still wouldn't think about trying to coerce them into that with talk about synergy or the online version of water coolers. That's a bad thing to do. Let them enjoy the office, and others remote.

They have plenty of other office workers to talk to. For some reason, that is not enough, and the office workers need a better argument than "real product development happens at the water cooler". For the employer to make an informed decision it's better if the arguments are honest.

It can be a large win-small loss situation too. Remote workers gain two hours of commute back and forty hours of focused work. Office workers lose the open floor plan vibe (it's called back to office but tech workers don't have offices) and ability to push around their colleagues, or whichever the actual reason is. I don't understand it fully. It doesn't seem morally justifiable to me, and they encroach more on the professional autonomy on the remote worker than the remote worker does to them. The office workers wouldn't like it if they were being coerced to work from home for some BS reason.

Unfortunately I suspect you might be right about that. Water cooler talk and synergies might mean I like you being forced to talk to me.

No, I am not controlling anyone in that case. I am treating other people as professionals and letting them structure their work the way they think is best. Maybe it would be even better for me if they all worked from home, but I am not telling them to. I am questioning why the office workers try to make other people return to office with bad faith arguments (water cooler talk and synergies), when remote workers seem just happy to be working from home, without pressuring office workers to come and join them.

I think there is a big difference advocating for what's best for you and letting everyone else do their thing, and trying to control other people to please you better.

I have never seen a remote worker trying to push an office worker to work from home because it's more efficient. I have seen plenty of office workers trying to push remote workers into the office because of synergies and "water cooler chat". It's not the same thing.

Office workers want to push the office on everyone. Remote workers are not trying to push office workers to work from home.

I think all of them still allow full remote. Unfortunately not everyone gets that anymore, in spite of the pandemic showing that WFH was fully efficient.

If your courses are in the training set. You can also Google the solutions.

Which one isn't?

They could already translate those articles in 100 languages with machine translation. Those articles were bad and not widely read.

It seems like a tool for plagiarism. You could do the same thing before LLM grew in popularity by using Google Translate back and forth from English.

Engineers communicate just fine at FAANG. I don't see why they need an agile helper in non-tech enterprise. Lawyers don't need agile, and doctors don't. There is no reason why engineers would.

The team members are too busy with agile meetings to write software. That's a more common problem.

Maybe giving the tech lead a technical secretary is a better idea if you have a lot of administration to be done.

What's a trained "scrum master"? I thought the certs don't even have exams.

Yes, you get paid to do research and there are theorems delivered. Just like software projects, some never get delivered and you don't know when if they're not trivial.

What qualifications does a "scrum master" have that a software engineer does not have when it comes to creating a self-managing team? The "scrum" pamphlet can be read on a lunch break and I don't think the certs even have exams.

If the "scrum master" stopped booking meetings that should have been an e-mail, the engineers would deal with those issues with time to spare. What issues really? I don't even see how a technically weak "scrum master" could deal with any real issue in a software product.

Research mathematics.

Sounds like they were redundant from the very beginning. Those sound like small tasks for the engineers or the actual manager.

I don't see what use a "scrum master" is. That sounds like a small task for the software engineer or their real manager. There is nothing showing that heavy agile actually leads to features being developed earlier. In my experience it's the opposite as you build up heavy tech debt by micro-managing and optimizing for a 2 week return instead of the long term.

Waterfall were 1 to 2 year projects with heavy up-front administration. 3 to 6 months is well-balanced and that's what the "elite" companies and research groups tend to use. Two weeks is the current fad at non-tech enterprise.

Why do you need a "scrum master" to prevent that? Linux kernel seems to be doing just fine without them.

The real solution is of course not to have any "sprints" at all. A manageable chunk of work is a 3 to 6 month project.

Non-tech enterprise treat software engineers as children and create bad software. FAANG and adjacent companies treat software engineers more as professionals and create better software.