Assuming that "bad developers" is indeed the root cause, that still sounds like a systemic issue to me:
a) are the developers bad because they were hired that way? maybe the hiring process is broken
b) are the developers bad because they are not managed/trained properly? maybe managers aren't doing their job, and maybe it's not even their fault because they did not get training in how to manage people in the first place
c) if you implement extra layers (or "synergy coordinators") it probably means that the company hasn't figured out how to communicate properly
Management is ultimately responsible for everything. Even if you have the worst developer in the world on your team, management decided to hire them, retain them, assign them responsibility, and failed to improve their performance. That said, plenty of people are just self-serving dickheads. Could they be reformed? Probably. Is that the company’s responsibility? Only up to a point.
I’ve worked with people that I was responsible for training in DevOps, from a starting point of having only ever done GUI-based Ops. Basically starting from complete technical incompetence, and plenty of them succeeded, because they were good people with good attitudes. I’d wager a small team of people like that would always be more productive than a team of any sized comprised of arrogant, combative, CYA assholes.
Not the person you were replying to, however for me it mainly helped me understand that my loved ones' drinking was not something I could control, and it allowed me to let go of the anger and resentment (easier said than done).
Same here, been to Al-Anon meetings in London UK, all hosted in church basements and with zero religious nonsense being spouted... just the Serenity Prayer and tbh that one is just plain good advice so I did not mind :)
I have nothing but praise for the 12-step system as I experienced it
I would avoid anything provided by Laureate Online, I have an MSc from the University of Liverpool that was provided by them and although the degree was legitimate, the quality of the "tuition" and course material was very low; ultimately I still got some value out of doing the coursework and dissertation but definitely not good value for money IMO.
Why not make it Early Access (if you're actually planning on releasing a fully fleshed out singleplayer campaign), brand it as a sandbox game and be clear about what's working and what's not yet implemented?
I would buy this game based just on the info you put on the website :)
It's an interesting conundrum, because ultimately the FAA doesn't have more engineering expertise than Boeing so all they can do is force Boeing to prove that they have done their due diligence in confirming that the 737MAX can be operated under the same type rating as the 737NG.
I'm guessing the next step for FAA and EASA will be to revise the process under which this approval was granted to Boeing.
Taking your argument a bit farther: let's assume that indeed the only issue present is a faulty MCAS implementation and that gets fixed. If the aircraft comes with additional training and certification requirements for pilots before it can be safely operated, then arguably it cannot be lumped into the same type rating as the 737NG.
This would destroy the main selling point for Boeing (training pilots for a different type rating is a massive expense and headache for airlines), and would also mean that across the world there would be no pilots allowed to fly the existing 737MAX.
The point about not cancelling the 737MAX because of the risk that the new models developed would be rushed and unsafe due to Boeing rushing the development of a new design is... not very plausible I'm afraid.
Yes, I think that at least more training/certification of the pilots for the 737 MAX is needed.
My argument was, that after fixing MCAS and proper recertifying the 737 MAX there is no fundamental reason not to put it back into business. And that not putting it back into business also carries some safety risks. I never claimed that it should be put back into business because of that.
But Nader didn't present a fundamental reason why the machine would be unsafe and completely ignored the consequences of permanentely grounding the 737 MAX.
No it didn't, you uninformed person. The two companies are in talks about a joint venture, but it's not yet ratified because the antitrust authorities in several countries haven't finished their due diligence yet.
I'm just glad that Tarn is finally looking concerned about his own health, considering he has (according to interviews) been living like a hermit and subsisting on red bull and soft drinks...
