Sure, but I don't think Waterfall is going to save you from the soul-crushingness in such an environment.
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 210
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 210
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
Or way worse, what you said but senior techs.
Microsoft has been at this long enough that there is an army of old guys whose only - but extremely specialized - skillset is navigating arcane GUIs for group policies and AD administration. But drop them in a bash terminal and they're like a fish dropped on a tennis court.
How much of it is due to Agile (which is a very broad concept even though some people mistakenly equate it with scrum), and how much is it due to corporate pressures and inadequate processes though?
I find Agile conceptually meshes a lot better with "standard" product and solutions development thanks to the tighter feedback loops and increased reliance on local expertise over centralized planning. This only gets truer as project complexity grows.
However some companies try to make Agile work with top-down decision making and/or hard deadlines, which are deadly antipatterns. As for lack of time/resources and/or timesheet micro-management, this isn't a problem unique to Agile nor something that waterfall is exempt from.
Good agile teams are mostly independent and can define their own testing/release cycle as required for a given project; though of course when that happens there are at least a couple layers of management who feel a burning itch to stuff their dirty nosed where they don't belong because if the team succeeds despite their lack of direct involvement then everyone might realize the emperor has no pants.
That may be true in some truly well organized (usually "legacy big corpo" companies).
Where I've worked it's more like:
- Requirements only cover user-facing features, if that. (Not so) senior engineers are left to bridge the gap between UI mockups and literally everything else.
- Implementation issue is accidentally introduced
- Priority on the bug is lower than new features so no-one has any way to justify working on it
- One day a dev might be personally annoyed enough by the issue that they fix the part as part of some tangentially related work. Else it stays like that forever.
That is a basic side-effect of Agile development. If you have implementation details figured out to such an extent before writing the code, you are not doing agile, you are doing waterfall. Which has a time and a place, but that time and place is typically banking or medical or wherever you're okay with spending several times the time and money to get maximum reliability (which is a different metric than quality!).
I bet NVIDIA has driver crashes to figure out, and I know which of those issues I'd want them to focus on first if I used their windows driver.
Downmixing is a pretty straightforward affair. You have 6 channels, you need to go to 2, so you just average 4 signals per channel using some weights.
Good media players (Kodi) allow you to change those weights, especially for the center channel, and to reduce dynamic range (with a compressor). Problem solved, the movie will be understandable even on shitty built-in TV speakers if you want to do that for some insane reason.
The problem is that there are "default" weights for 2.0 downmixing that were made in the 90s for professional audio monitoring headphones, and these are the weights used by shitty software from shitty movie distributors or TV sets that don't care to find out why default downmixing is done the way it is. Netflix could detect that you're using shitty speakers and automatically reduce dynamic range and boost dialogue for you, they just DGAF. But none of that is the movie's problem.
Right?! A track like Spanish Sahara by Foals that uses the full dynamic range is such a pleasure to listen to. Then there's In the Air Tonight which IIRC has a digital release with super compressed dynamic range. The whole point of that song is that it slowly builds up to a genre-defining drop, so it had better stand out!
But people want to listen to movies on their built-in TV speakers with children crying in the background, and they don't want to understand how or why things are the way they are, they just want to complain that the world doesn't revolve around them.
I had a 5.0 setup before I even bought my first TV. I was just using my PC monitor until then.
It's counter-intuitive but decent sound comes first. I'd much rather watch Interstellar in 360p with 5.1 audio than in 4K OLED HDR with built-in speakers.
But when you say that people get mad because they spent a grand on a TV that sounds like shit and they feel they have to defend their choices.
I see that, but that is not what I am saying.
This is just not how things work on a technical level. The default is how cinemas work because that's the experience movies are made for; literally every other way to consume movie audio is "general usage audio programs fine tuning" and that's what needs fixing. That's my entire thesis. By calling me elitist you're just inventing things I'm not saying to get mad over.
Yes 500 € is a lot of money. But I will say I bought a good audio setup years before I even had a TV (some parts second hand so it did not actually cost me that much, and a 3.0 setup gets you 80 % of the way there). It's a markedly better experience to watch a movie on a shitty PC monitor with good audio than on a 55" OLED with built-in speakers, and I will die on that hill. And anecdotally I've heard actual filmmakers say as much.
people watch stuff on TV and cannot hear any dialogue
did you read anything I said or do you just want to complain?
have a doctorate on audio / put in thousands of dollars into a hobby
Good news then, a more-than-decent 5.1 setup can be had for ~500 €. A decent soundbar for a few hundred.
and let people like you mess around with the settings for your home cinema
I can't if the audio source is fucked up because directors have been forced by studios to release with low dynamic range.
My whole point is that your audio goes Master -> 5.1 channels -> downmixer -> your shitty 2.0 channels speakers and my audio goes Master -> 5.1 channels -> receiver -> my 5.1 setup.
You're asking the master to change to fit your needs. I'm asking the media players to fix their fucking downmixers because that's where the problem lies. Leave the studio mastering alone god damn it.
Where do you draw the line? If you use a soundbar, someone else is complaining because they use their built-in speakers. But if you optimize for that, someone else is using their laptop speaker on the train.
What really pisses me off with this "argument" is that the audio information is all right there, which you would know if you bothered to read the second half of my comment before getting all pissy.
5.1 audio (and the standards that superseded it in cinemas) all have multiple audio channels with one dedicated to voice. If you have a shit sound system, the sound system should be downmixing in a way that preserves dialogue better. Again, the information is all right there as there is no stereo track in most movies, your player is building it on-the-fly based on the 5.1 track. It's not the director's fault that Netflix or Hulu is doing an awful job at accounting for the fact that most of their users are listening on a sound setup that can barely reproduce intelligible speech.
Nah, I have a good sound setup and I don't want to be watching movies with less dynamic range because some people are using their shrilly built-in TV speakers with their children screaming in the background or $5 earbuds.
If you don't want to have a proper 5.1 audio setup, it's not the director's problem, it's the media player. Audio compression, center channel boosting, and subtitling are things that media centers have been able to do for decades (e.g. Kodi), it's just that streaming platforms and TVs don't always support it because they DGAF. Do look for a "night mode" in your TV settings though, that's an audio compressor and I have one on my receiver. If you are using headphones, use a media player like Kodi that allows you to boost the center channel (which is dedicated to dialogue).
Nowadays "buggy" is not how I'd describe it, though there were certainly teething issues at the beginning. By now other DEs have learned to deal with it.
However it's still true that the GTK4 design is ill-fitting, and very opinionated. Quite exemplary of this are the applications that hardcode the GTK file picker (like Firefox and chrome) even though it's inferior in every way to the Qt file picker and forces the infuriating GTK "design" choice of doing fuzzy search when you type in the file list instead of jumping to the relevant file. Very annoying when dealing with organized directories especially when no other file browser on my system works that way!
You know, maybe my grandparents had it right.
It is weird that computers give so little sensory feedback for what they're doing. Flashlights go click. Cassette decks go clack-vrrrr. Whiteboards go squeek-squeek. Screen sharing goes... nothing, just a small mostly white rectangle on top of my much bigger rectangle until a disembodied, 4 kHz-wide simulacrum of someone's voice from halfway around the world says "yeah we see your screen". Unnatural is what it is.
I work in the industry (not MSFT) on cloud reliability so I have insight.
- The cloud itself is not as stable as some people may think. Standard is 99.9 % uptime. Which sounds great, but if your DB is 99.9 % and your compute is 99.9% and your storage is 99.9 % and your network and so on and any one of those going out breaks your application, then you don't have 99.9 % but
(99.9 %)^nwhich is a lot less impressive. You can make things fault-tolerant through redundancy but that comes with great complexity which can cause outages of its own. - Apps like teams, like most B2B bullshit, provide added value by bundling together as much shit as possible. Chat, calls, calendar, spreadsheets, you name it. So now any one of those features going out individually can impact the whole app.
- Every one of those features in the bundle is managed by a different team, possibly in a different country and coming from a different company acquisition. So now you have to glue unrelated tech stacks together which is super expensive.
- The way you bundle things together in a SPA in a corporate environment with finite resources is by basically bundling together a bunch of iframes. Ever notice that the calendar tab on teams sometimes tells you to refresh your page to get new credentials? That's why, this fucking thing bundles its own authentication lib and barely talks to MS Teams so it can't properly refresh its tokens! If you like having one product's technical debt, now think about having 20 products' technical debt all conveniently forced to interact together in one web page!
Honestly I'm impressed by how well teams works with the very severe constraints they clearly have. Shit's got more moving parts than Ryanair's entire fleet and it only breaks once in a while.
It's because the tech sector fundamentally relies on different economics than most engineering companies, and that has investors absolutely bricked up.
What investors being sold by "tech" companies is infinite ROI. Sure, [YouTube/Twitter/Uber/whoever] has never been profitable more than a few quarters in a row (if that), but think! They have virtually no fixed costs! That means if we just inject a few more millions in R&D we will finally reach the threshold where we can scale deployments to hundreds of millions of users who will be paying us MRR! Hosting costs are virtually nothing and at that scale R&D is basically free as well! And if push comes to shove, we can reduce costs to nearly zero by firing all the engineers! The economies of scale are practically infinite, they say.
It's the rare instance where capitalists actually care about long-terms gain a bit too much. The tech industry tends to be single-mindedly chasing monthly user counts first and revenue second or third. Then at some point reality catches up, the accountants start getting their way, the product starts getting enshittified, and the users leave for something else. Did the product actually turn a net profit over its lifetime? Who knows, who cares. Everyone who made those early business decisions has long since cashed out.
Where the markets are unbelievably irrational is that this frenzy has spilled over into industries where the the sales pitch for infinite economies of scale doesn't even make theoretical sense. Tesla sells physical products, so why are they worth more than every other automotive company combined? OpenAI operates at an enormous loss because LLMs are just expensive to train and run by nature, so they cannot be profitable under the current business model at any scale. Yet here we are. Just because it's labeled as "tech", investors are throwing our retirement funds into it. And any time the markets are being irrational, there's a risk that investors wise up to the bad fundamentals and the whole thing comes crashing down.
In Europe we've been spared some of the worst of the craziness. Although venture capitalism is alive and well in the software sector, I would wager that European companies tend to have stronger fundamentals on average (but that's just a gut feeling, I'm not an economist).
Vanishingly little of the hordes of little hands who immediately crumbled to Trump actually answer to him. And those that do are still supposed to uphold the constitution first and foremost.
Resistance has always been an option, Americans are just almost unanimously choosing not to exercise it.
Suse has been trying pretty hard with Harvester. KVM-based, VMs-as-k8s-pods which leverages all existing k8s tooling, as well as the same multi-cluster federation as RKE2.
Seems pretty great from afar, though it's very much under active development.
I know people in that predicament and they're, charitably, helpless little babies when you tell them to read two paragraphs of documentation on how to run one command in a Linux CLI.
Fundamentally nothing out there really caters to the needs of resellers. Your average resale company couldn't automate a backup job to save itself from bankruptcy if it doesn't come with a neat GUI, a 24/7 support contract, and preferably a Microsoft or oracle logo somewhere in the corner to inspire confidence.
Like I jest but there are Microsoft outfits and FOSS outfits and there is essentially zero professional overlap even though they both sell IT products/solutions. The disconnect is a mile wide. Which translates to wildly different business models where the FOSS people have been running shit in containers for 15 years while the Microsoft slaves are still licensing their monolithic solutions by the CPU Core and doing weird-ass shit like buy 4-core xeons because it's more economical with these archaic licensing models.
So sure Proxmox/Suse are certainly very happy with their sales number right now but anecdotally I'm not seeing the migration frenzy that one would expect under such intense price gouging. Broadcom correctly identified that it will take years for these super corporate structures to steer away from "the way we've always done things" and in the meantime that's untold millions in additional short-term profits.
This can be hard to implement and avoidable through "creative accounting" (e.g. living off daddy money with no declared income) so as a hybrid/additional solution fines should turn into penalties over repeat offences.
Some countries use points licensing where your driver's license will simply be taken away if you have too many recent infractions on record.
Companies should also be prevented from doing certain kinds of business if they repeatedly break the law. We have legal frameworks for this, we are just refusing to apply them due to politics and corruption.
Plenty of cars flash their brake lights when ABS(/ESP?) engages, which is reasonable and should be a legal requirement IMO.
There's lots of room to give additional info in between that and "brake light is on because the driver doesn't understand that they can do mild adjustments by letting off the gas / stupid bitch-ass VW PHEV computer thinks using cruise control downhill with electric regen requires the motherfucking brake lights". It's like no-one realizes or cares that brake lights lose all purpose if they're on when the car isn't meaningfully decelerating. ARGH.