(the stripe report is here: https://t.co/SbyZDarWr9)
Developer productivity, y'all. It is a three TRILLION dollar opportunity, per the stripe report.
Eng managers and directors, we have got to stop asking for "more headcount" and start treating this like the systems problem that it is. https://t.co/XJ0CkFdgiO
When people often have to spend weeks just to get a local development environment up, there is a lot to improve. \U0001f641
— Daniel Schildt (@autiomaa) December 20, 2020
(the stripe report is here: https://t.co/SbyZDarWr9)
By my calculations, that would reclaim 3 engineers worth of capacity given a team of just 17-18 people.
But also, we are wasting a fuck load of people's valuable time and energy, all because we refuse to improve our pipeline and fulfill the real promise of Continuous Delivery.
But it's not. It's the brutal grind of detangling stupid problems that should never have existed, repeatedly, with your eyes taped closed.
It's getting woken up in the middle of the night. It's flappy pages. For deprecated code.
And let us be clear: this is a fucking management problem. The fact that developer productivity is not high on every VP, director, and manager 2021 goals is a management failure.
You've seen this graph, right? (The yellow bubble is the "elite" teams.)
Then they tend to that shit, and don't let it drift.
I am sure there are exceptions, but increasingly I see this as a manager/director/VP eng problem.
Hear me out. I don't have it out for y'all; I've known some stellar nontech EMs.
That's a hard line for an EM to take with upper management (none of whom may have read or care about DORA reports or Accelerate).
EMs who don't have that personal grounded knowledge? Nah. I can't imagine going out on this limb based on hearsay. I sure wouldn't.
Anyone who walls you off with people OR tech isn't acting in your interest long term.
Moral of the story? (Morals?)
If you are an engineer, set yourself a goal that 2020 is the last year you leak time working for a place without observability and CD. Find one or help your job become one, but don't get left behind.
(If you *don't* know...catch up I guess)
The power to change the lives of engineers and teams around the world *dramatically* for the better rests primarily with you.
You span worlds. You have the moral authority of the doer and the influence.
But what is the point of power and influence if you don't haul it out when a mountain needs moving?
This fucking mountain, lol. Burn it to the grond. 😈
More from Software
How Silicon Valley, in a Show of Monopolistic Force, Destroyed
In the last three months, tech giants have censored political speech and journalism to manipulate U.S. politics -- banning reporting on the Bidens, removing the President, destroying a new competitor -- while US liberals, with virtual unanimity, have cheered.
The ACLU said the unity of Silicon Valley monopoly power to destroy Parler was deeply troubling. Leaders from Germany, France and Mexico protested. Only US liberals support it, because the dominant strain of US liberalism is not economic socialism but political authoritarianism.
https://t.co/qD9OdwlPbV
Just three months ago, a Dem-led House Committee issued a major report warning of the dangers of the anti-trust power of Apple, Amazon, Google and Facebook. Left-wing scholars have been sounding the alarm for years. Now it's here, and liberals
In the last three months, tech giants have censored political speech and journalism to manipulate U.S. politics -- banning reporting on the Bidens, removing the President, destroying a new competitor -- while US liberals, with virtual unanimity, have cheered.
The ACLU said the unity of Silicon Valley monopoly power to destroy Parler was deeply troubling. Leaders from Germany, France and Mexico protested. Only US liberals support it, because the dominant strain of US liberalism is not economic socialism but political authoritarianism.
https://t.co/qD9OdwlPbV
Just three months ago, a Dem-led House Committee issued a major report warning of the dangers of the anti-trust power of Apple, Amazon, Google and Facebook. Left-wing scholars have been sounding the alarm for years. Now it's here, and liberals
We wrote a 200 page report on why corporate concentration - including the big tech radicalization engines - worsened under both Democratic and Republican administrations. It has to do with antitrust enforcement, and it's fixable by Biden. https://t.co/K85Kv34t83
— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) January 12, 2021
@JuliaLMarcus @Iplaywithgerms This paper gives documentation on software (with causal reasoning, assumptions reviewed in appendix) for a parametric approach to estimating either "total effects" or "controlled direct effects" with competing events and time-varying
@Iplaywithgerms Total effects capture paths by which treatment affects competing event (e.g. protective total effect of lifesaving treatment on dementia may be wholly/partially due to effect on survival). Controlled direct effects do not capture these paths
@Iplaywithgerms More detailed reasoning on the difference and tradeoffs between total and controlled direct effects and causal reasoning in the point treatment context provided here along with description of some estimators and
@Iplaywithgerms If you are familiar with more robust approaches like IPW or even better TMLE for time-varying treatment, these are trivially adapted to go after the controlled direct effect by simply treating competing events like loss to follow-up (censoring). e.g.
@Iplaywithgerms Examples of IPW estimation of the total effect of a time-varying treatment described in Appendix D of this paper:
https://t.co/RNhcgTBMkb
And here
https://t.co/rMWmwFBWwV
Others in reference lists of above papers.
@Iplaywithgerms Total effects capture paths by which treatment affects competing event (e.g. protective total effect of lifesaving treatment on dementia may be wholly/partially due to effect on survival). Controlled direct effects do not capture these paths
@Iplaywithgerms More detailed reasoning on the difference and tradeoffs between total and controlled direct effects and causal reasoning in the point treatment context provided here along with description of some estimators and
@Iplaywithgerms If you are familiar with more robust approaches like IPW or even better TMLE for time-varying treatment, these are trivially adapted to go after the controlled direct effect by simply treating competing events like loss to follow-up (censoring). e.g.
@Iplaywithgerms Examples of IPW estimation of the total effect of a time-varying treatment described in Appendix D of this paper:
https://t.co/RNhcgTBMkb
And here
https://t.co/rMWmwFBWwV
Others in reference lists of above papers.
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
