Agile is a sliding scale, a scale where you have Agile on one end and Waterfall on the other. Some companies lean more to Agile while others lean more to Waterfall, depending on what Agile principles they choose to adopt. You'd be hard to find a company that is 100% Agile. Well that's what our Agile trainer told us. Same trainer used to use every opportunity he had to brag about how he was the consultant that introduced Agile methodology to build Heathrow Terminal 5. So looks like you can shoe horn apply it to everything! And same trainer charges £1000 per person to attend his 2 day workshop...
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Twitter and the Chief Twit
- Thread starter Mr H
- Start date
Agile frequently becomes a rigid adherence to rules, and thus the opposite of what the term 'agile' would suggest (or I believe was originally intended based on what I heard of it when it was first promoted).
The system we had is some of the bits of agile that we liked, mixed in with some industry knowledge of how often our biggest customers change their minds, and a decently formalised testing regime.. works well but it's unique to us and I wouldn't expect to be able to transplant it wholesale to another business - these things need to come from a conversation with everyone affected.
The system we had is some of the bits of agile that we liked, mixed in with some industry knowledge of how often our biggest customers change their minds, and a decently formalised testing regime.. works well but it's unique to us and I wouldn't expect to be able to transplant it wholesale to another business - these things need to come from a conversation with everyone affected.
EVer Hopeful
Active Member
Like I said; it's all just marketing and someone somewhere is making a lot of money off the back of it
At our place they do stand ups every morning: "What impediments are you facing today?" - "Well just that I had to stop work, stop concentrating and attend this pointless and disruptive meeting and by the time I get back into the swing of it, It'll be lunchtime, so basically, we just blew off the entire morning ... like we do every morning"
Since this has gone on a bit, and as someone who weakly defended Agile, I'll just add a couple points.
Firstly the original intent of Agile was meant to come to some sort of common ground around some of the organisation/dev frameworks at the time (2001), and was ultimately just some principles and values.
The rigid application of modern agile ideas, new frameworks for things like agile at scale, etc. doesn't really reflect the original intent at all, nor do these organisations charging big money for consulting and blindly instituting a bunch of practices that mostly don't work or add any value.
The intention was for teams to be self organising by applying ideas as suited them. So if you have a stand up every morning that you and the rest of your team think is a waste of time, you don't need to do it, you can still be agile. Far too many stand ups are a waste of time, they are usually overtaken by some management type who unloads for about 30 minutes, when in reality it should just be "no blockers" and on to the next person - most people can look at the scrum/kanban board and see what you're working on, if they care at all. If you're using scrum, but you can't progress tickets because you're relying on an external third party then why are you doing scrum? Yes, I've literally worked in a place like this. The point is the team themselves should figure it out, it shouldn't be passed down by some organisation or management forcing a cargo cult style application.
What I mainly see is orgs looking at it as a way to cut corners on planning and scheduling, and mostly to track work, and then following the "best practice" irrespective of how that fits the workload, deployment, actual customer contact, etc.
In some cases for some specific bits I've found aspects of common agile processes good and has improved work for me, but most of the time the company or some specific managers ruin it otherwise. Most of the time I'm working some realistically waterfall project that someone has broken up into epics, sprints, tasks and will be tested and put to prod when it's done and just following the agile stuff because "that's how it's meant to be done."
TLDR - there's no such thing as proper agile and anything you're doing agile should be done because it's helping your team do and manage their workload and not because it's how Google does it or because the boss likes to look at the tickets on a scrum board and decide if you're not working hard enough.
Also I don't make £1000s to consult on applying agile practices at businesses, I'm just someone who suffers/enjoys working with it.
Firstly the original intent of Agile was meant to come to some sort of common ground around some of the organisation/dev frameworks at the time (2001), and was ultimately just some principles and values.
The rigid application of modern agile ideas, new frameworks for things like agile at scale, etc. doesn't really reflect the original intent at all, nor do these organisations charging big money for consulting and blindly instituting a bunch of practices that mostly don't work or add any value.
The intention was for teams to be self organising by applying ideas as suited them. So if you have a stand up every morning that you and the rest of your team think is a waste of time, you don't need to do it, you can still be agile. Far too many stand ups are a waste of time, they are usually overtaken by some management type who unloads for about 30 minutes, when in reality it should just be "no blockers" and on to the next person - most people can look at the scrum/kanban board and see what you're working on, if they care at all. If you're using scrum, but you can't progress tickets because you're relying on an external third party then why are you doing scrum? Yes, I've literally worked in a place like this. The point is the team themselves should figure it out, it shouldn't be passed down by some organisation or management forcing a cargo cult style application.
What I mainly see is orgs looking at it as a way to cut corners on planning and scheduling, and mostly to track work, and then following the "best practice" irrespective of how that fits the workload, deployment, actual customer contact, etc.
In some cases for some specific bits I've found aspects of common agile processes good and has improved work for me, but most of the time the company or some specific managers ruin it otherwise. Most of the time I'm working some realistically waterfall project that someone has broken up into epics, sprints, tasks and will be tested and put to prod when it's done and just following the agile stuff because "that's how it's meant to be done."
TLDR - there's no such thing as proper agile and anything you're doing agile should be done because it's helping your team do and manage their workload and not because it's how Google does it or because the boss likes to look at the tickets on a scrum board and decide if you're not working hard enough.
Also I don't make £1000s to consult on applying agile practices at businesses, I'm just someone who suffers/enjoys working with it.
Totally agree @TheRealWatto . It's very easy to pretend to be agile without understanding. It's very hard for orgs and managers to give up the control they're used to in order to do things properly. Therefore 90% of places it'll not be a good experience. The proliferation of "the Spotify method" being a case of copy/pasting an "agile" framework rather than being truly agile.
Anyway, Twitter eh. This is kind of where I'm at. He's a useful figurehead and money man until he's not.
Anyway, Twitter eh. This is kind of where I'm at. He's a useful figurehead and money man until he's not.
PM's and PO's googling <Methodology> vs <Methodology> in a months time and finding this thread on page 1 of Google
Are some of you being paid by Atlassian to Keyword stuff? If yes, PM me, I want in. But also, that doesn't work anymore. You need to be on TikTok.
Are some of you being paid by Atlassian to Keyword stuff? If yes, PM me, I want in. But also, that doesn't work anymore. You need to be on TikTok.
UkNorthampton
TSLA - 12+ startups in 1
Sounds completely at odds at anything I've ever read or heard spoken about Elon by people who know him. Made up to hit certain prejudices, I would guess. Gullible/prejudiced might believe.
Quote from Jim Cantell, a rocket scientist (taken from another reply to the obvious lies).
Wiki entry for Jim
Last edited:
He hasn’t worked with Musk for over 15 years. But he knows talking fondly of Musk will mean he gets a lot of fans.
UkNorthampton
TSLA - 12+ startups in 1
He?
Three people mentioned:-
Tom Mueller - SpaceX - Tom Mueller - Wikipedia
Rich Wurden - Aigen / Tesla
Jim Cantrell - French Space Agency, USA Department of Defense
There are many others who have expressed very positive views of Elon Musk's intellect and abilities across multiple disciplines. Plenty of haters, I've just never seen very good arguments from unmotivated people - none/few seem to have first-hand knowledge.
I just checked Jim
I’ll let you check the others.
The point about Jim is he’s been gone a long time, and the sitting around a white board talking about stuff in the earliest days of SpaceX when there are 5 emplotees is almost certainly. very different to any of the Musk companies now. You can also ask yourself why he left.
UkNorthampton
TSLA - 12+ startups in 1
“I didn’t believe in his commercial space strategy and plan to colonize Mars,” Cantrell says, which were among the reasons he left SpaceX. “Elon has proven me wrong. He’s very smart — but what sets Elon apart is his determination. He has dogged determination and has never given up. I’m grateful to have been a part of SpaceX’s early days and cheer on their success.” - Jim Cantrell
Tom Mueller has been interviewed many times, recent Netflix and UK TV documentaries (from memory). many years working with Elon.
Believable reports compared to an anonymous TSLAQ source.
Further reading for those who haven't seen the TSLAQ playbook before:-
Musk's apparently awe inspiring intellect seems to run counter to how he's managing Twitter, to be honest. There's some pretty contemporary evidence for you, playing out in real time.
You can "move fast and break things" without alienating the very revenue stream you are utterly dependant on, whilst validating right wing pundits hypotheses and conspiracy theories with "makes u think" level responses. I'm finding it very hard to imagine how he's going to service the massive debt burden Twitter now has, on the course he's currently on. He has to find $1b+ of revenue a year just to break even.
You can "move fast and break things" without alienating the very revenue stream you are utterly dependant on, whilst validating right wing pundits hypotheses and conspiracy theories with "makes u think" level responses. I'm finding it very hard to imagine how he's going to service the massive debt burden Twitter now has, on the course he's currently on. He has to find $1b+ of revenue a year just to break even.
UkNorthampton
TSLA - 12+ startups in 1
I haven't checked directly but some tweets saying twitter traffic & Monetizable Daily Users (whatever metric twitter uses) are higher.
Staff costs (including share dilution) will be down soon, before twitter starts to hire again. Infrastructure costs will probably fall due to greater efficiency - this will improve over time.
Checkmarks are a new revenue stream, so less dependence on advertising which was falling anyway due to recession.
Truth Social's owner has been allowed back on twitter, so that divisive person has a choice
1) Reach - Truth Social has very few users - so twitter is much better for engagement
2) Money - Truth Social will probably fail (I think it's pretty close anyway)
Where Truth Social's owner goes, many (well, some) will follow, so Elon's stated aim of ensuring that Twitter is the most important forum for the majority of people looks promising. Those with very different views (opposite of Truth Social) may switch to Mastodon (1-1.6 million users) rather than Twitter (250-450 million active users according to reports). However, I think most people are waiting to see what happens and the network effects of a larger network will draw people back in.
I don't know the financials of Twitter, it will take a while to settle down anyway. Searching for reports on Twitter's debt/interest only show me those from the usual untrustworthy suspects.
The stated figure of "$1B a year revenue" seems tiny. 2021 was way higher - something like $5B from first search result I found. Did you mean profit?
In any case, it seems that Elon's plan/approach is working. He's just tackling the worst bits now.
He's also cleaned up some vile twitter usage as well (https://twitter.com/elizableu). Something I think any right-thinking person would applaud.
Zilla91
Active Member
UkNorthampton
TSLA - 12+ startups in 1
Wow, more history than I knew about ("January of 2021"). I wonder how much this influenced Elon Musk's decision to fix twitter.
www.newsweek.com
Edit: This seems to be the original article:- Tesla can help solve Human Trafficking: A survivor explains how - TESLARATI
In my opinion, the mention of artificial intelligence to do good would appeal to Elon Musk
Elon Musk Is Protecting Sexually Exploited Children
Musk has been quietly making changes to Twitter that will have a huge positive global impact on the most vulnerable: children who are sexually exploited.
www.newsweek.com
Edit: This seems to be the original article:- Tesla can help solve Human Trafficking: A survivor explains how - TESLARATI
In my opinion, the mention of artificial intelligence to do good would appeal to Elon Musk
Last edited:
Twitter posts saying more users and tweets.. that’s funny.
Musk has been proven to mislead wildly, his 2016 FSD videos were edited, his 0-60 times were deceitful and he lost a court battle in Norway, his car prices (after savings) were taken down because they were illegal, he’s recently said Twitter was the biggest source of web clicks and that was show to be false.
He has the advantage now that it’s not a public company so he can say what he wants on Twitter, nobody can prove him right or wrong, it can’t be investigated as no market manipulation, etc
The child stuff is great, if you believe it
Musk has been proven to mislead wildly, his 2016 FSD videos were edited, his 0-60 times were deceitful and he lost a court battle in Norway, his car prices (after savings) were taken down because they were illegal, he’s recently said Twitter was the biggest source of web clicks and that was show to be false.
He has the advantage now that it’s not a public company so he can say what he wants on Twitter, nobody can prove him right or wrong, it can’t be investigated as no market manipulation, etc
The child stuff is great, if you believe it
He has become a reply guy to every US right wing idiot on twitter, embarrassing.
I don't think he is fully aware that social media hate speech is self policed so governments don't get involved. He keeps playing this game and they will, quickly.
I don't think he is fully aware that social media hate speech is self policed so governments don't get involved. He keeps playing this game and they will, quickly.
UkNorthampton
TSLA - 12+ startups in 1
Several of those seem to be Tesla rather than Elon specific. I've yet to find a perfect company, especially when growing fast. Companies lose court battles frequently.
The "twitter posts" (I can see how it needs clarification) were
1) Posts by non-Twitter people watching web traffic and some other metrics in USA & in the rest of the world.
2) Some twitter-people - I tried to search for the one I saw, but found this instead
With faster, more efficient code, video & long-form written content, I think Twitter 2.0 will be fine. Mmm charts...
It's true, I opened up my twitter account for the first time in years for the laugh at what he was saying, I can believe the active numbers have increased
I also found I couldn't delete it when I wanted to.
It's dead as a platform if you ask me. It's been dead for a while amongst most of the people I know to be honest.
I also found I couldn't delete it when I wanted to.
It's dead as a platform if you ask me. It's been dead for a while amongst most of the people I know to be honest.
Numbers don't make money.. 99% of twitter users will never give a penny to twitter, advertisers are still leaving, and the blue badge programme is suspended.
Twitter has got to find 1bn a year just to keep up with payments on the debt he loaded onto it. It's probably a big part of the motivation for laying off that many people.. but that can only go so far.
The interesting time will be when the financial results come in and how the creditors react.
Twitter has got to find 1bn a year just to keep up with payments on the debt he loaded onto it. It's probably a big part of the motivation for laying off that many people.. but that can only go so far.
The interesting time will be when the financial results come in and how the creditors react.
Similar threads
