Re: Not Team Building
I remember (very vaguely!) one away week where someone had discovered the previous week's bar bill and was determined to beat it.
40413 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"Is there a point to team building with people you are unlikely to ever meet again?"
Yes. It pays good money to the snake-oil salesmen who run the events and the hotels or whatever that host them. A point for the company you work for? Why would you expect that?
As a variant of that, vary occasionally I would have to visit crime scenes in extremely dodgy areas. I would have an armed escort, sometimes RUC, sometimes army, sometimes both. I've never worked with them before. Woah! I'm trusting my life to the protection these guys are providing, I've never met them before and I can do this without even a team building exercise? Im Possible!
Well, actually I expect them to look after my safety, they expect me to do my job efficiently so we can remove ourselves from the dodgy neighbourhood ASAP. We're all professionals at our respective tasks. What more do we need?
(OK, let's gloss over the fact that a combined operation once took me to the wrong address in Twinbrook.)
"suddenly WFH is a beautiful thing"
As is retirement.
One IT managert seemed to believe in murder mystery evenings for team-building (obviously a lack of judgement on her part). I think she shied away from trying to involve me. I was looking forward to being asked so I could refuse on the basis that I don't do amateur nights*.
*Ex-forensic scientist here.
The point at issue is that there are words which have only a minor difference in spelling, stationary and stationery for example, which mean quite different things. The spillchucker won't help with those, you need to make a personal* effort to distinguish between a shop that's the opposite of mobile and one which sells envelopes.
* As opposed to personnel.
"Not all sales bods have this practical attitude. There are courses where you learn how to talk complete bollocks."
My experience of most salesmen is that (a) they don't need the course and (b) would be too arrogant to accept that they needed a course for anything.
I agree that not all salesmen talk bollocks. The exceptions were selling Leitz microscopes and HP kit back in HP's glory days.
It didn't take Dunning & Kruger to see what was perfectly plain already.
The most succinct statement of it I've ever read was in Tracey Kidder's "The soul of a new machine" when the project leaders had decided to staff the project with recent graduates (who by now, of course, are probably retiring). Having done this they started to worry about whether their new staff were as smart as they'd represented themselves in interview: "Are they so full of shit they don't know they're full of shit?"
In that case, of course, the answer was no.
"64 percent of companies surveyed already having suffered an attack, but more worryingly, that executives seem to believe that paying the ransom is a reliable way of addressing the issue.... In contrast, among those that have not so far suffered a ransomware attack, only 67 percent would be willing to pay, and they would be less inclined to do so immediately."
Which way does that causality run?
Is it that those who have been attacked had and still don't have anything in place to deal with it other than paying ransom and those who haven't been attacked have not yet seen that particular version of the light?
Or is it that those who haven't been attacked haven't escaped by chance but, being less inclinedt to pay, have put in place stronger protections?
"Wanting software to work in a way that makes sense to how the users work in real life"
Sometimes in real life users seem determined to not use the S/W in the way it was intended, even if the way it was intended was a management requirement.
A long time ago I put together an order processing system. It printed a picking list (the clue's in the name). After picking the goods the users had to enter the serial numbers picked into the system and then print out a despatch note (the clue's also in the name) to go with the goods. Instead of a neatly printed despatch note customers were apt to get the picking list with the serial numbers added by hand.
"A high end graphics chip is of no use at all in email and web servers."
OTOH they are just what's needed for number crunching.
"Yeah, open source is the way to go. Not. Said the people at Nvidia."
Didn't you read the article. Nvidia disagrees with you.
And yes said the people at IBM. Not that that is necessarily a desirable fate for Red Hat's employees.
I came to the same conclusion about the next bit of We Sailed the Ocean Blue. It starts with balls flying. Did people really express themselves that differently then or did Gilbert get away with a massive double entendre? I suspect some of the gentlemen in the audience had a snigger.
"I don't think the proposals are about publishing everything into the public domain."
Not intentionally. OTOH how would you feel about your online banking becoming insecure? They don't intend it but nevertheless it's what the proposals are about. You can facilitate surveillance or you can have secure online business: choose one.