This just reads like it was written by someone who is overly stressed about their own accountability and taking it out on the process.

So much of the wording makes most of the issues seem self-imposed.

I always feel pressure to prove I actually worked

Engineering work is not linear, and you can easily go several days without making any progress worth mentioning.

I’m tired of feeling ashamed every morning, because [non-devs] are going to think I just watch YouTube videos all day.

Even if co-workers and management are the most benevolent people in the world, just knowing that someone could ask for my status and worrying that I won’t have a good answer is enough to do plenty of damage.

If the writer is within a toxic work environment, sure these are valid complaints, but that’s not because of a daily meeting.

Scrum doesn’t hurt people, I do.

The last paragraph is really what feels off the rails for me.

They don’t do this because they misunderstand Scrum. They do it because the Scrum Guide calls for daily check-ins, and that alone telegraphs the message: developers need to be watched closely. Otherwise the manual would say,“Developers alone can choose when and how they coordinate their work — because they are adults.”

The writer is clearly promoting an “us vs them” mentality, when the entire point is to work as a team. It’s not about just checking in, it’s about having a consistent formal time to be open to adapting as a group, especially in an agile environment. If you are trying to coordinate work between 3-10 people within an iteration, it’s about getting the work within the iteration fulfilled, not just the individual pieces.

So, no, team alignment does not have to happen daily, but it tends to be more beneficial than not when unknowns inevitably come into play.

Dexter’s Laboratory. Valhallen of The Justice Friends.

HDMI is intended to pass audio signal as well. You may have to make adjustments to the audio output settings on windows.

In this particular situation, the use of deadly force was more so triggered by the fact that the guy was lying about having a weapon and then tries to pull said weapon during a search of his person. The headlock was not the key factor here.

I agree that the issue presented by the article is likely not related to colonialism. More so the disinterest in providing further security resources to the area.

A lot of the Middle East, including Afghanistan, has been affected by the colonial interests of the British Empire in the past. Albeit mostly in the mid to late 19th century and into the WW1 era.

I doubt I understand the nuances to make any claims that the prior issues are indirectly affecting the area currently, but I believe it is worth to note the relation as why it could be brought up in comments.

Yeah, I understand that hearing the same simple explanation of “you don’t own it…” gets to be annoying. Especially in places like this where most people are pretty well aware of the situation.

The primary issue seems to be that enough people support this type of service willingly for the sake of convenience and are generally ignorant to the potential long-term issues. It feels pretty exploitative as a consumer.

But I don’t see how making the distinction between ownership of the content vs the license is providing legwork for those services. In my mind, that distinction is key for understanding that the service is not for me. And I may just be looking at this too optimistically, but I would hope the same would be true for users who don’t read the fine print, or happen to have not understood the issue until something like this post is presented.

While I mostly agree with what you’re saying here, I would like to point out that removing Google Search from an Android device can prevent a user from accessing other applications or specific features within (obviously Google developed apps). I guess that one really comes down to what we think working “just fine” is.

I very much agree with the general sentiment here about Microsoft’s substantial hypocrisy and what a bad look it is, but isn’t it likely to the benefit of consumers if these large companies are helping fuel legitimate antitrust lawsuits at each other?

I just don’t know how I feel about the whole reddit mod situation in the context of this article.

On one hand, it does seem like the removal of moderators from some subs contributed to the deterioration of quality content. Reddit making that decision against the will of certain subs felt disrespectful to the autonomy of those communities.

On the other hand, I was personally never under the impression that moderators were at all subject matter experts. Their primary role is to enforce the rules of the platform and the sub. Any sort of vetting process exists almost solely on the current mods and the feedback they decide to consider from the community.