• 0 Posts
  • 19 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 6th, 2023

help-circle






  • jadegear@lemm.eetoProgrammer Humor@lemmy.mlScrum
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Depends. I’ve had plenty of tough calls with management laying out the impossibility of desired schedules only to have the Jira board estimates fudged in their favor, or similar, which puts pressure on the team to deliver on timelines they never would have estimated for themselves.

    Ultimately it’s a question of who’s working by whose estimates.


  • Usually the issue would be that these places cost large sums up front to acquire, and there is inherent risk in lending money or selling something for payment over time.

    The most equitable solution under those circumstances IMO would be a pay-towards-ownership rental model with an agreed stewardship rate for routine maintenance and if they terminate lease early, the accrued funds towards the ownership are disbursed. This allows the “renter” (future owner) the ability to eventually accrue the value of the home without risk of loss of investment, while also allowing the “owner” (steward) to ensure that maintenance can be performed. Would have to work out how to pay for incidental maintenance like a failed water heater or storm damage, but splitting cost across owned percentage may be fair, or based on fault, etc.

    It’s a lot of hassle for something that we should instead fix at the systemic level, but so long as we’re looking at the current system then this ought to do well by both parties and would be accessible for those fortunate/lucky enough to be pulling significant salaries to help those less fortunate.

    Cooperatives are also a good option long-term but I’m thinking in terms of folks that are living hand-to-mouth being able to earn towards a permanent home right away rather than a group of people with enough surplus money to pool for shared home(s). A well-established coop would be a better support network and may be able to grow faster (help more folks) than the alternatives.









  • Disagree with this take in general (growth is worthwhile if only to shift communications platforms in general to open and federated protocols) but I don’t think Lemmy is quite where we need it to be in order to sustain a migration. Finding a good instance is still tough, the idea of federation isn’t easy to grasp for a new user yet, and the UX is still hammering out bugs. (Big thanks to all the devs that already work on Lemmy and all those that shifted over with the Reddit exodus for driving it to new heights so rapidly.)

    An ideal migration from my perspective would have them find instances that cater to their interests and views and would allow easy defederation if undesired. Also, more control for the end user in what communities they see on their feeds when going through discovery (new/hot/etc feeds).

    With better user controls for self moderation and better distribution of users across multiple instances I think we can have our cake and eat it too: growth towards a free world of communications without bogging us down by dealing with the folks/attitudes we find repugnant.


  • In the front, yes - but knowing how much your rear might be sticking out is another story. That’s tough to judge with rear-view and side-view mirrors only.

    Maybe it’s different elsewhere but at least in the Midwest US we have a range of different length parking spots, from very short to long, so it’s habit to pull as far forward as possible to ensure you aren’t sticking out into the aisle.

    The courteous folks hop back in and reposition if they’re parked funky, but those types can be far and between.


  • I’d speculate some combination of control over employees (poor management practices, etc) and making use of owned land/offices that are difficult to sell otherwise. Not much else makes sense to me, especially for tech companies where nearly the entire job exists in virtual space of some kind - no wrenches to turn.

    Edit: Someone else suggested a way to “lay off” folks by having them voluntarily leave the job to avoid the return to office. That also sounds pretty plausible to me with the extent to which companies are starting to squeeze with what feels like an incoming recession period.