This is spot on. I would add one little wrinkle: you not only have to accept that not everything works like it does in your home country, but also that not everything should.

You can be the kind of expat who spends all day griping about how much worse things are in your new home than your old one, or you can be the kind who shifts their mindset such that the new country’s ways become second nature.

I think the value of standups depends a ton on the team’s composition and maturity.

On a team with a lot of junior or low-performing devs who don’t have the experience or the ability to keep themselves on track, or a team with a culture that discourages asking for help as needed, a daily standup can keep people from going down useless rabbit holes or unwittingly blocking one another or slacking off every day without anyone noticing.

On a team of mostly mid-level and senior devs who are experienced enough to work autonomously and who have a culture of communicating in real time as problems and updates come up, a daily standup is pure ceremony with no informational value. It breaks flow and reduces people’s schedule flexibility for no benefit.

When I’m thinking about whether it makes sense to advocate for or against daily standups on a team, one angle I look at is aggregate time. On a team of, say, 6 people, a 15-minute daily standup eats 7.5 hours of engineering time a week just on the meetings themselves. The interruption and loss of focus is harder to quantify, but in some cases I don’t even need to try to quantify it: when I ask myself, “Is the daily standup consistently saving us a full person-day of engineering time every week?” the answer is often such a clear “yes” or “no” that accounting for the cost of interruptions wouldn’t change it.

Especially infuriating when the other person is in a very different time zone. I once worked on a project with a partner company in a time zone 10 hours ahead of mine and it was common for trivial things to take days purely because the other person insisted on typing “Hi,” waiting for my “Hi, what’s up?” response (which they didn’t see until the next day since our hours didn’t overlap), and then replying with their question, which I didn’t see until my next day. Answering the actual question often took like 30 seconds, but in the meantime two or three days had gone by.

I came to believe they were doing it on purpose so they could constantly slack off and tell their boss they were blocked waiting for my answer.

My frustration is less with the people who are late and more with the meeting host making the rest of the attendees sit around twiddling their thumbs waiting for the late person. Unless the late person’s presence is the point of the meeting, just get started and let them catch up.

“We’ll wait a few more minutes for person X to join, then get the meeting started,” like the other ten people who made the effort to show up on time deserve to be punished with extra meeting time for being responsible. Bonus points if this causes the meeting to run a few minutes long.

deleted by creator

Using it to describe streaming services isn’t new. For example, here’s a Variety article from 2019 that uses it that way.

“Streamer” has been a widely-used entertainment-industry term for streaming companies for years. It’s not a new thing people are making up to be cute.

Not the person you’re replying to, but I’m also a “try the local cuisine” person. A good percentage of the places I’ve visited have had some local thing that you’d have to really look for to find elsewhere. I don’t end up liking all of them, but I like the experience of trying something new. Some specific examples:

• St. Louis, MO, USA: Gooey butter cake which is as gross and as delicious as it sounds.
• Changsha, Hunan, China: Stinky tofu. The local Changsha style of stinky tofu is completely unlike the more common style you’d find in night markets in Taiwan or elsewhere; it’s only a little stinky but is dense, savory, and spicy.
• Singapore: Kaya toast. Kaya is a sweet coconut-based spread and they put it on buttery thick toast. I was addicted to this when I was in Singapore for work.
• Scotland: Haggis. It was… okay? Didn’t love it, didn’t hate it, don’t see why it has the reputation it has.
• Jingdezhen, Jiangxi, China: Jiaoziba, which is a little local style of dumpling that’s rich and quite spicy.
• Hiroshima, Japan: Okonomiyaki, a kind of savory pancake. Okonomiyaki is common in Japan but it’s usually Osaka-style. The version they make in Hiroshima includes noodles in the dough.

In my experience, if you talk to a few locals, one of them will usually think of a local specialty and tell you where to try it.

I think this is a more subtle question than it appears on the surface, especially if you don’t think of it as a one-off.

Whether or not Scientology deserves to be called a “religion,” it’s a safe bet there will be new religions with varying levels of legitimacy popping up in the future. And chances are some of them will have core beliefs that are related to the technology of the day, because it would be weird if that weren’t the case. “Swords” and “plowshares” are technological artifacts, after all.

Leaving aside the specific case of Scientology, the question becomes, how do laws that apply to classes of technology interact with laws that treat religious practices as highly protected activities? We’ve seen this kind of question come up in the context of otherwise illegal drugs that are used in traditional rituals. But religious-tech questions seem like they could have a bunch of unique wrinkles.

Depends on where I’m going, whether I’ve been there before, and how long my trip is, but as a rule I’ll always seek out the local food and try to see a mix of famous big-name sights and weird niche things that interest me. For example, when I was in Tokyo last, I went to the top of Tokyo Tower at sunset (normal tourist sightseeing thing) and also went to see their underground flood-control tunnels.

I don’t enjoy “sit on a beach and do nothing” vacations, but more power to you if that’s your style.

lemm.ee’s admin is Estonian, so that one at least makes sense.

I’ve been under a few times but the most memorable (in one sense) was when I had some minor surgery as a kid. From my point of view, it was like teleportation: I was in the operating room, I blinked, and I was suddenly on a bed in a completely different room. No sense of the passage of time.

Tunic, but that was kind of the point.

Totally fair! That doesn’t particularly bother me but you’re right that he does that.

My opinion of the second season is mostly thanks to the mini-movies being more creative. I also enjoy Ken Jeong and John Cho.

My intuition is that it’s probably in about the same range as the broadcast networks, but I have no numbers to back that up.

I don’t think it can be significantly higher or lower: if the cancellation rate were significantly lower, “streaming services always cancel after one season” wouldn’t have caught on as a perception, and if it were significantly higher, it wouldn’t be as easy to find multi-season streaming shows as it currently is. But is it slightly higher or lower? I have no idea.

I actually did run some numbers on this at one point and found that the cancellation rate on network shows has ranged from 30-50% for the last 70 years, with the average number of seasons hovering just under 2. Reddit post with graphs and sources.

Running the same numbers for streaming services is trickier, and I couldn’t figure out a reliable way to get a good data set to analyze. But even so, the numbers for broadcast TV are high enough that it would be numerically impossible for streaming services to, say, be 3 times more likely to cancel a show after one season.

It is bizarre to me that people act like streaming services invented the concept of canceling series after just one season, or believe that it’s a new practice. Broadcast TV has regularly done exactly the same thing for its entire history. Streaming services almost always at least release all the episodes rather than leaving some of them unaired.

As I understand it, that’s been the Hollywood jargon for streaming services for years. “Variety” is responsible for a bunch of those kinds of words. They even have a dictionary on their website. It’s a bit out of date, but you can see they use “cabler” as shorthand for “cable channel,” for example.

The “developed or supplied outside the course of a commercial activity” condition is part of why people are up in arms about this. If I’m at work and I run into a bug and submit a patch, my patch was developed in the course of a commercial activity, and thus the project as a whole was partially developed in the course of a commercial activity.

How many major open-source projects have zero contributions from companies?

It also acts as a huge disincentive for companies to open their code at all. If I package up a useful library I wrote at work, and I release it, and some other person downloads it and exposes a vulnerability that is only exploitable if you use the library in a way that I wasn’t originally using it, boom, my company is penalized. My company’s lawyers would be insane to let me release any code given that risk.