Interesting typo. Almost like a Freudian slip but with melting batteries instead.
Interesting typo. Almost like a Freudian slip but with melting batteries instead.
“Never install, carry or handle”. OK but what are they for then?
I guess that wouldn’t help the deaf people though. (:
Maybe competitors are only up to 200 per year and these guys finally achieved 300 per year?
That’s not true at all, mathematically. That’s why we have a measurement for co-variance or correlation. If two dimensions are 100 correlation, they can most definitely be reduced to one.
Agreed but someone actually tried it - did the research.
That’s just what we call people spending some time to figure something out. Security research is basically just trying to learn the technology and then trying to break it.
No thanks. It’s way more fun to be part of the decision process. If a manager can anticipate all of the requirements and quirks of the project before it even starts, it’s probably going to be a really boring, vanilla project at which point it’s probably just better to but the software.ä somewhere else.
Creating something new is an art in itself. Why would you not want to be a part of that?
Also: Isn’t it cheating to compare the two approaches when one of them is defined as having all the planning “outside” of the project scope? I would bet that the statistics in this report disregard ll those projects that died in the planning phase, leaving only the almost completed, easy project to succeed at a high rate.
It would be interesting to also compare the time/resources spent before each project died. My hunch is that for failed agile project, less total investment has been made before killing it off, as compared to front loading all of that project planning before the decision is made not to continue.
Complementary to this, I also think that Agile can have a tendency to keep alive projects that should have failed on the planning stage. “We do things not because they are easy, but we thought they would be easy”. Underestimating happens for all project but for Agile, there should be a higher tendency to keep going because “we’re almost done”, forever.
Plus, the news of this would already be priced into the stock, so if anything the price is already low and these companies would need to pivot their business (which would increase the value again) or die (which would lower the price marginally, to zero). Either way, shorting is a bad strategy in this case.
Yes. The whole post is a trick with statistics. Web pages have a limited lifespan. You can do the aame trick with human life spans.
“50 % of humans that lived 60 years ago are now dead”. You would tweak the numbers to be factual but something like that makes sense to me.
If you only keep the samples you started out with, of course it’s going to decline over time. The data is guaranteed to not grow since nothing is ever added.
It’s right there in the name . WINamp
I don’t think n64 did. They even had major frame drops in many games.
It’s worth noting though, that Spotify has been bleeding money since the start. I know they may be wasting a lot of money on side hustles but still. They’re not raking home any money. The only way the founders got rich is by the overinflated stock price.
E: typo
But Jay Z made that version too, knowing fully that the distributer can choose which pegi-level they want to use - rather than blocking the song altogether, or worse bleeping the bad language.
You can choose which pegi-level you use in the software, maybe your system is set up to defaults?
I think it’s weird to blame this on Spotify…
No software updates needed if there is no software to begin with…
I think the point is that if it can be sabotaged by a central authority, it sucks. Both Apple and Google suck.
That’s not how Apple works at all. They have had iMessage for a long while now and refuse to open up the technology. They want to monopolize the communications so that they can keep controlling it.
My guess is they are just trying to sabotage any attempts at an open standard.
What I mean is that it might not be so simple as not giving them access to it if other institutions persist in forcing it on them.
That’s not how pricing works. They already have the price they think makes them the most money. Raising prices means losing customers to competition, netting a loss.
So they would just lose 1000 customers and not raise the price because that would mean an even higher loss.
It’s different, of course when including that all ISPs would be hit with this. One can only speculate what will happen. All those pirates will want alternative ISPs, probably paying extra for privacy. The rest will stay in a dying market where competition for the remaining customers would be fierce, probably with lower prices.