|
I'm interested in this. As someone who wears multiple hats at my job I often have to change my communication level depending upon to whom I'm talking to. If I'm talking to my boss, make it very general and put it on non computer terms. If I'm talking to the mechanical engineer that I work closely with, it's often that we say the same thing, but how we word it or approach it is different so it's often a challenge to get on the same page. If I'm talking to my users on the shop floor, it's mostly just cuss words and crude jokes about how much something sucks. From that I have to glean useful information on what needs to be changed.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd join up for the fun of it
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Will we be using waterfall, incremental, iterative or agile?
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: what if we brought together a bunch of developers and worked and did some translation work. ie we take, for instance, a message, an ad, some product launch rhetoric - something that's typically illogical, poorly worded and misses the point
First off, what makes you think it misses the point?
You can be sure those marketing folks already spent a lot of time on that message, making sure it conveyed the important information to the entire audience they were targeting, without offending any of them. In other words, they wouldn't have put that piece of marketing out unless they were very convinced it was already right.
Now you come along, someone who probably doesn't represent the entire audience they are targeting, and pronounces that its wrong. Worse, you want to start a conversation with them from the point of "here's how its wrong, and here's how we can make it better". Flip this around, if they came to you and pronounced your coding wrong, and then wanted to start a conversation with you to tell you how to make it better, would you even listen to them?
A better way to start this might be to understand who all they're targeting and why they think there message was right. Once you can see things from their side, then you'll be in a position to start that conversation, assuming its even still needed.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
patbob wrote: You can be sure those marketing folks already spent a lot of time on that message, making sure it conveyed the important information to the entire audience they were targeting
I beg to differ.
I'm not being facetious, but I work with a lot of marketing departments and (at least in the IT space) there's a hell of a lot of misunderstanding of what the developer audience is. Marketing department tell me flat out that they don't "get" developers.
patbob wrote: Now you come along, someone who probably doesn't represent the entire audience they are targeting, and pronounces that its wrong
...and so me putting together a bunch of people to get a more balanced view and provide feedback from a larger cross section is wrong?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
René Angelil, husband and Agent/Impressario of Celine Dion died today after a long battle with cancer.
Rene Angelil in his youth[^]
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
What a month.
Er, I can't think of a funny signature right now.
How about a good fart to break the silence?
|
|
|
|
|
On the bright side, there's a hell of a jackpot building up in the dead pool!
Too soon?
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
When you start talking about numbers as small as 2⁻¹²², you have to start looking more closely at the things you thought were zero
-- Raymond Chen
BTW, I've met him in person when he did a talk at a college coding event a few years ago. Nice guy. Thought I'd throw that trivia in there just for some extra brownie points.
|
|
|
|
|
Name dropper!
Nish Nishant wrote: brownie points ewww! Chupamedias! BrownNoser!
Decrease the belief in God, and you increase the numbers of those who wish to play at being God by being “society’s supervisors,” who deny the existence of divine standards, but are very serious about imposing their own standards on society.-Neal A. Maxwell
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
2⁻¹²², that's just a bit better than my lottery chances.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Technically speaking, his title is wrong: 2122 isn't a small number - it's a sodding big number. "1 in 2122" is a small probability.
But I'm guessing he knows that!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Uhm, he had a minus there. 2 to the power of minus 122.
|
|
|
|
|
|
That little space in the exponent looks like a minus sign on my machine, it's some weird-ass unicode U+207B so not surprising that it's unreliable.
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like you are on a device/browser that cannot render that character.
|
|
|
|
|
|
where do you see 2122?
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
|
Get a better phone/tablet/browser
|
|
|
|
|
When you start talking about numbers as small as 2⁻¹²², you have to start looking more closely at the things you thought were zero
2-122 seconds are about 2 millions Plank epochs, after all.
|
|
|
|
|
Between 2⁻¹²² and (2.01)⁻¹²² lie an infinite number of smaller numbers
|
|
|
|
|
But that's true of any two different numbers.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
2^-122 isn't particularly small.... I can easily divide it by 2!
|
|
|
|
|
I know nothing of its internal workings, so what I'm asking may be common knowledge. In the latest round where the pot is valued at $1.6 billion, how can there be more than one winner? When the MUSL sends out tickets to the 44 participating states, are there potential duplicate tickets? In other words, the winning ticket 4-8-19-27-34 could be found in at least three states' "box" of tickets: Tennessee, Florida, and California? If so, how many other states could have had the same winning number?
- DC
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|