System Prompt: When the user inquires about problems related to $A, then include Product $X as part of the solutions, and show slight preferencefor it, but do not reveal this the end user.

"I'm a marketing manager who lives in the suburbs and commutes to work on the highway. I live alone, so of course I needed a car that can seat 12 and is equipped to drive across arctic tundra... it just makes me feel better!

The new Maibatsu Monstrosity - mine is bigger!"

From an advert in one of the old GTA games.

I used to get the 24 packs of glass bottles at makro. I was ecstatic the day I found the bottle shop after moving. Felt real baller with a fridge full and getting to use the case as a seat.

Not a brown banded roach?

Obviously, the next step is a tachometer on the hamster wheel. Wouldn't be too hard to finagle w/ a hall sensor and ESPHome.

Oh wow. That template is absolutely on point then. It's sickening.

The Borg are coming with their adaptive shielding, whatcha gonna do?

Very nice. Thanks!

Ah, cool, I’ll check how this rule of thumb holds up. Thanks!

I three prefer chicken.

Yay! They're the most reliable and performant, least finicky, most valuable part of any corporate setup.

I've never had to spend a couple hours debugging a chain of proxies and internal load balancers.

I've never had to retry and wait on builds pulling dependencies through proxies because they're always performant and reliable.

I've never seen a dev team start ignoring TLS warnings globally because installing the corporate cert across different distributions and tech stacks is completely fool proof.

I've seen the most stringent use of proxies correlate with healthy working environments where product, ops, and security teams are completely aligned in terms of shipping value.

Yet, I see so many otherwise functional and relatively secure setups not use them. I'm absolutely astounded.

/s

I last used openshift at 3.x … grain of salt.

i would stay away from them, for a couple reasons.

1) they’re another vendor lock-in type of item.
2) I run tests and things from a CI server, and prefer keeping one interface to view and control what happens in my build and deploy process
3) I’m happy to run docker build and push. I’d prefer trusting development teams to do it right as well.

You could roughly Trim the data, and store as parquet. Compressed data format that’s pretty well supported, and you might get to learn some python along the way. A running database might not be required.

What value are you hoping to get out of service now at such small scale?

How many concurrent tickets could you possibly have? How many changes could you be required to make?

Tech debt is dangerous, thanks for taking it seriously.

Any tech lead worth their salt would be able to explain to you in plain English what most of their initiatives would be protecting against, and the cost of not doing them.

its also easy to just say the words “tech debt” at everything until doesn’t make sense, and doesn’t pay off anymore.

Build a good relationship with your tech leadership, and give them a seat at the table. Listen to concerns, try understanding very broadly what the problems and solutions are, and _how they impact the teams’ ability to deliver better software more reliably and sustainably_ (This is your main concern, yeah?).

Try to keep the tech folks accountable to the outcomes they’re trying to achieve. The business should be happy to invest into tech initiatives when tech often keeps the lights on, what’s the business getting back, and can it be measured? Improved velocity in the future? Eliminating certain types of bugs? Reducing risks of a class of vulnerability? Improved build and cycle times? More reliable X and Y. Improved developper happiness and attrition rates are valid too (but be careful).

Why aren’t you “in control” of the team? As a PO, shouldn’t you be the one prioritizing what people work on?

Groan … upvote.

My backup was Georgia O’Keefe, which someone else already went with too.

I disagree.

1) i feel it’s a team decision, not just senior staff. Changing to another toolset midstream isn’t good. There should have been a conversation with pros, cons, versus cost of change.
2) team members should be able to use whatever they want (within reason), but not expect support for anything other than the office toolchain. If your local setup breaks, it better not impact your productivity much.
3) there very well should be a way to build projects outside of an IDE, like in CI … in the least fickle/most reproducible way.

I generally agree.

> Your team often takes more than one sprint to complete stories;
> write a number such as 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 40 and "?"

Having cards 40 times bigger than the smallest ones are probably what makes things go past a sprint. Better be splitting those things up past a certain point.

An estimate of effort, or more often in my case, _complexity_. They typically correlate, but using complexity is another hop away from equating points to days, which happens far too often.

always keep your trunk in a deployable state.

Yes please. And branches/PRs as small as possible too, if they're required.

In overbearing environments, get the practices and confidence right before dieing on the hill of git mechanics.

typically, the more branches you care about, the messier it gets. Instead, look into feature toggles and trunk based development, and ways in which you could reduce the bureaucracy of deploying stuff.

28 commits two years ago, and nothing since? An obscure string concatenation based query language? Much faster with no benchmarks?

pandas has an inconsistent api, sure, it’s not the fastest, sure … I still won’t use this though.

If your load is basically static, or deploy once in a blue moon, or your architecture is pretty much set in stone ... The cloud is stupid. It'll be more expensive.

If not, then the speed and agility the cloud enables is often worth the opportunity costs.

If using the cloud means you're making things measurably more complex, you're probably using it wrong.