Nice theory, but it is overfitted to a broad category of all software and a product that is thriving shouldn't be conflated with a product that is improving.
Some products with software continue to "live on" successfully and thrive, without updates. Think of a digital alarm clock who's goal was to help typical users to wake up on time most of the time. If you ship a product that does that and it isn't being updated, is the product really dying or doomed to failure?
No alarm clock will ever wake everyone up on time, but we can always strive to get closer to that goal if we chose to set that goal. An unreasonable goal could cause unnecessary bike shedding, etc.
But a simple pacemaker for the heart, the goal is closer to the idea of helping as many people as possible, rather than most. Hopefully we write good software and we go 15 years without needing an update. I think that is better than bad software that has to receive more updates. Which software is more "alive" and "thriving". Is the good software with no updates for 15 years really "dying" since it isn't "improving"? Again, thriving and improving shouldn't be conflated.
So, a product setting appropriate goals helps determine how much maintenance is actually necessary and some goals can be met without requiring any future maintenance. Other goals may benefit from frequent maintenance. Some products can thrive without improving. A product's goals determine's the importance of improvements.
Celebrating maximum exploitation of workers by those with all the leverage & power and calling the decent consideration of another man's well-being silly, that's, well, I'll just say that I believe we can do better, sir.
When I read this I just assumed it was a checklist for people that know these things - a good reminder. But now that I think about it, it probably was also meant to get people to look out for these things as they learn. I doubt this is enough to really help anyone learn these things.
+1, and anecdotally I've seen most good developers are bad teachers and that I have always gotten much more from my peers just one or two levels ahead of me (regardless of my peer's ability to teach).
In this series functional concepts are very gently introduced. I feel like it really appreciates the beginners starting point and assumes very little. Is this close to what you want?
Heart disease is America's biggest killer. There is a lot of data that eating cholesterol effects disease rates including heart disease, cancer, etc.
If you study disease rates for those eating cholesterol and those replacing it with a plant based diet, eating cholesterol is higher.
While you have a particular point about eating cholesterol, measuring cholesterol, and related disease rates - are you suggesting people's health is not negatively affected by eating cholesterol?
Here's a simple study eating an egg versus not, it compares stopping eating cholesterol to stopping smoking. [0]
The USA is obsessed with cholesterol because of years of bad science. Here's a 2015 Japanese Supplementary Review on Cholesterol and Mortality Rates: Higher Cholesterol = Longer Life
> Our fervent wish is that, through this supplementary issue, people can see that the cholesterol hypothesis relies on very weak data—and sometimes considerably distorted data. Indeed, many studies in Japan actually show that cholesterol plays a very positive role in health. We hope that JAS, and the government authorities that defer to JAS’s recommendations, will move toward recognizing cholesterol as a friend not an enemy. In the meantime, we will continue pushing for acceptance of the anti-cholesterol hypothesis, to reverse what we see as the biggest mistake made by medical science in the previous century.
I agree with many of the critical points they make in this Japanese review. There should be higher standards for nutritional research.
The main idea seems to be that in Japan because there are some positive patterns observed regarding all causes of death and high cholesterol levels and because other studies showing high cholesterol is bad were all flawed, therefore it is warranted to recommend eating more cholesterol.
Well, the notion that eating cholesterol effects your cholesterol level goes against your first comment.
Then the sentiment that you can throw the baby out with the bath water seems extreme, if you can find a flaw in studies that disagree with you then your studies that agree with you prove the point. I mean, I agree that when there is no un-flawed data it is hard to draw conclusions, but are their studies all really as so unblemished. A main criticism of theirs is studies citing rates of death for certain diseases without mentioning the rate for all causes of death, but a lot of their cited studies do the exact same, only some of them reported rates for all causes of death.
Finally, and I know you're surprised, I am not persuaded by them that eating cholesterol or having high/"normal" cholesterol levels is neutral or positive in affecting your health. I agree with them that we need much better data. I understand that in Japan they observed lower rates of date from all causes. But the only question I really have is what should I eat to avoid dying as an American, and this article just doesn't really cover that one way or another. I'm very grateful for sharing it, there are a lot of good insights in there.
The notion that direct intake of cholesterol is bad is itself problematic. Off the top of the head I can recall at least 3 studies getting null results. Can't link you then on mobile, maybe late if you're still interested.
(There are very rare genetic exceptions where body does not automatically balance intake with less internal production.)
The problem is likely that cholesterol itself is a coincidence, and that intake of too much red meat, sugar, heavily processed foods and also just to many calories in are the major problem.
And likely trans fats are much more damaging. Plus not enough vegetables or vitamin D or B12 in diet.
It just so happens that there's cholesterol in three of these four.
Right now there is more emphasis on lipid ratios (including IDL and VLDL) rather than total number anyway. Those seem much better correlated to cardiac endpoints.
And I think, I've seen a lot of studies that compare eating "normal" amounts of cholesterol to eating more than normal. But "normal" cholesterol levels in your blood still leave you with a "normal" American rate of heart disease, read, still very high. Those studies might not show much of a difference in disease rates. But studies on eating cholesterol versus no cholesterol are much clearer in showing a significant difference. On a plant based diet people can get their cholesterol below 60 and the disease rates for people with that low of cholesterol are much lower.
I firmly believe that its the sugar/insulin response that creates most of these health problems due to the inflammation. There's a few studies that scratch the surface of just how bad sugar is, but with all the focus on cholesterol, there's been no focus on how much sugar is in people's diets who also happen to consume high cholesterol.
I've been off and on a keto diet for the better part of 12 years. I don't eat like crap when I'm "off", but my entire body gets inflamed and I blow up like a balloon, compared to being on it. My resting heart rate rises. This should be impossible, according to the dietary cholesterol theory. My health should get worse, and blood cholesterol should raise. This does not happen. We've lived for 50 years under low fat high carb dietary recommendations, primarily because its so much easier to scale grain production. Now there's grams and grams of sugar in everything we eat.
I don't think there is one smoking gun for a chemical in food.
To me, I see a clear pattern. Reducing nutrition to consuming more of a specific chemical/molecule or consuming less of a specific chemical/molecule is always way more complicated than that. The best way to get the complicated combination/form of chemicals is to just eat as low on the food chain as possible in a minimally altered form.
Naturally occurring sugar in plants, say an orange, or rice, is good for you. Extracting sugar doesn't ever seem necessary for the American diet. The oil in a nut is good for you, extracting oil and using it to cook doesn't ever seem necessary for the American diet.
So I don't think it is controversial to say eating plans is good for you, especially say broccoli for your inflammation. The more broccoli you eat, the healthier you are; its really simple.
The second part of what I said, to try to eat low on the food chain is more controversial. But as soon as you combine that rice with meat, that sugar starts interacting in new more complicated ways and the it is no longer as simple as, the more rice you eat the healthier you are. It becomes, if you combine it with meat you have to limit the amount of rice you eat because together they spike your blood sugar level [0] study, image of that spike [1]. And I rarely hear, "the more meat you eat, the healthier you are".
So to me it seems like you can try to walk a tight-rope of eating the right amounts of the right processed and meat foods, or you can just eat things that generally make you healthier when you eat more of it.
That is a simple baseline that you adjust based on atypical differences you have, celiac disease, etc.
Regarding cholesterol specifically, and how you mentioned it conflicting with current theories that are being questioned (fairly enough) in this thread - here's some summary thoughts from the editor-in-chief of the American Journal of Cardiology on it. [2] They might be helpful providing some color to the conversation.
The user story is a promise to have a conversation. I think that is usually well understood. From there I think you can fall into two camps: that conversation should result in a Jira/whatever ticket with all the requisite documentation for an agile team versus that conversation IS the essential information required to properly build the expected valuable working software.
Back to the question - what do you do about poor knowledge transfer in a project? I think a moderate de-emphasis on thinking of the user story text and the additional info like acceptance criteria etc. as self-sufficient documentation and adding more emphasis on that close relationship between developer, user, and maybe a tester, can help fill in big knowledge gaps.
I live in Denmark, and here I think it would be worth calculating the different CO₂ and other pollution costs in transporting chilled, fresh tomatoes from e.g. Italy, vs. cooking and packing them in Italy and transporting that. Keeping something refrigerated isn't cheap.
The wasted coated paper carton would be incinerated here, and used for electricity and heat.
I'm sure you've worked plenty of time thinking about this already so I feel dumb trying to supplement that at all, but I'd assume you're probably repressing some level of emotion just because the physical expression of anxiety isn't so much a learned behavior coming from your prefrontal cortex but more like a low level hind brain thing you have just by being human. Between survival instincts and social instincts we have very physically based "emotions" and playing the odds here, I'd wager you and others that comment, having similar experiences, that you developed this coping mechanism at a young age.
Apologies if I'm reading too much into a simple comment saying you're misunderstood at times.
I feel terrified, my body temperature goes up, I often sweat, and I have an overwhelming urge to censor my speech which tends to make me censor my thoughts as well. It's an exhausting emotional experience, and it feels and behaves just like fear, not like any other emotion, except when there's anger mixed in. The only difference is, I'm maintaining enough control of my face and voice and body to fool a lot of people. Probably not everyone.
I agree that people think you need meat alternatives because they lack the knowledge of how to make a plant based meal.
I agree with GP that most people don't care what a meatless meal could look like, culturally they just want meat each meal and will only consider an "impossible" substitute.
If we must change our impact on the environment, maybe it doesn't matter that people have a cultural desire to wait on impossible standards for substitutes and to continue harming the environment in the process. I don't know how important it is to change now, but if it critical then I'd be fine with something like rationing meat or some creative ideas towards forcing drastic change.
Also, maybe your grandparents can't imagine meat only once a week, but my grandparents certainly can, not because of current habits but from the great depression. They grew up on farms and had animals but they had more plants and usually ate the plants, only rarely they would slaughter animals for meat. Most meals were plants and that was the most normal thing in the world.
I assume meat at every meal is an extremely recent phenomenon and I think culturally we can easily move on from it, if we take the necessary measures.
Some products with software continue to "live on" successfully and thrive, without updates. Think of a digital alarm clock who's goal was to help typical users to wake up on time most of the time. If you ship a product that does that and it isn't being updated, is the product really dying or doomed to failure?
No alarm clock will ever wake everyone up on time, but we can always strive to get closer to that goal if we chose to set that goal. An unreasonable goal could cause unnecessary bike shedding, etc.
But a simple pacemaker for the heart, the goal is closer to the idea of helping as many people as possible, rather than most. Hopefully we write good software and we go 15 years without needing an update. I think that is better than bad software that has to receive more updates. Which software is more "alive" and "thriving". Is the good software with no updates for 15 years really "dying" since it isn't "improving"? Again, thriving and improving shouldn't be conflated.
So, a product setting appropriate goals helps determine how much maintenance is actually necessary and some goals can be met without requiring any future maintenance. Other goals may benefit from frequent maintenance. Some products can thrive without improving. A product's goals determine's the importance of improvements.