>> No, meetings are low information density because people are too lazy to plan an agenda and assign homework to a meeting beforehand, so that the meeting can focus on solutioning and actually delivering value.
Honest question, how many people have this happening at where they work?
Most of the meetings where I work at now are on Teams, and are (for the most part) recorded so if people need to drop, or miss it because they can't make it for some reason. This also allows people to go back and watch at a faster speed or skip to presentations or important parts. The huge advantage is those meetings have a transcript so you can also read or scan the transcript instead.
I'm just wondering if in 2025 people are still having meaningless meetings.
I hate running and I played soccer for the majority of my life.
As I've gotten older, I've found other activities to fill the void such as rock climbing and mountain biking. Both can be strenuous when you want them to be, but you can also take it easy. Combined with low level weight training, I've found it a lot more enjoyable since both require your brain to be 100% engaged when doing it so there's also a mental boost as well.
You reference that they can be strenuous. My bet is that you often choose to push to a strenuous feeling often during the training period of each of these. My further bet is what you call "strenuous", I'm asserting that those unfamiliar would call "painful."
To be clear, I'm not claiming that you are constantly hurting yourself. I am claiming that if you weren't familiar with the feeling, you'd call it a pain. I'm thinking back to the original Matrix, "why do my eyes hurt?"
Even the WCAG level A success criteria clearly states:
The purpose of each link can be determined from the link text alone or from the link text together with its programmatically determined link context, except where the purpose of the link would be ambiguous to users in general.
together with its programmatically determined link context really is the operative phrase in this quote. I would encourage you to actually read the examples on the page you link to - several of them announce just one or two words.
> Did Americans have an impoverished standard of living in the 1980s (compared to now)?
Nope.
I had plenty of hand me downs, but the majority of stuff I owned lasted for years and years, and I beat TF out of my clothes; so getting three or four years out of a pair of jeans was an achievement. I remember being constantly upset with my parents because when I would ask to get something new, they would tell me I had to wear out the stuff I already had first.
So at the time, paying more for a pair of Levi's or Nike's were worth it because they were built to last for years, not months like they are now. I was in college during the late 90's and even then I had three pairs of shoes that lasted my entire 4 years in college.
Back then stuff was durable and was meant to last for years. The "fast fashion" and "disposable fashion" trends essentially ended monopolies that brands had because kids weren't wearing stuff for more than a few months before discarding it or having it fall apart so they can wear the latest thing.
You're probably thinking about Target and their Up and Up label where they do that. They also place all of their knockoffs right next to the product they are imitating.
Makes you wonder if all those pallets of cash we sent Iran really contained all the money we said it did. Also makes me wonder how you count money that arrives on pallets like that? Do you set up a warehouse full of money counters?
A quick look around says commercially available bill counters count around 1000 bills per minute. Low cost counters have batch sizes of around 200 bills. Larger capacity counters are available.
Assuming the process keeps a single counter running continuously, it would be 1000 minutes, not quite 17 hours of work to do a single pass counting with one counter. There's a maintenance interval though. Some of the counters will scan serial numbers, so you could probably confirm you saw 1 Million distinct serial numbers while scanning. Multiple counters in parallel would reduce the wall clock time, of course. And you might want to do multiple counts, sometimes bills stick.
You could also count the number of straps and take a random sample to count. While counting the straps, you'd probably notice any grossly miscounted straps. If any of the sampled straps are wrong, you would presumably increase the sample rate to confirm. Weighing groups of 10 straps is probably faster than counting, but I don't know how sensitive it would be (depends on how consistent weights of the strapping material is, as well as weight of circulated bills).
While doing work for hospitality optimization software, I had the fortune of seeing some of the cash management infrastructure at gaming trade shows.
I wish I remembered more specific details, but I at least assume similar levels of capacity for bill counting and counterfeit detection are available to nation states. Verifying the cash would be even easier and faster than you're describing.
<Cue Borat impression>My wife</end> works at a legit, long-established, high volume retail store. Some of the time she keeps books there. They just weigh money, it’s accurate enough for them.
2016: "The Obama administration is acknowledging its transfer of $1.7 billion to Iran earlier this year was made entirely in cash" -- We froze a bunch of their money in the 70s; Obama unfroze it.
It sucks because the social aspect of social media has been bent and twisted into squeezing every bit of money out of it. In some regards, people are being forced to consume. Companies do anything they can to manipulate users into continual consumption because it generates money for them.
Even worse now? Companies are rewarding people when users interact with their content. Now people are enticed to create content that purposely angers people so they comment on their content.
I've deleted all of my accounts now - it was just too fatiguing to try and weed your way through the constant pushing of content to get you to watch or interact with instead of what YOU want to see or watch. YouTube is notorious for that. How many times have you gone to the site and instead of searching for something you went there for, you get completely sidelined into something because they present you with a ton of videos that fit what you're interested in?
In the immortal words of Joshua: "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"
>> I know of only a handful of orgs that actually manage to build strong teams of really strong engineers
The best teams I've been on work like a team in sports.
You have the guys who are really good, really sharp developers. They know all the ins and outs of the framework, but are insanely specialized with one thing, but do the majority of the heavy lifting. Then you have the mid-range guys who are more of the JOT guys. They know UI/UX, accessibility, front-end dev and some back-end stuff. Then you have all the entry level rubes. The guys you can give them something to do and they'll figure it out. They're usually learning as they go, but can handle tasks with some direction and hand holding. As the project runs on, they get more comfortable with the processes and tasks so they need less direction and hand holding.
Building teams is all about finding a good mix of people who compliment each other. Too many of the really sharp devs and they'll be arguing over everything. Get too many mid-range or entry level guys and it will slow down the whole project. You also have to have devs who are comfortable with their skill level and know what they're expected to be doing. Too many times I've been on teams where the mid-range guys start bumping heads with the senior devs. Lunch becomes a rage fest over what we should be doing better. They think they should a lead dev, not the guy they don't like.
The last thing is your senior/lead devs have to have the right attitude too. I've been around some insanely sharp lead devs, but they're complete assholes. They know everything, you know nothing. You use shit frameworks, they're always on the cutting edge and your an idiot because you like Angular not something bougie like Svelt.
The key in all of this is finding the chemistry that works. When you get that chemistry, you can capture lightening in a bottle and really build some amazing stuff. When it works, its the coolest thing. People are dialed in, they're enthusiastic about what they're doing. They're willing to work longer hours to make sure the product we're building is incredible. The team is happy, delivering and working on faster sprints and things just feel effortless.
>> it makes me so sad when I hear people say "it's just not worth it".
Companies are going to find out the hard way then. I work for a large corporation and we've had a consistent stream of companies and individuals contacting us about accessibility with several of our apps and sites.
This means more time to fix or completely redo these because they built them with accessibility issues baked into them and now we're tasked with fixing them or else deal with the legal ramifications.
Now that several states have included anything online or digital in the ADA, that means we now have a handful of law firms in CA and NY that are filing accessibility lawsuits. Just in 2024 there were over 4,000 lawsuits filed, the majority of them at the state level. The old adage that companies were taking a risk by not having their online apps and sites being accessible is a very real threat now.
I feel like the trend is finally starting to turn and companies are taking accessibility a lot more seriously now.
This is a very artificial way to make the argument though; it's still not worth it from a revenue or user acquisition perspective, it's just a risk from a potentially fickle government body.
It's worse than not worth it, it's defeating some of the main ways they make money.
Misunderstanding this point leads to endless surprise in this topic. No, companies don't just "don't care" for some unfathomable reason. They don't want it in the first place; they begrudgingly make concessions to accessibility due to cultural and regulatory pressure.
The same things that let the disabled people participate, also help regular users escape the very traps and tricks businesses on-line use to make money. Now, supporting the former group may be a rounding error on the balance sheet, but enabling the latter to defeat monetization efforts, not so much.
Many moons ago, I attended a demo of a new software product, and without disclosing my disability to the vendor, I inquired about its accessibility features. They said that they don't do anything for the disabled because it's such a small market, and it wasn't profitable to accommodate the needs of disabled users.
I found myself irrationally enraged and had to walk away from the conversation. I thought about it when I calmed down and I realized I was feeling, "Who the fuck are you to tell me how I can live in the world?"
Dissecting these thoughts further led me to the understanding that, without accessibility, you are telling a class of people that they don't deserve access to education, government services, or commercial products.
Telling disabled people that they don't deserve access to any benefits of a civilized society is a long-standing and persistent attitude. It's roughly analogous to denying poor people health care, food, and basic shelter because all they deserve is what scraps we are willing to bestow on them.
Generally, designing with accessibility in mind improves the product for everyone and adds a little to the cost. Retrofitting accessibility produces an expensive dog's breakfast of a product.
In other words, if you don't design to include, you are planning to exclude.
Unfortunately I simply don't agree that it's a better product for everyone, for a few reasons, but the most simple is because there are costs involved.
A hypothetical zero additional effort inclusion at design stage, still wouldn't remove the issue where I now have an additional requirement limiting how I can approach things. I might also end up with higher overhead to modify a system as change requests come.
This is time and money I have to spend not working on the rest of the product.
Then you get into deeper issues, where if you actually have accessibility as a first class goal, much of your design should change. Consider an ideal UI for attracting new unguided users vs one with the expectation that users will have training and become experts. Then add in design for specific impairments. It's not easy and should be a big driver of the overall design, usually only done if the customer explicitly has a reason for it.
Again, it's not about deliberate exclusion; it's that I am trying to spend my energy in a way that gives me the most financial benefit (the selfish reasons as per the article), and accessibility does not do that.
A team led by Kung-Hsiang Huang, a Salesforce AI researcher, showed that using a new benchmark relying on synthetic data, LLM agents achieve around a 58 percent success rate on tasks that can be completed in a single step without needing follow-up actions or more information.
and
The Salesforce AI Research team argued that existing benchmarks failed to rigorously measure the capabilities or limitations of AI agents, and largely ignored an assessment of their ability to recognize sensitive information and adhere to appropriate data handling protocols.
Honest question, how many people have this happening at where they work?
Most of the meetings where I work at now are on Teams, and are (for the most part) recorded so if people need to drop, or miss it because they can't make it for some reason. This also allows people to go back and watch at a faster speed or skip to presentations or important parts. The huge advantage is those meetings have a transcript so you can also read or scan the transcript instead.
I'm just wondering if in 2025 people are still having meaningless meetings.
reply