• 0 Posts
  • 15 Comments
Joined 15 days ago
Cake day: February 23rd, 2025
  • LeGrognardOfLove@lemmygrad.mltoComradeship // Freechat@lemmygrad.ml•China should take down the great firewall, let millions of Chinese swarm the western internet and show them what real freedom of speech is likeEnglish
    1·
    6 minutes ago

    The only thing you said I think is wrong is that de facto censorship always exist.

    Censorship is created by a social entity hidding or faking data. Any advanced mind can take these incomplete or faked conclusions and from there find out that the data has been messed with.

    Any “trust me bro” arguments can be rejected from the get go. Any information without it’s reproduction steps has no meaning, only an agenda.

    People are pretty bright animals on the individual level, but where they fail is that they are social animals which will take cue from other social animals and social entitiesml.

    What you see as de facto censorship is only a natural consequence of this mechanism.

    But this can be countered with proper education of both the social animals and the social entities.

    Fatalism is not needed here because we know that we can build social constructs that can change both how the social animal and the social entity comport themselves.

    All in all , a censorship attempt, for a social animal that reject social cues from it’s peers, is at best an attack on it’s agency and intelligence, as worst a proof that the social entity has a hidden agenda and whishes a bad outcome to the censored.

    And this attempt will by itself, because the social animal has an advanced mind, create an interest in what the other entity is trying to hide.

    We can see this in action with antivaxxer, flat-earthers and so on, in which de facto censorship does not exist.

    These examples are not the best, because they also get influenced by bad messaging -a sort of propaganda created by bad actors be it animal or entities - but they examplify the mechanism I am talking about.

    Sorry, my English is quite poor this morning as I am very tired from bullshit events in my life.

    So if im not very clear, I’m sorry again.

  • LeGrognardOfLove@lemmygrad.mltoProgrammer Humor@programming.dev•Development MethodsEnglish
    8·
    5 days ago

    No,

    Serious teams know that building big software is hard and that starting by having a set deadline is the first failure point of a project.

    Serious team wants a set budget and feature set. They also want a dialog with the aquiring party, because as you dig deeper in the software you uncover oddities. These oddities are more often than not a failure of the aquiring party understanding of their own business operations.

    And thus, a serious team will help the aquiring party refine their business process by either removing useless steps, adding missings steps or changing a step in the overall workflow. And that’s were the most of the value of making a new software comes from.

    Doing waterfall will stop this from happening and will remove actual value from the software because it’s going to be bloated with useless things that were badly understood by the aquiring party.

    Agile is about producing as much value as possible, as fast as possible, in a set budget.

    English is my third language so sorry if it’s hard to understand or feel aggressive.