Take a look at this:

This is in the Museum of the Palazzo Massimo alle Terme in Rome, and it comes from an ancient Roman Villa in Rome. Probably painted in the first or second century CE. There’s walls of this stuff in the museum.

It’s not realism, but minimalistic sketches that, in many ways, outdo realism in artistic quality. To me, this looks more like something that you might find in Leonardo’s sketchbook than on the wall of on ancient Roman Villa from 1200 years earlier.

The reason for leaving in the password.trim() would be one of the few things that I would ever document with a comment.

You might want to think about it a bit more before putting it to work. The comment with the streams example is far, far better.

It goes really well with YAGNI. Also DRY without YAGNI is a recipe for premature over-architecting.

This is also one of the main benefits of TDD. There was a really good video that I can’t find again of a demonstration of how TDD leads you to different solutions than you thought you use when you started. Because you code exclusively for one single requirement at a time, adding or changing just enough code to meet each new requirement without breaking the earlier tests. The design then evolves.

I’ve always heard of your “post-architecture” referred to as “evolutionary design”.

In a way, this question itself is very “un-agile”. Agile should be always forward-looking, “What can we do next?”, “What can we get done in this short period of time?”, “What should we do next?”.

OK, so you found a possible “defect” in your system. Is it a defect, or did someone slide in a requirements change 3 months ago?

This reminds me of playing chess. Sometimes a player will make their move when their opponent is distracted. The opponent hears, “Your turn”, and they look at the board. “Which piece did you move?”. The first player just shrugs.

The point is that you shouldn’t need to know which piece just moved. Every chess position is a “state” of its own, and your best move should depend on going forward from that state, not knowing how the board changed recently.

It’s the same thing here. You have a situation. Does it really matter how, when, who or why it happened? It shouldn’t, and here’s why:

Just because it’s a defect (if it is) doesn’t automatically mean that correcting it moves to the top of your “to do” list.

It’s going to take some non-zero amount of time to change it back to blue. And when you’re doing that, you’re not doing something else. There is always an opportunity cost to doing bug fixes and you shouldn’t treat them in an ad-hoc way. Should you be spending that time, and who gets to decide if you do? It’s not your decision. It’s the PO’s decision to make.

Maybe the PO doesn’t care about the colour. Maybe they do care, but not if it means some other feature gets delayed. Maybe it’s the most important aspect of the whole system, and there’s no way you can launch with it green. So you cancel the current Sprint and start a new one dedicated to fixing this defect! Maybe they regret asking for it to be blue, and now they’re happy that it’s now green.

If it was me, I’d get a quick T-shirt size estimate on the work required to change it back to blue, then put it in the Product Backlog to be reviewed with the PO. Maybe have a quick chat with the PO, or send a memo about it. Maybe the PO will need to check with their SME to see if anyone remembers asking for it to be changed to green. Maybe not. In any event, it either makes its way into a Sprint Backlog or it doesn’t.

Also, if you’re doing Agile right, then your clients are getting constant, hands-on, experience with your system as it is being developed. To go 100 days without some kind of “release” that they can play with and give you feedback is an anti-pattern. If you are giving them the latest version every week or two and after almost three months they haven’t noticed that the footer is green, then it’s probably not important.

On to the actual question. Jira is a potential sand trap of administrative complexity. The answer is usually to keep everything smaller. Smaller features, and smaller Sprints. Smaller teams. A team of 5 or 6, working in one week Sprints, can only do so much per Sprint. If your fundamental unit of work - a story, or a feature, or a ticket - is set to take something like 1/2 day and forms the basis of your Sprint Backlog, then each programmer on the team can do at most 10 SB items (in a perfect world). Depending on the composition of your teams, you’re probably going to have only about 3-4 programmers - which means 30-40 tickets per Sprint Backlog. And that’s a blue-sky number that’s practically impossible in a world with meetings. A team of 5 or 6 is going to complete closer to 20 Sprint Backlog items in 1 week Sprint in the real world.

The point being that 14 Sprints is your 100 days and each Sprint has about 20 easy-to-understand items in it. Whatever your management tools, it’s a failure if you can’t locate those 280 features in a matter of seconds. And it should be easy to eliminate 270 of them as not possible places where the change happened just from the description.

And when those SB items are small, as they should be, it’s not an onerous task to document inside them the requirements that they are supposed to meet.

When you have 1 month Sprints with tickets that take 2 weeks to complete, then everything becomes a nightmare. It becomes a nightmare because it’s virtually impossible to impose some kind of consistent organizational structure internally on free-form stuff that big. But it’s almost trivial to do it with tiny tickets.

And the other thing that happens with big tickets is that there’s tons of stuff that programmers do without thinking about it too much. If you’ve got two weeks to finish something, then there’s a ton of latitude to over-reach and the time estimate was just a wild guess anyways. If you have 3 hours to do something, then you’re going to make sure that what you need to do is clearly laid out - and then you have to stick to it or you won’t get done in time.

Did somebody “fix” the inconsistent footer colour while doing some huge, 2 week, ticket? Good luck finding out. But that’s not going to happen with tiny, well documented tickets.

Many, many years ago I used to have two Wyse50 terminals, running split screens each with two parts. I did a lot of support on remote systems (via modem!) and I would have a session on a customer system, source code and running on our test system and internal stuff. I didn’t have space for a third terminal.

At another job I had an office with a “U” shaped desk. I would spread printouts across half the “U” and swivel around between the computer and the printouts.

Technically, he would have three drives and only two drives of data. So he could move 1/3 of the data off each of the two drives onto the third and then start off with RAID 5 across the remaining 1/3 of each drive.

I really like that water molecule analogy. Personally, I have always viewed it as so feature of the topography of our universe in a higher dimension. Think about two two dimensional people living in a spherical plane. The furthest actual distance they could get from each other would be the diameter of the sphere. Yet they wouldn’t even know of the spherical nature of their universe.

I’m not sure that they saw it as a “placeholder” at the time. It wasn’t until Mickelson and Morley demonstrated that the fixed frame of reference demanded by aether wasn’t there, paving the way for Relativity, that it was abandoned.

I don’t see people treating Dark Matter an a placeholder right now either.

But, like I said, I’m not qualified to comment.

I’m totally unqualified to comment on this, but something has always itched in my brain about dark matter. It smacks, to me, to be the aether of the 21st century.

In respect to sitting above the API layer and turning DTO’s to/from Domain Object’s, I’d call them “Brokers”.

There’s two kinds of issues: instance and pattern. The first time or two, it’s instance. You deal with those with specificity. Something like, “I would prefer not to talk about this subject with you, please stop”.

If it persists, then it’s a pattern problem. You deal with the pattern, not the instance. “I’ve asked you not to talk about subjects like this in the pant, but you haven’t stopped. This makes me feel like you don’t respect my boundaries and it’s making it difficult for me to work with you. Why are you doing this to me?”.

You can escalate from there, and this might involve management involvement but at least you’ll have the clarity of having made the situation clear before it gets there.

Honestly though, unless the coworker is actually deranged, they’ll be mortified when they find out they are making you uncomfortable and they’ll stop right away.

I think that a good starting place to explain the concept to people would be to describe a Travesty Generator. I remember playing with one of those back in the 1980’s. If you fed it a snippet of Shakespeare, what it churned out sounded remarkably like Shakespeare, even if it created brand “new” words.

The results were goofy, but fun because it still almost made sense.

The most disappointing source text I ever put in was TS Eliot. The output was just about as much rubbish as the original text.

It helps if you are an old enough Canadian to remember the original “Hinterland’s Who’s Who” shorts.

So write it properly from the get-go. You can get 90% of the way by naming things properly and following the Single Responsibility Principle.

I’m not sure a corvette has ever counted as “major” warship.

And yet I never see any mention of this anywhere. Even here, it seems that Biden is more concerned about whether the court can administer justice because it is so much out of balance. No mention, though, that the “balance” shouldn’t even be a factor.

SCOTUS justices are appointed for life because it’s supposed to put them above political considerations. No politician can influence them by threatening removal. Yet, there you are, SCOTUS is just as political as the other two branches.

To me, as a non-American, the most baffling thing is that everyone in the States just assumes, and accepts, that these appointed justices are going to rule according to some political bias.

That’s not the way it works in the rest of the free world. Judges are, by definition, trusted to be impartial interpreters of the law/constitution. That’s their role.

I live in Canada, and I’m vaguely familiar with some of the names of our Supreme Court justices, but I certainly don’t know their political leanings, nor do I care. Nor does any Canadian I know. That’s the way it’s supposed to be.

So as far as I can see, the problem isn’t that SCOTUS is stacked with Republicans, nor that it can be. The problem is that everyone seems to assume that this is the way it should be.

“Row headers” seems wrong to me. Maybe “row labels”?