As someone who did an MBA and was groomed to be a Consultant and then repented (now a software engineer) you have to understand that the customer of a consultancy project is an exec.
1. The exec has been charged with exploring a new product space, a potential M&A deal, more vertical integration etc etc
2. The exec needs a gauge on the "size of the prize", is this thing worth doing? roughly how will it be done? how long etc.
3. The exec probably already has a rough idea or gut feeling about one such option
4. The consultants produce something that usually supports the gut feeling, other times it will suggest alternatives and provide some facts and figures to support
Years ago, I was introduced to a “what would Elon do?” assistant. Execs want to know what their (current or hypothetical) competition would do given their decision-support data. But they also want to know what a consult-assistant cutout would know.
This entirely depends on industry and geography. I've worked with big companies where the customers of consultants were effectively middle management, several layers removed from execs.
True, they are called the "Hidden Client", any good consultant will be able to essentially do intelligence gathering on who that is and what they want, because it will be one exec
Hey this report was done by McKinsey and they hire from Harvard and Stanford, and hear how well they speak and look how soft their hair is, the report must be good!
Same. It seems the coding part of my brain and the communicating are mutually exclusive
I wonder if it’s related to the phenomena of some people having a ‘narrator’ in their head or, like me, there’s no voice and it takes effort to convert abstract thoughts to sentences
Maybe this is a misconception or misrepresentation of pair-programming, at least compared to my experience. One person isn't supposed to be doing both. You're either navigating/explaining or driving/doing. Pair programming isn't about one person doing everything and another person watching and trying to keep up. It's about communicating and sharing an understanding, like a realtime/interactive PR description/review while writing. Of course there are times where one person will simply say "let me write this out and discuss after" and go at it for a short while, but it should be the exception rather than the rule in settings where it worked best for me.
Perhaps it is, but I'm not really going to entertain someone saying they tried it and it didn't work, when all they did was work their own screens/keyboards sitting side-by-side (or remote) each with their own ideas and not really sharing in the process, except to interrupt and annoy each other.
no I actually get it, I think like most fads, it seems to work great for really trivial things or for debugging. I have myself used pair programming in those cases.
I just can't imagine using it for serious work. navigating/explaining? I know neither the science I'm trying to code nor the code I'm trying to write - I'll write code to explore the data, I'll have a hunch, I'll wonder about something and I'll go find that one paper I came across 10 years ago to check - I don't see what code the other would be writing while I'm trying to figure that stuff out.
Totally agree. I wouldn't say it's well suited for research or research-heavy work. In those cases, I'll do research on my own and reconvene later or another day.
"What the ancient Romans wore may not be among the most pressing questions facing archaeologists, but it is one that attracts interest among the general public."
It sounds silly, but the cold war was a nice period of peace. Both sides were prepared and knew what’s coming. So peace was inevitable. When opponent gets weak war happens. Sounds even sillier, but strong and ready armies are warrant of peace.
Tell that to the Vietnamese, the Afghan, the Cuban, the korean, ... And arguably you might include a lot of eastern european country.
Just because the confrontation didn't happen in the country that were "enemy" didn't mean they didn't cause wars.
There is another alternative : two country not being powerful enough that they can wage a proxy war by using less powerful country. The issue is not the military power, it is the imbalance.
> Exactly, people have a "non-event bias" they can't fathom thing that didn't happen because of the preceeding things that had to happen to prevent it!
> The formal fallacy of affirming a disjunct also known as the fallacy of the alternative disjunct or a false exclusionary disjunct occurs when a deductive argument takes the following logical form:
A or B
A
Therefore, not B
If the news is good, then there's no other newsworthy events to cover, so the good news must rule the day.
> 1. (journalism) A time when media organizations publish trivial stories due to the lack of more substantial topics.
> 2016, W. Lance Bennett, chapter 5, in News: The Politics of Illusion, 10th edition, University of Chicago Press, →ISBN, page 136:
> > Perhaps you have seen a television news program on a slow news day. In place of international crises, press conferences, congressional hearings, and proclamations by the mayor, the news may consist of a trip to the zoo to visit a new “baby,” a canned report on acupuncture in China, a follow-up story on the survivor of an air crash, or a visit to the opening of baseball spring training in Florida.
If the news is bad, coverage of it will be minimal to nonexistent. Why? No news is good news, after all.
> In propositional logic, affirming the consequent (also known as converse error, fallacy of the converse, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency) is a formal fallacy (or an invalid form of argument) that is committed when, in the context of an indicative conditional statement, it is stated that because the consequent is true, therefore the antecedent is true. It takes on the following form:
> Subversive affirmation is an artistic performance that overemphasizes prevailing ideologies and thereby calls them into question. Simultaneously with affirmation, the affirmed concepts are revealed, and artists distance themselves from those concepts. Strategies of subversive affirmation include "over-identification", "over-affirmation" and "yes revolution".
Or just don't invade, kill, rape their womens? Trust me if you don't terrorise othe nations they won't attack you.
And if you are speaking about what you guys did and doing in Palestine or any other Muslim nation trust my they aren't afraid of you, they just raise people who despise you and you will cry in future when they attack you at your homes.
I said I was experienced with firearms, not handguns. At the time I had extensive experience with assault rifles, heavy machine guns, light machine guns, bolt action rifles etc all of which had a safety.
Before the sig the British Army used the browning 9mm which also had a safety
1. The exec has been charged with exploring a new product space, a potential M&A deal, more vertical integration etc etc
2. The exec needs a gauge on the "size of the prize", is this thing worth doing? roughly how will it be done? how long etc.
3. The exec probably already has a rough idea or gut feeling about one such option
4. The consultants produce something that usually supports the gut feeling, other times it will suggest alternatives and provide some facts and figures to support