Waldowal

The consultancy I used to work for in the late 90s would have crucified any developer that didn’t write “a data abstraction layer that allows you to pop off the original db and substitute a different one later”.

How many times in my 25 year career have I swapped out the database (and been thankful for such an abstraction layer)? 0 times.

Something isn’t right with this article. I’m suspect:

• Type 1 is where your islet cells die off and you lose insulin production. Type 2 means your insulin production is fine, but your cells are resistant to the insulin. A Type 2 should have plenty of islet cells so adding more doesn’t seem like it would do anything. Your body should regulate those cells to output the same amount of insulin as before.

• This same treatment has been done in Type 1s already. It’s not new. The problem is their body eventually kills off the transplanted cells and you have to do it again. Plus, you have to take immune suppressing drugs forever.

• “Despite a kidney transplant, his pancreas still doesn’t produce insulin.” - This is just nonsense.

The idea of agile is great, and easy to sell at a company in my experience. The problem is that the ideas in the manifesto can only be attained if the business stakeholders feet are in the fire as much as IT. That HAS to have top down support from leaders that understand software. But, in every agile company I’ve ever seen (I was a consultant for 15 years, so I saw a bunch), eventually a project goes south, and the business stakeholders throw tech under the bus by saying: “We’re not in IT. We didn’t know we should be thinking about what we want (and not just waiting until the end to demand more and more and more)!”, and they fucking get away with it. Boomers in senior leadership, who don’t know how to work their car stereo, say “Yea, that makes sense. IT, why do you suck!?”. And then “agile” is dead. Tech learns to cover their ass, and demand clear requirements up front and get signoff.