Thought-provoking essay. I can see how responsibility and ownership are important to help identify, motivate and reward the high achievers (and conversely, identify and get rid of the "dead wood"). But I can also see how collaboration and the dilution of responsibility and ownership helps better integrate junior members who might otherwise stay on the sidelines for longer than they should. There's also the issue of personnel turnover: what happens if the one person who is responsible for a major piece of a project leaves the company? A collaborative setting is more resilient to churn. There are trade-offs, and possibly a middle ground to be found.
This looks nice! Wish they had a no-credit-card-required version for educational purposes. For the course I teach we use Spring Boot, and life was good with Heroku till they discontinued the no-credit-card version, and then the only choice we had (with support for Spring Boot) was to move over to Azure, which works but is a bit overkill and complicated for our purposes. I guess we could just use Docker and then many more platform would become available, but I'd rather not add one more step to the pipeline if possible.
Yeah, it's a case of "don't let the perfect be the enemy of good". The conservative stance is happy with the status quo. The progressive stance isn't. We probably need a bit of both. Finding the right balance being key.
Maybe the difference between the eval of the best move vs the next one(s)? An "only move" situation would be more risky than when you have a choice between many good moves.
That's it exactly. Engines will often show you at least 3 lines each with their valuation, and you can check the difficulty often just from that delta from 1st to 2nd best move. With some practical chess experience you can also "feel" how natural or exoteric the best move is.
In the WCC match between Caruana and Carlsen, they were at one difficult endgame where Carlsen (the champion) moved and engines calculated it was a "blunder" because there was a theoretical checkmate in like 36(!) moves, but no commentator took it seriously as there was "no way" a human would be able to spot the chance and calculate it correctly under the clock.
Not necessarily. If that "only move" is obvious, then it's not really risky. Like if a queen trade is offered and the opponent accepts, then typically the "only move" that doesn't massively lose is to capture back. But that's extremely obvious, and doesn't represent a sharp or complex position.
The right book for the right problem. SICP isn't meant to teach you how to tackle fault-tolerance in a complex distributed system. Here is a textbook that talks about distributed systems (van Steen and Tannenbaum):
reply