[-] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 7 points 18 hours ago

It's a set of apps that help you sync files between devices. It does so without relying on a centralized server, which is a curse (because you need the devices to be on and online) and a blessing (because it can be fast and private). I use it every day. It's great!

[-] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago

I use my to-do app as a ‘Read Later App’ 🤷‍♂️🙃

[-] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I can see you're frustrated by the downvotes and pushback you've received. It's understandable to feel defensive when your viewpoint isn't well-received. I appreciate you sharing your perspective, even if it goes against the majority opinion here.

Your points about the space shuttle program's challenges are valid and worth discussing. It's important to note the timeframes involved though. The shuttle was developed in the 1970s, well before agile methodologies emerged in the 1990s and 2000s.

Interestingly, one could argue that NASA may have used agile-like practices in the space shuttle program, even if they weren't labeled as such at the time. However, I did a quick search and couldn't find much concrete evidence to support this idea. It's an intriguing area that might merit further research.

Regarding modern agile approaches, while no method is perfect, many organizations have found them helpful for improving flexibility and delivering value incrementally. NASA's recent use of agile for certain projects shows they're open to evolving their methods.

I'm curious to hear more about your thoughts on software development approaches for complex engineering projects. What do you see as the pros and cons of different methodologies? Your insights could add a lot to this discussion.

[-] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 43 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)
[-] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 39 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Your comparison is interesting, but let's consider some historical facts. The Apollo program, which successfully put humans on the moon, actually employed many principles we now associate with Agile methodologies.

Contrary to popular belief, it wasn't a straightforward Waterfall process. NASA used frequent feedback (akin to daily Scrums), self-organizing teams, stable interfaces so that teams are an independent path to production, and iterative development cycles - core Agile practices. In fact, Mariana Mazzucato's book Mission Economy provides fascinating insights into how the moon landing project incorporated elements remarkably similar to modern Agile approaches. Furthermore, here's a NASA article detailing how Agile practices are used to send a rover to the moon: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20160006387/downloads/20160006387.pdf?attachment=true

While it's true that building rockets isn't identical to software development, the underlying principles of flexibility, collaboration, and rapid iteration proved crucial to the missions' success. Programs like the Apollo program adapted constantly to new challenges, much like Agile teams do today.

Regarding Kanban and Scrum, you're right that they fall under the Agile umbrella. However, each offers unique tools that can be valuable in different contexts, even outside of software.

Perhaps instead of dismissing Agile outright for hardware projects, we could explore how its principles might be adapted to improve complex engineering endeavors. After all, if it helped us reach the moon and, decades later, send rovers to it, it might have more applications than we initially assume.

[-] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 days ago

If you define methodological validity as surviving the "How can this be wrong?" or the "What alternative explanations are there?" questions, then it is easily dismissable. What alternative explanations are there?

[-] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 91 points 2 weeks ago
  1. Of course, people should donate to make Lemmy sustainable.
  2. I recognize that this is true of any website that is not enshitified or, more broadly, is designed to maximize profits. Websites made with libre software are the public libraries of the internet!
691
[-] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 107 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Masturbation is totally normal and healthy, and you're spot on that it shouldn't be demonized or shamed. In men, it might even reduce the risk of prostate cancer.

At the same time, it's important to have a balanced and psychologically flexible relationship with masturbation and sexuality. As psychologist Steven Hayes, a leading expert on psychological flexibility, explains: getting too fixated on any one activity or coping mechanism, even a healthy one, can lead to psychological inflexibility if it is used to avoid experiencing your life fully (For a thorough explanation of how this works, feel free to check out A Liberated Mind by Steven Hayes). Psychological inflexibility here means getting stuck in rigid behavior patterns to the point that it messes with living a full and meaningful life.

So while I'm totally with you that masturbation is healthy and that bullshit social taboos against it should be rejected, it's also good to be mindful about your motivation behind doing it. Are you doing it because you're escaping pain? Or are you doing it because it aligns with your values and makes your life meaningful? If you rely on masturbation too much and don't have ways of accepting your emotions and connecting with the world, it could potentially tip into unhelpful psychological rigidity and a frustrating life. The key is to be able to experience masturbation while still staying flexible enough to show up fully for the rest of your life too.

[-] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 46 points 3 weeks ago

It’s about time Instagram enshittifies in a grotesque way, grotesque enough for people to realize it’s shit (because it’s enshittified).

[-] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 40 points 2 months ago

It actually took me a while to realize he was not wearing the clothes of a McDonald's worker.

[-] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 23 points 2 months ago

I’m sure this is a quality shitpost, but I don’t get it 😅 Can someone explain the context for this?

65
submitted 2 months ago by snek_boi@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
51
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by snek_boi@lemmy.ml to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
11
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by snek_boi@lemmy.ml to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world

Thinking a thought is like watering a plant in a garden. Your attention is the sprinkler. The more you water a plant (up to a point, of course), the more the plant grows.

Similarly, the more you think about a thought, the more that thought network grows. The denser a thought network, the likelier it is that you will end up thinking about/through that thought network. There are more entry points and the paths are better paved.

In other words, thinking thoughts make it likelier that you will think those thoughts in the future. This can cause psychological rigidity.

However, psycholofical flexibility can be developed through mindfulness. In particular, I am talking about mindfulness developed through meditations like mindful breathing. In that kind of meditation, you start by noticing your breath. When you're distracted by something, you pay attention to it, but you return to the breathing. The point is to develop flexible attention. You choose what to pay attention to, even when your attention is pulled by something.

That is why I say that experienced meditators would notice earworms just like anyone else (after listening to the song or remembering it because of another related memory), but because they can choose not to pay attention to it and feed that thought network, there is a lower probability of having those networks reinforced. Their sprinklers can turn off with more ease than non-meditators'.

Meditators can choose not to feed the cognitive network. Non-meditators could find themselves feeding the network.

113
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by snek_boi@lemmy.ml to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world

Semantic satiation happens when repeating word or a phrase over and over makes it temporarily lose its meaning. This was first written about in the psychological literature by Titchener, in case you search it online and find that name.

Because word repetition causes defusion (in the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy way), these professors could actually be more cognitively flexible than other people, at least in terms of whatever it is that they're grading.

37
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by snek_boi@lemmy.ml to c/socialism@lemmy.ml
22
0
submitted 10 months ago by snek_boi@lemmy.ml to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
-11
31
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by snek_boi@lemmy.ml to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world

I also wonder whether there could be factors that determine how many students would be considered wondrous or how many would be considered more extrinsically motivated.

116
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by snek_boi@lemmy.ml to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
-9
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by snek_boi@lemmy.ml to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
[-] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 31 points 1 year ago

Not me, but the first time my boyfriend traveled with my family somewhere, he could not believe that sitting quietly in a living room reading was a thing. My family didn't feel the need to fill our day to the brim with tours or shopping or other activities. And that was shocking to him.

view more: next ›

snek_boi

joined 2 years ago