> Agile is a set of four principles

Twelve :-) Twelve principles and four values

> if it fails, it is only considered evidence that you were not doing it enough.

Or not doing it properly. And I understand the suspicion, I really do; but in hindsight, if you honestly tried to review how an organisation was operating, would you sincerely be able to say that it was adhering to a certain agile methodology/framework/mindset/strategy/whatever?

I have so far not see an organisation that would be following scrum, as it is described in the scrum guide; or kanban, as it is described in the kanban guide. I have seen or heard about various organisations that use these words, but they have little resemblance to what was actually proposed. So I can't really say if agile (or any of its particular variants) work or not. I have not seen honest experiments properly run.

> I have so far not see an organisation that would be following scrum, as it is described in the scrum guide; or kanban, as it is described in the kanban guide. I have seen or heard about various organisations that use these words, but they have little resemblance to what was actually proposed.

If that's true, wouldn't it point at the process being impossible to implement?

It is a myth. There exists a version of Agile that could be implemented, and it would be the true Agile. The pure, honest experiment that would just work, because Agile cannot fail, you can only fail to Agile.

It signals to me that the process doesn't work in reality. You are better off doing something else.

It doesn't really fail any worse than other inflexible top-down process mandates from management.

That's where it becomes "impossible to implement"—you can't impose it as a cookie-cutter solution driven and controlled by management, and get much good out of it, yet that's the usual way it manifests in the wild. But that's not so different from anything else management might push in its place.

> There exists a version of Agile that could be implemented, and it would be the true Agile. The pure, honest experiment that would just work, because Agile cannot fail, you can only fail to Agile.

"Agile" is a very vague and shapeless idea which is hard to design an experiment for; but I would settle for clean experiments with well-defined methodologies/frameworks/strategies/whatever. Specifically, for scrum or kanban. Whenever people talk about these two, they seem to misunderstand them more often than not.

>It signals to me that the process doesn't work in reality. You are better off doing something else.

Whatever you do instead, you will also cargo-cult to some degree and fail equally as badly at.

For all the "You're doing it wrong!" I've seen in industry with respect to agile, I've also felt that every team I've been part of that did some version of it, seemed to function OK. I always found the "Agile Manifesto" a completely silly nothing-burger, but always understood the core tenet of 'agile' to be "employ tighter feedback loops", which... is sort of mostly how it plays out in practice??

I've belonged to numerous teams that followed some form of agile, to varying degrees of success (or failure).

The shape of what Agile meant in each of those teams was very different from one another. It would be disingenuous to say "the ones that succeeded were truer to Agile".

If Agile can be summarized as "employ tighter feedback loops", the whole Agile thing was beyond useless. A single sentence, as useful a tenet as it may be, does not a philosophy make. And this idea was not even new by the time the Agile manifesto came out (as explained in the linked blog post).

Useless as it might seem, I really do think it is actually that basic. Is it useless? Hardly. Take out feedback loops and see what happens.

The tenet was not useless. But it was not bought forth by Agile. It already existed.

And if this tenet is all Agile is, then it contained zero new ideas or contributions.

It seems to have successfully popularized it though.

> If you are really good at something, you'll find AI sucks at everything.

Nah, just at that something :-)

I think the point is, there's always someone good at what you are evaluating. Anyone with expertise in the domain will recognize how back it sucks in any given domain.

Don't get me wrong, AI can definitely be used as a tool by someone who knows what they're doing to avoid boilerplate. But anyone using it in a domain they aren't already an expert in will unknowingly accept AI f ups.

Exactly. And this seems more and more to be an inherent property of AI, which is kind of calming.

If we go one step further… this is why we buy stuff from other people and firms - because they specialise in stuff that we can then allocate resources on stuff that we are better at ourselves.

Henceforth the idea that all these SaaS firms disappear due to firms replicating their products internally is stupid.

> I’m genuinely shocked at the number of sites on the Net that use Wordpress, dynamically assembling markup with PHP for every page view,

What puzzles me about static sites (and I do build them) is how everything gets to be regenerated, even though you update only one file.

Now, imagine that your writing patten is small notes, like on twitter, mastodon, or bluesky. Over time, with this pattern, you will end up with thousands of notes. Is each one deserving of a page? Ideally, yes; because they should be linkable. Does it make sense to regenerate thousands of pages every time you add a note? Dunno.

Then, consider all the aggregation pages. For example, a paginated list of all my notes. Or a paginated list of notes distributed by different categories / tags. How many more pages does this create?

And the static assets that all get to be copied from source to output directory at every build.

And of course, comments. Static sites don't have comments.

I don't know. I think someone who invested into building their own site engines, like Jeremy Keith (https://adactio.com/) have it the best.

Have they edited stuff out because of the audience reaction? Do you own an unedited copy?

I own the official release, and upon first viewing I do remember slight changes from that screener version, but nothing material. I half expected all or at least some of the brand names to be replaced because the film was so insulting towards them, but that all remained. Starbucks whores were okay, I guess, with Starbucks.

I tried to (re)watch it on Disney+ and the "militaristic ads" were cut.

Richard Stallman's site? Very OG.

https://stallman.org/

Although I see someone has put a 1.5MB image at the top, whose intrinsic size is 2000 × 2588 px, but which was downsized to 320 × 400 px. That's not prioritizing function.

The way things are going, there might not be any alternatives without...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_age_verification_...

> registered on Porkbun LLC and hosted on Cloudflare, Inc

And is built with Astro, which was created by an American, existed as an American company, and then was absorbed by Cloudflare.

Using Astro and giving your data to American companies are two entirely different things

The site isn't limited to just cloud service providers; it includes Mattel and suggests replacing it with Lego. Are people giving their data to American companies by buying Barbies?

> something that's pretty much standard and common practice

Is it? How many people publish to their sites small texts that they then syndicate to Twitter/Bluesky/whatever? How many people publish videos to their sites and then syndicate to Youtube?

The idea is not that you necessarily write a Twitter-length post on your website - you can write a full blog post, but then post links back to that post on social media.