> Open source handles conflict by forking. I wouldn’t call that good coordination.
Forking is far from the first step in conflict resolution; it is the ultima ratio between projects in the open-source world, when all dialogue breaks down. In other words, the worst outcome is that people agree to disagree and go their separate ways, which is arguably as good a solution as is possible.
In the corporate world, coordination mostly exists within companies through top-down decision-making, as you said. Between them, however, things look much grimmer. Legal action is often taken lightly, and more often than not, a core business goal is to not just dominate, but to annihilate the competition by driving them out of business.
Coordination between corporations, such as through consortia, is only ever found if everyone involved stands to profit significantly and risks are low. And ironically, when it does happen, it often takes the form of shared development of an open-source project, to eliminate the perceived risk of being shafted.
>
Forking is far from the first step in conflict resolution; it is the ultima ratio between projects in the open-source world, when all dialogue breaks down.
You also do a fork if you simply want to try out some rather experimental changes. In the end, this fork can get merged into the mainstream version, stay independent, or become abandoned. People wanting to try out new things has barely anything to do with all dialogue breaking down.
You may also fork from having different goals or ideas about some mutually incompatible requirements without an communication or coordination issues. Friendly forks happen all the time.
Right. In this case I am talking about a "hard" fork, where core contributors disagree on where a project is headed and split up with no intention of collaborating further. Of course, forking with the intent of merging back contributions does not apply here, as is a cooperative and coordinated process. In that case, the "fork" really only serves as a staging ground for contributions.
There is more to choosing a job than money. No engineer likes being managed by incompetent assholes, and the best engineers also get to choose the best managers. And the bar for those is, sadly, quite low.
Unlike IOS itself, most IOS jailbreak tools and package managers are open-source and auditable, as are many of the unsanctioned applications commonly used on jailbroken devices.
The fact you nevertheless refer to this software as "dodgy" really shows how well Apple's messaging works to deter people from using it, even when their main argument against it is security (from what?).
Funny, considering that without Apple's draconian restrictions on user freedoms, IOS security is basically nonexistent even when compared to the low standard set by Android. It is true that the inside of Apple's jail feels safe, but in truth, there is much less keeping attackers out than users in.
To be fair, the technology sigmoid curve rises fastest just before its inflection point, so it is hard to predict at what point innovation slows down due to its very nature.
The first Boeing 747 was rolled out in 1968, only 65 years after the first successful heavier-than-air flight. If you told people back then that not much will fundamentally change in civil aviation over the next 57 years, no one would have believed you.
And not just in aviation. Consider what aviation did to make the world smaller. Huge 2nd order changes. The COVID-19 pandemic would not have happened the way it did, if there were no Boeing or Airbus.
> I was already a very high performer before AI, leading teams, aligning product vision and technical capabilities, architecting systems and implementing at top-of-stack velocity
Indeed, he did not list "out-of-touch suit-at-heart tech leads that failed upwards and have misplaced managerial ambitions" as a category, but that category certainly exists, and it drives me insane.
You're making a lot of baseless assumptions with your implication there, and sadly it says more about you than me.
You might find your professional development would stop being retarded if you got the chip off your shoulder and focused on delivering maximum value to the organizations that employ you in any way possible.
Baseless? You just told us in your own words what you do and how this makes you special. Do you know what baseless means? That's before we even touch on the incredible irony of you assuming I'm a professional failure despite knowing nothing about me.
But that's just how being a manager-man goes; so focused on self-aggrandizement and surrounding yourself with yes-men that you lost your edge. Hope you can cover up your incompetence until the next promotion is due, because if ever a rung breaks away from under your feet, it'll probably be a loong way down to a position that matches your actual skill level.
> Successful people aren't bitter, that's a trait that losers develop.
>So, basically, you think all the pro-AI folks are "bad," and defensive because they feel like anti-AI folks are attacking the thing that makes them not bad?
Thanks, I needed a laugh. I have indeed grown bitter over the years, but life has always has a way to make me smile in store.
Forking is far from the first step in conflict resolution; it is the ultima ratio between projects in the open-source world, when all dialogue breaks down. In other words, the worst outcome is that people agree to disagree and go their separate ways, which is arguably as good a solution as is possible.
In the corporate world, coordination mostly exists within companies through top-down decision-making, as you said. Between them, however, things look much grimmer. Legal action is often taken lightly, and more often than not, a core business goal is to not just dominate, but to annihilate the competition by driving them out of business.
Coordination between corporations, such as through consortia, is only ever found if everyone involved stands to profit significantly and risks are low. And ironically, when it does happen, it often takes the form of shared development of an open-source project, to eliminate the perceived risk of being shafted.