Some form of fraud for misrepresenting the risk that the mortgages that were bundled together, seems like the obvious answer. But I'm not a forensic accountant or someone with the nuanced legal understanding to define a charge here. Do you think there was no crime in the actions taken by either the banks or the rating agencies? No failure of fiduciary responsibility?
> Tesla cars come standard with advanced hardware capable of providing Autopilot features, and *full self-driving capabilities* — through software updates designed to improve functionality over time.
> Tesla's Autopilot AI team drives the future of autonomy of current and new generations of vehicles. Learn about the team and apply to help accelerate the world with *full self-driving*.
Now you can say that can be interpreted multiple ways - which means the copywriter is either incompetent, or intentionally misleading. Interestingly, the text from 2019 (https://web.archive.org/web/20191225054133/tesla.com/autopil...) is written a bit differently:
> ...full self-driving capabilities *in the future*...
> > Don't advertise their driver assist system as "full self driving".
> The system involved in this crash was never advertised as "full self driving".
I assume "system involved in this crash" is referring to "Tesla Autopilot"; my reply was to contradict the statement '...*was never* advertised as "full self driving"'.
But you mentioning a date made me curious about when the advert text was changed:
It's a dumb argument anyway. Most normies think autopilot means the plane flies itself. At the very least they think it flies itself except for landing or takeoff. By the technical definition of an autopilot perhaps they were correct, but not by the colloquial meaning
It won't happen, but I really wish to see Tesla lawyers telling the court "we know the advert text, video, and the term 'Autopilot' are misleading, but they're just, you know, 'corporate puffery'".
Daily scrum, sprint planning, retrospective and review are ceremonies, and they are totally mentioned in the guide.
The guide also mentions the backlog refinement: “ This is an ongoing activity to add details, such as a description, order, and size.” It’s true that scrum doesn’t directly mention story points but tell me whether story points or t-shirt sizing aren’t the two most common ways to size a story.
> Daily scrum, sprint planning, retrospective and review are ceremonies, and they are totally mentioned in the guide.
Those are "Events", activities to support development work. Unless you mean programming, testing, discussions, code reviews, etc are ceremonies as well?
> It’s true that scrum doesn’t directly mention story points but tell me whether story points or t-shirt sizing aren’t the two most common ways to size a story.
Borrowing your own words: "...story points aren’t in any way mandated by the..." Scrum Guide.
> Also worth mentioning that everybody found the milestones ridiculous and unachievable in 2018.
Who is "everybody"? Few months back I manage to find some old articles that basically said somebody said that, but none of those articles ever reported any names.
> “Pushing sales people to increase their amount of sales/quota is like asking meteorologists for sunshine”.
> Hmmm it doesn’t seem unreasonable in that context? You’re really asking people to work more effectively, to accomplish the same amount of work more quickly.
Sales quota is a target, estimate is not a target.
> And yet sales people aren’t writing article after article about how self-set quotas are sacrosanct, should only settable by sales people themselves, and how clueless management is to try to get more performance above the no-brainer target.
You mean you've never came across any post where people complain about unreasonable/unrealistic sales quota?
> Scrum _is_ a bit like communism. Each time it fails people claim it's wasn't the real thing.
The difference is when people do communism, they actually follow the recipe (and failing), i.e. central planning, one-party state, state ownership, etc.
But when you read about people complaining about Scrum, it doesn't look like what the Scrum training taught nor the Scrum guide.
(This reminds me of a time when a manager pulled all the teams into a room, then pulled out all the Scrum terminologies and say "now we're going to have a meeting to decide what we want them to mean".)
Reminds me of that time when my team was called into a meeting where the CTO "advised" us that "code does not have to be perfect", when all we wanted to do was review the code for a PoC that we were ordered to "own" and deploy to production (even the creator said he cannot guarantee the code he copied from Stack Overflow for the PoC is production-ready).
In the same meeting, the CTO was ranting about the instability of a service (which was also a PoC that was pushed to production before we were _also_ made to "own" it, yet never given the budget to even get acquainted to the codebase), claiming the reason for that because we devs are lazy and unprofessional.
I highly doubt making people who _responds_ to the incentives to "feel the pain" will fix much. I suspect things are more likely to get fixed if the people who _creates_ the incentives are the one "feeling the pain".
As they say in Hunger Games, "remember who the real enemy is".
That is a very interesting example because in my (Southeast Asia) country & culture, a missed wedding date will have a real & huge financial consequence.
