I know it's a joke but time is not (or should not be at least)a synonym for bandwidth in the corporate world. A p1 ticket takes more bandwidth than a p2 even if they take the same amount of time to complete.
I’m curious how they differ in your opinion. Can you elaborate?
For context, I’m a Product Manager and it wouldn’t occur to me that either takes more bandwidth. However, I do think “bandwidth” carries a connotation of priority. “I don’t have the time to work on that P1” would be a rather shocking statement to hear, since a P1 should, by definition, be the top priority. “I don’t have the bandwidth to work on that P1” says to me that there’s something equally or more important taking that person’s focus.
For context, I'm a senor dev at a large corporation, that works at a much slower pace than your typical continuous integration web app. If I was to translate "Do you have bandwidth for x" from corpo speak I would say "Are you able to work x to completion without the stakeholders noticing it not progressing" . That encompasses time, but it also needs to account for all the other resources needed to do that task and more intangible things like the latency expected in updates or the amount of mental capacity (some at my company call it "mind ram" which I think is a good metaphor).
Here's an example. If I have a p1 that takes 1 hour of my time a day before being blocked by other people (this is common in my industry, it's common for dozens of developers from various specialties to work on the same issue). Because it is high priority and involves many people the important thing is that I work on it immediately when the issue is with me. This is a ticket that takes a lot of bandwidth, but not a lot of time.
If I have been assigned this issue I can work 2 or 3 p2 tickets in addition to that without missing anything. However I wouldn't have the bandwidth to work on another p1, because if they both needed my attention at the same time, or have a meeting at the same time I wouldn't be able to appropriately meet the needs of both p1 tickets.
As another example, I need specialized hardware to test certain things. That HW is in short supply and those tests can sometimes run for days. If I have an issue that ties up that hardware, I don't have the BW for another issue that uses that HW. Although I have all the time in the world for other issues, I lack the BW for any issue that needs that HW.
Haha, hey guys! Did you see we have sparkling on tap in the break room? This place is great, isn't it? Be sure to grab a snack before the morning huddle. Great to be with the team again!
Oh hey GluWu, good to see you back in the office! Whenever you get a chance can you swing by my office? No rush or anything, I just have some questions about your PTO request.
What's your point in bringing bud light up? I'm not trying to start shit, genuinely curious. What is it that we need to know? What does "never trust" mean in this context? I can't make heads or tails of anything you wrote
Last spring bud light sent trans influencer Dylan mulvaney a personalized beer can as part of a broad marketing push. This drew criticism/calls for a boycott from various prominent transphobes and caused a slight slump in sales. Bud light responded by laying off/"laying off" various senior marketing execs etc, and did not afaict support support mulvaney after it (no loud anti-transphobia pr statement). Very illustrative story of how corporate support of lgbt people under capitalism works
Like SqueakyBeaver and omniraptor pointed out, it was last years campaign Budweiser made with dylan mulvaney. They featured her on some bud light special editions.
Kid Rock made a video with him shooting the beer and the target demographic "cancelled" bud light making a big fuss about it online.
Budweiser was short of apologizing on their knees for their "mishap", the Creator of the campaign was fired, etc.
People online were pretty harsh with dylan mulvaney. Budweiser dropped her like a hot potato. From what she posted afterwards, i figured they never contacted her or reached out to her in any way, in order to check if she's ok.
That's what i meant, they invest in "inclusion" , because it brings them cash. It's not like humans became enlightened over the past decades. There was progress, sure, very slow progress in all things around being inclusive of others. Corporations are adapting to a demographic that is growing and are potential future customers.
Illness, death, and antisocial behavior. All of these were threats we evolved to handle, people who are "a little bit off" in one way or another, who might endanger the group or individual. This, and that our pattern seeking brains don't like it when something doesn't easily fit within an existing schema, even more so if it lies just outside of our existing preconceptions.
Obviously, I can't say that these definitely are the reasons why we experience the uncanny valley, but I think it's probably a better explanation than... Skin walkers? Or whatever else the meme would be implying.
Still, it's a cool premise for a horror story at least.
Back 4 million years the whole world really was a planet of the apes. So in some ways recognising something that wasn't your species, but looked like it might have avoided conflict, loss of territory, loss of food..
slrpnk.net
Hot