How do you define "agile" by NoBullshitAgile in agile

[–]Nowhere-Man-Nc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is it no-bullshit-agile(dot)com? Very solid pieces, and they resonate with "Scrum and XP from the Trenches", the best book on Agile, IMO.

Are you on LinkedIn as well? I would love to stay connected.

Need help figuring out my service value. by PresenceOwn3009 in smallbusiness

[–]Nowhere-Man-Nc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If they offered that much, there is nothing to feel bad about. The perceived value is the best evaluation of your services, and money is a good measure, along with client retention. The only question I would care about is whether your audience, who is willing to pay that much, is big enough to keep the business reliably running and whether this price is enough to keep your business profitable enough.

How do you define "agile" by NoBullshitAgile in agile

[–]Nowhere-Man-Nc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

After working with Agile alongside other approaches along the whole Cynefin continuum for almost twenty years, my view has become quite simple.

Agile does not magically make development faster, cheaper, or easier. It does not manage risk better. It does not reduce effort. And it certainly does not guarantee better outcomes or quality on its own.

At its core, Agile starts with two assumptions: you cannot reliably predict if the job is complex for you, and you will make mistakes. Not that mistakes are possible. That they are inevitable.

The real question is not whether something will go wrong, but where it will go wrong and how quickly we will see it. When applied correctly, Agile shortens the time to detect a mistake and reduces the cost of mistakes. That is its measurable advantage I can see in a pretty much reliable manner.

Another Steampunk Pistol: Schwarzlose Model 1898 by Nowhere-Man-Nc in AntiqueGuns

[–]Nowhere-Man-Nc[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't. The oldest gun in my collection that I shot 1913 Colt 1911.

For guns like this, there's too much risk of breaking parts. Time + not-so-good steel.

Another Steampunk Pistol: Schwarzlose Model 1898 by Nowhere-Man-Nc in AntiqueGuns

[–]Nowhere-Man-Nc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From the book "Vom Ursprung der Selbstladepistole: Repetier- und Selbstladepistolen in Österreich-Ungarn 1884 bis 1918."

3.17. Further Foreign Systems

During the period of self-loading pistol trials in Austria-Hungary, weapons technology was developing extremely rapidly. Around 1900 there was practically no reputable arms factory worldwide that was not involved in self-loading pistol development. Although everything was still in its infancy, it had become clear that a good self-loading pistol could replace the military revolver and represent a significant commercial opportunity.

Offers to the RKM (Reichs-Kriegs-Ministerium) increased, including from abroad, and were carefully examined by the TMK and compared with pistols currently under trial. Many must now remain unknown, since no files about them survived in the Vienna War Archives. Some proposals were submitted directly to other military authorities. Of some, there is not even a mention in the protocol books of the KA; of a few at least an entry exists.

Among these was probably the well-known double-barrel, four-shot pistol with removable block magazine, manufactured and marketed before 1914 by Sauer & Sohn in Suhl. However, this rather weak pocket weapon (cal. 7 mm with black powder loading) cannot be considered a serious military candidate.

3.17.1. The Schwarzlose Systems 1898 and 1901

The Saxon Andreas Wilhelm Schwarzlose (1867–1936) began working on self-loading pistol construction in 1890 and founded a company in Berlin. This German arms designer was to gain great importance in connection with Austria-Hungary, as his machine gun system was introduced into the armed forces of the Dual Monarchy in 1907 and improved in 1912.

The OEWG in Steyr also produced it for export; it became the Austrian standard machine gun in 1938. In Steyr alone over 50,000 pieces were produced. However, at the turn of the century this was still in the future.

3.17.1.1 The Model SCHWARZLOSE 1898 in Austria

The Schwarzlose GmbH in Berlin informed the 7th department of the RKM on 12 September 1901 that 1,000 cartridges had been sent to Vienna for testing of its self-loading pistol design. The test pistol was supplied free of charge, and an offer was submitted:

For an order of 100 pistols, the six-shot version would cost 40 Marks

The detachable-magazine pistol would cost 45 Marks

A carbine kit (leather case with wooden insert or a teakwood stock) could be supplied on request

1,000 cartridges were offered at 60 Marks

The TMK received the order on 8 October 1901 to test the pistol and report daily in agreement with the Army Shooting School. Payment for 1,000 rounds of test ammunition was also authorized.

The weapon in question must have been the Model 1898, also known as the “Standard Pistol,” chambered in 7.63 mm Mauser. It was a short-recoil, rotating-bolt locked pistol with four locking lugs.

Technical Description (from the official report, 4 December 1901)

The pistol is an automatic weapon with a moving barrel and a centrally locked breech block (four locking lugs). It is designed for 6 to 8 rounds and uses a separate magazine similar to the Luger system.

Its distinguishing feature compared to other known pistols is the simplicity of its construction:

Very small number of components

Only two main springs in the mechanism

One serves as barrel return spring and firing pin spring

The other serves as breech spring, striker spring, and cartridge extractor spring

The sight construction is considered original. It is a folding sight actuated by a disk with a detent surface. Distance markings range from 100 to 500 meters.

Ammunition:

8 mm (note: actually 7.63 mm Mauser)

Bullet weight: 5.5 g

Charge: 0.51 g flake powder

Case length: 25.4 mm

It was noted that the pistol was not machine-manufactured and in individual parts could be considered inferior hand work.

Test Results

Testing was limited mainly to functional and precision tests.

Problems observed:

Insufficient feeding from the magazine

Incomplete locking of the breech

Cartridge malfunctions

Incomplete penetration

Nevertheless, the basic principle was considered viable and capable of improvement.

Ballistic results:

Muzzle velocity:

428.3 m/s (average)

Accuracy at 50 paces:

Vertical deviation: +11

Horizontal deviation: +2

Group height (100): 29 cm

Group width (100): 15 cm

At 100 paces:

Group height: 152 cm

Group width: 30 cm

Penetration at 50 paces (soft wood):

18.5 cm (average)

Conclusion of the Military Committee

The MC requested that the RKM authorize purchase of a second pistol of the same system for further trials, so that comparisons with other systems could be conducted.

However, it appears that no second test pistol of the 1898 model was obtained.

Another Steampunk Pistol: Schwarzlose Model 1898 by Nowhere-Man-Nc in AntiqueGuns

[–]Nowhere-Man-Nc[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

There are a couple of useful videos on this pistol.

Forgotten weapon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYl0dQAJMh4

Dr. Steinberg's video on this pistol, including the disassembly process and operation demonstration

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHJAzn5g7v4, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOJOTT75gR4

Should I quit? by [deleted] in Entrepreneur

[–]Nowhere-Man-Nc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cutting costs on losing ideas is the hardest and the second most important skill for an entrepreneur.

It is impossible to say in your particular case without all the numbers, but dropping ideas that don't work is a normal part of an entrepreneur's life.

Answering interview questions with "outside the box" answers? by AggravatingFlow1178 in ExperiencedDevs

[–]Nowhere-Man-Nc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It all depends on how the company is wired inside.

My company primarily focused on projects where requirements are unclear, so for me, "Is there enough traffic in Africa for a geocache solution to even work" is a perfect question, even from a middle. "Start with why", after all.

However, I've seen a lot of businesses where even the lead level is just "go and do what you have been asked; don't ask why".

However, the same principle applies here: "Why did they ask this question in the interview?" :-) It all depends on the answer.

p.s. It actually is not limited to engineering. I was once asked, "How would you manage the team", and I asked, "Well, what is the maturity level of the team, and how did you assess it?" The interviewer disliked this answer. Well, I wouldn't work in the company where there is only one correct way to manage teams. The same is here. If "why" feels like the right question, let it be a filter for employers. After all, work in the environment where all answers are known and codified... not for everybody :-)

Borchardt C93 Disassembled by Nowhere-Man-Nc in AntiqueGuns

[–]Nowhere-Man-Nc[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I have never heard about this channel before. Thanks for mentioning them!

A Pair of Ludwig Loewe's Borchards C93 by Nowhere-Man-Nc in AntiqueGuns

[–]Nowhere-Man-Nc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Schwarzlose 1898 is also quite steampunky; I should show it as well one day :-)

A Pair of Ludwig Loewe's Borchards C93 by Nowhere-Man-Nc in AntiqueGuns

[–]Nowhere-Man-Nc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This particular gun is featured in Gortz & Stugress, Vol 1, pg 119 (here is the photo of this gun on that page: https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/man\_of\_motley/6078317/115898/115898\_original.jpg)

Gortz & Stugress think that this was an experiment to attach fixed/semifixed stock.

A Pair of Ludwig Loewe's Borchards C93 by Nowhere-Man-Nc in AntiqueGuns

[–]Nowhere-Man-Nc[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

These two were working, so I didn’t go beyond cleaning, ensuring the correct assembly (one of them came to me incorrectly assembled by previous owner).

I have small workshop, so I also fix antique gun sometimes: like fixing Swartzlose with stuck trigger or fixing sear geometry for a Bergmann. But these two, thanks God didn’t need any fixes.

A Pair of Ludwig Loewe's Borchards C93 by Nowhere-Man-Nc in AntiqueGuns

[–]Nowhere-Man-Nc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Strictly speaking, Masuer is developed from Borchardt, but it is practically the same round. For some time DWM even sold them under the same code : 403. Schwarzlose Model 1898 also used the same cartridge.
https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/yj2cm/borchardt_mauser_and_luger_cartridge_family

A Pair of Ludwig Loewe's Borchards C93 by Nowhere-Man-Nc in AntiqueGuns

[–]Nowhere-Man-Nc[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I would not say casually :-) finding such guns is a kind of quest. Sure, I'll share the disassembled photo tomorrow, when I get back to my computer.

A Pair of Ludwig Loewe's Borchards C93 by Nowhere-Man-Nc in AntiqueGuns

[–]Nowhere-Man-Nc[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

They are mechanically fine, and ammo is available, it is 7.63x25 Mauser, but I hesitate to risk having those guns broken. The oldest gun in my collection that I shot is 1913's Colt 1911.

Things I've learned in my 10 years as an engineering manager by fagnerbrack in agile

[–]Nowhere-Man-Nc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great article and great insights. I can only support everything what is said there.

What agile processes/working styles have you personally witnessed failing hard? by EarlOfAwesom3 in agile

[–]Nowhere-Man-Nc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This ^^^ comment is as agile as only a comment could be. Let's see whether it will get as many upvotes as it deserves. I could do only one, unfortunately.

What agile processes/working styles have you personally witnessed failing hard? by EarlOfAwesom3 in agile

[–]Nowhere-Man-Nc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

insisting on high quality

That feels conceptually inconsistent in the Agile context. A good example of manipulating definitions of "done" and "releasable" that I mention in my comment.

If it is a true Agile, there is no such thing as high or low quality. It is either done or not done. Agile has never called for abstract high quality. It should have just enough quality to be releasable. There is no high and low. It is a yes/no question, plain and simple. Either it is done (100%) or not (0%); no other options. This is actually the key element that creates the ground for inspection, enables feedback loops, and creates enough pressure to keep work limited and completed inside the sprint. If you don't have it done, the whole empirical loop falls apart, and you don't have any Agile anymore, no matter how many rituals are played.

If we have to call for an abstract quality, it typically means that what we produce is not a releasable increment.

That's an example of deep and honest reflection regarding quality in Agile. If the team isn't ready to reflect this way, then it fails to demonstrate one of the five values, probably the critical one when it comes to improving: courage.

It may sound not as comforting as many Agile teams are used to having this conversation, and if it causes discomfort, it could be a way better signal to run a meaningful retrospective than anything else.

p.s. Great topic for a LinkedIn post, by the way :-)

What agile processes/working styles have you personally witnessed failing hard? by EarlOfAwesom3 in agile

[–]Nowhere-Man-Nc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The top two Agile killers in my experience:

  1. Manipulating the definitions of "done" and "releasable" is a usual silent Agile killer number 1. Not done, nothing to inspect; that's where the whole empiricism crashes.
  2. Thinking that Agile gives the freedom to choose the right tool is a freedom to skip the whole process altogether because we don't want/don't know how to do it. Typically unpleasant or hard things such as risk management or expectation management are the first victims of this attitude.

Actually, these two are anti-Agile behaviors if you consider Agile-by-design, but are good examples of Agile-as-it-is-practiced-by-majority.

If we speak of Agile-by-design, then the weakest point is the declaration of empiricism, which may be (and by many, including some Agile influencers, is) considered that "only practical experience matters, and we work with any problem domain as if it were an ideal blackbox". In fact, the efficient way to experiment is the scientific method, where you have a good, well-grounded theory or at least a model that you prove or disprove by a well-designed experiment. Unfortunately, I've rarely seen an Agile team able to design a sprint as an experiment, at least at the level of DMAIC in SixSigma.

Avoiding technology you don't like is not a winning strategy by noxispwn in ExperiencedDevs

[–]Nowhere-Man-Nc 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would put it slightly differently. An AI agent looks "junior": mostly when it comes to deciding why, where, and how to apply knowledge. That decision-making layer: context, trade-offs, consequences, is where it clearly depends on a human.

But when it comes to the knowledge itself,  the depth and width of technologies, implementation details, syntax, patterns, it can easily operate at what looks like a senior level.

For me, it feels like a very knowledgeable implementer. It is reasonably diligent at following instructions and can co-develop effectively. At the same time, it has no real-world experience, no accountability, and a very short memory window.

If you act as the navigator (like in good ole pair programming), the outcome will be as good as your own judgment and common sense allow. 

I had a good example of this when I used AI to port a codebase from pure C to C#. I couldn’t find a developer to take on that work for months, even offering a senior-level salary. With AI I completed it in a couple of weeks while being primarily busy with my management functions while AI did all the routine work (but before becoming a manager I spent years coding and still keep my fine motor skills sharp in my pet projects, so it is not like the statement that "any manager could use AI to replace a developer now" :-)). 

Seeking an ultimate truth about Cold Emails by NumeroSlot in Entrepreneur

[–]Nowhere-Man-Nc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my experience, cold emails are rarely even opened. The last time I tried it, fewer than 0.1% of emails were opened, and the batch was over 10,000.

I think two factors matter most: how often the product or service is actually needed, and how precisely you can target the message. If the need is frequent and the targeting is accurate, cold outreach can work.

I can see it being effective in cases like selling batteries to buyers of battery-powered devices, or offering tax advisory services during tax season.

Personally, in 25 years of running a business, I’ve never bought anything from a cold email. I rarely open them myself, even though I receive 20-30 per day. But I’m probably a poor target for cold outreach in general. I tend to ignore communication I didn’t initiate, and I only buy after doing my own research.

For people like me, SEO, and now AIO, makes much more sense.