Tangeant: Why is integrating with teams SO difficult?
I started parsing its system logs to create entries in our system automatically to book my times - just not todeal with their silly REST api requirements.
Not yet, there’s a Microsoft connector implementation, but it only does Sharepoint, OneDrive, Outlook etc. and I haven’t tested it thoroughly yet. Teams required some special setup to work IIRC, so I skipped it. Will keep it on the roadmap though!
Best lines in this article. But it doesn't get to IMO a very important point: why can't these processes easily be structured? Here are some good reasons:
- Your process interacts with an unstructured external world (physical reality, customer communication, etc.)
- Your process interacts with differently structured processes, and unstructured in the best agreed transfer protocol (could be external, like data sources, or even internal between teams with different taxonomies)
- Your process must support a wild kind of variability that is not worth categorizing (e.g. every kind of special delivery instruction a customer might provide)
Believing you can always solve these with the right taxonomy and process diagram is like believing there is always another manager to complain to. Experienced process design instead pushes semi-structured variability to the edges, acknowledges those edges, and watches them like a hawk for danger.
We should ABSOLUTELY be applying those principles more to AI... if anything, AI should help us decouple systems and overreach less on system scope. We should get more comfortable building smaller, well-structured processes that float in an unstructured soup, because it has gotten much cheaper for us to let every process have an unstructured edge.
This doesn’t ring true to me. Having processes which rely on communication between humans using natural language can of course be either structured or unstructured. Plenty of highly functioning companies existed well before structured data was even a thing.
Structured data doesn't have be a database. It can be a checklist, a particular working layout, or even just a defined process. Many high functioning companies spent a lot of time on those kinds of things, which became a competitive advantage.
This is a nice summary. I do devops/infrastructure for a SaaS company that use DDD and this was helpful for me to refresh my knowledge of terms and concepts
I wonder if this could be helpful for those who are sight-impaired.
Sometimes consumer devices don't have widespread appeal but are so useful for some groups
For example, my grandfather when basically completely blind in his 60s. When Alexa came out in his 90s it made such a different to his quality of life in his final few years.
Like, I'm an Irish citizen (a former coworker recently took a job with the body responsible for this policy), and I have no idea what the intent is here (apart from the general think of the children stuff).
She might find a device like Alexa helpful if reading no longer becomes an option - with it she can get audio books, music etc.
My grandfather was a avid reader (mostly history ww2 and ww1) and went blind in his 70s. We got him a Alexa and he found it fantastic. It was a major improvement to his quality of life in his final days.
I think the mandatory part is companies must provide at least that to employees, work all you want, but the lack of paid time off and sick leave for many US workers isn't a good thing
Upper limits - no. If they are fit to do the job I don't care how old they are.
Lower limits - I'm not sure. This is no longer the early days of the industrial revolution so we're not throwing people (children in particular) down chimneys to clean them and working conditions are much better, but at the same time they are children with brains that aren't fully formed so their judgement isn't exactly reliable. If they're working in a family business or similar that seems fine to me.
