This is the kind of thing where the extent to which people get worked up over it far exceeds the benefit of actually doing so.
Is it theoretically possible that people can write good commit messages without a framework? Yes. Does that work out in practice across entire teams? No. Any kind of a convention for commit messages is an improvement.
Beyond that, type > scope vs scope > type or whatever is splitting hairs. The juice of that debate is not worth the squeeze.
In my experience both are more often in noun form with an article ("a fix" and "a refactor") because they are both sort of awkward alone. But sure I can appreciate that's probably how we got the set of words that we did that they were all picked as nouns and only in juxtaposition does it become more obvious to me that I think it might have been better to have picked just verbs. I can see the sorts of thoughts that led to "noun: verb the object" as a "good" headline format, especially when the "noun:" is considered the important part of the headline. But only before realizing it is generally redundant between "noun" and "verb" and "noun:" might not really be all that important (as the article points out flaws in).
In contrast, when I worked in office, I found these fabled “lunches with the guy in accounts or the women in the sales team” didn’t ever happen. A lot of the mythical spontaneous collaboration that supposedly happens in office seems to be just that: a myth. At least for many.
I think only a few people manage to build such a network inside a company. But those are usually the successful ones, because they know much more than others.
It's not super hard. You just have to listen to when people are asking for things, try to help and read an org chart.
90% of the engineers I've worked with in bigger companies wouldn't know how to find someone in the company outside of their direct reporting structure.
Honestly it's pathetic. The rest of the organization can't work like that and these are table stakes social skills IMO.
I seriously think the "headphones on, get into flow" trope is the most damaging meme in our industry. Management also takes huge advantage of the low-information environment that engineers seem comfortable in. Most of them don't even (really) know what our product is or how it's sold and marketed.
For most people it's hard, especially for the stereotypical "IT nerds".
I think the best tip for people who have a hard time is: Watch who of your colleagues know "everyone" and spend as much time as possible with them. If they ask you to go for lunch together, always join. If you can work on a project with them, do it. They will casually introduce you to all the people over time, and might just tell you the newest company gossip.
I'm closing out 3 decades+ around the "IT nerds" and if anything they spend _more_ time socializing than "normies". The difference is typically that their socializing tends to specialize around fandoms/activities instead of generalist/community things like civics, sports and family.
Not to be overly harsh but the problem is with seeing those who don't share their interests as people equally worthy of attention. IT nerds typically have trouble meeting people where they're at instead of the other way around. And most of the time it's because they've never made any effort to do so.
That's why I say it's not super hard.
It's also becoming more of a societal problem in general as younger people spend more and more time isolated and socializing in bubbles. I think it's a serious and growing problem that people don't have friendships outside of their immediate peer group age-wise.
My brother's kid is in her early 20s and her and most of her friends don't see people at 30+ as people. They don't value their opinions and it has all sorts of negative effects on their lives like they struggle to obtain/keep jobs, etc. That's not a blanket generalization though -- we have some team members in that age-range and they're great.
They happen all the time for me at small to medium companies. If the legal team is two people whose desks are by the door, then you are going to eat lunch together at some point. It would be weird not to! Just wait until someone says "anyone want a coffee?" or "who brought lunch?" and then stand up.
Obviously this doesn't happen when the legal team is located three buildings away. At that point you might as well be remote from the perspective of collaboration.
I think they say that the knowledge transfer did not happen during that. You don't want to bring work to people who are trying to take a break from it.
If you want to talk about work in any depth then you have to formalise it, yeah. The sales team might tell you they're frustrated by their process at lunch, but they're not going to sit down and explain the whole thing.
I've found the benefit of lunches together is that you get familiar with everyone, and they with you. There's more of an assumption of good will and competence between people who know each other.
These games are less niche than you think. I for one played way more Snowboard Kids than SM64.
The other factor to consider is OoT and SM64 are Nintendo properties. Nintendo is one of the most litigious companies in the industry. That alone may shift people away from some of those big name titles owned by them.
My personal opinion is that the very concept of IP misses the mark. “Property” requires scarcity. If I use something, it means someone else can’t use that thing. When I use a house for living, others are unable to do so. When I consume food or water, others people can’t do so.
Ideas aren’t scarce. Someone who reads a book, or looks at a picture, or makes use of a copy of software is not preventing other people from doing so. The idea that an idea can be restricted are given exclusive use to one particular party for any amount of time by law, is dystopic.
Copies are not scarce, but the human effort to create the original is.
Copyright in its origin was a time limited adaptation of property to non material, creative works (not ideas, those are not copyrightable) and most derivates of it to incentive this effort. It's a compromise to combat the tragedy of the commons for the mutual benefit of the author and the general public.
Modern copyright has nothing to do with this and is indeed highly dystopic.
There’s a few modern TCGs who take this approach, like Riftbound (the League of Legends TCG that launched last year) and Sorcery Contested Realm.
Other attempts to fix the mana problem include games like Lorcana and Flesh and Blood, in which cards have dual modes where they can be played or used for resources.
You might be interested in the relatively new TCG Sorcery: Contested Realm. It’s a a game that plays lands to a grid and creatures on the lands, somewhat like the game you invented. Also has an artistic direction reminiscent of 90s era magic.
Hard to believe that even 10 years later, people who don’t understand probability are still hung up on an event with a 30% chance of happening, happening.
I think an on over-fixation on “freedom” is what leads to many of the societal ills we (uniquely) deal with in America.
Freedom itself is itself a nebulous concept. Are my freedoms restricted when I can’t drive 80mph through my neighborhood? Yes. On the flip side I enjoy the “freedom” of living in a more controlled, safer environment. Is a corporation’s freedoms restricted by the laws that prevent them from dumping toxic sludge into the river upstream from me? Yes, but my freedom from living downstream of that pollution is preserved. Are my freedoms preserved when we allow broad access to firearms in this country? Yes, at the cost of my kids freedoms to attend a public school without the risk of being shot by a mentally ill psychopath.
Here we are considering the freedom to destroy your life via gambling vs the freedom from being targeted by corporations with much greater resources than you trying to get you to do so, and the freedoms of your family who may choose to not gamble and still have their lives destroyed as a result.
An “pure” worldview of maximizing personal freedoms over-simplifies the trade-offs and is doomed to fail in the real-world as a result. Realistically maximizing societal well-being requires a more moderate approach.
Is it theoretically possible that people can write good commit messages without a framework? Yes. Does that work out in practice across entire teams? No. Any kind of a convention for commit messages is an improvement.
Beyond that, type > scope vs scope > type or whatever is splitting hairs. The juice of that debate is not worth the squeeze.
reply