6 ms·
Not GP. I would say that her effectiveness is both in Fire and Motion [1], while one wants more Fire, before the status quo was not only no fire, but also no mo
by Multicomp 2y ago
Not GP. I would say that her effectiveness is both in Fire and Motion [1], while one wants more Fire, before the status quo was not only no fire, but also no motion. Even the motion is a good starting point that businesses are having management adapt their strategies and plans to account for the motion, just out self-interested risk mitigation in case there is more fire than there currently is today, and that fire gets trained on them.
[1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/01/06/fire-and-motion/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/01/06/fire-and-motion/
- BoiledCabbage 2y agoA good analogy, but I think you swapped the meaning of fire and motion in your usage of it. In this case, her cases even if lost would be the equivalent of cover fire. Businesses need to re-act to the cover fire and cannot advance (perform their own motion) while she is firing. The second part is that you would hope/expect her to be able to gain territory in the near future via the "motion" part of the strategy. So I agree in your framing, just from my perspective you flipped the terminology.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 2y agoThat seems really bad for the government to be doing this. If she is losing, then using the resources of the government to harass businesses that are acting lawfully seems like fascism.
- immibis 2y agoharassing shitty actors, even if they're technically obeying the law, is not fascism