If a change is required in one place, I’ll know to examine the other. If the change works seamlessly in both places, my feeling that the duplicated code might represent the same concept is strengthened. However, if I can’t put the identical change in both places I’ll know that the code isn’t about exactly same thing, and the DUP tag will have saved me from creating the wrong abstraction.
You can’t produce well-written text unless you think carefully. Also, technically speaking, you can literally never produce good code in the first place unless you produce well-written text.

Perhaps more importantly, if you join or start a startup, you can knock the engineering out of the park and still end up flat fucking broke if the marketing people don’t do a good job. But you’re probably not going to demand that your accountants or your marketing people jump through bizarre, condescending hoops every day. You’re just going to trust them to do their jobs.

This is a reasonable way to treat engineers as well.

"Agile" software exists to track velocity, as if it were a meaningful metric, and to compare the relative velocity of different teams within the same organization.

This is an actual thing which sober adults do, on purpose, for a living.

Another core idea of the Agile Manifesto, the allegedly defining document for Agile development methodologies: “working software is the primary measure of progress.” Scrum disregards this idea in favor of a measure of progress called “velocity.” Basically, velocity is the number of “story points” successfully accomplished divided by the amount of time it took to accomplish them.
For now, I want to point out that Planning Poker isn’t the only aspect of Scrum which, in my experience, seems to consistently devolve into something less useful. Another core piece of Scrum is the standup meeting.
In a small, limited way, it’s to offer sanctuary to the vulnerable: to stake out a space you can touch, put it under your protection, and make it a welcoming home for all who act with respect.
to define a code of conduct is to formally state that your community—your event or organization or project—does not permit intimidation or harassment or any of the other terrible things that we can’t seem to prevent in the rest of the world.
When we were discussing the need for a SRCCON code of conduct, OpenNews’ director, Dan Sinker, compared it to having a fire marshall present at a major event. You don’t do it because you expect a fire. You do it because you could have a fire, so it would therefore be irresponsible not to have a fire-safety plan.
when men like Thiel speak of magical futures, we should always be asking them: what are you doing today?
This is why you should be skeptical whenever you see powerful men arguing for magical future outcomes in regard to diversity. Instead, ask what they can do right now to affect discrimination in their companies.
according to Thiel’s “women founders” logic, he can only imagine women as agents/subjects if they are the founder of a company.
when Thiel points to “more women founders” as a solution, he is asking women to become founders in order to possess a status that would allow Thiel to acknowledge women in tech at all. That is, all of the women who are currently working in tech, up and down the employee stack, many at companies that Thiel may be invested in, do not seem in Thiel’s formulation to really exist to him. They do not have a seat at the table. They are not acknowledged as agents of change, or as subjects of discrimination (for example, in the AMA, Thiel cited the Bay Area “housing crisis” as a worse problem than sexism in tech, not knowing that the housing crisis disproportionately affects women and people of color because of the wage discrimination marginalized people face at work).
the idea of women founders as a solution to tech misogyny also makes existing male founders and investors unaccountable for misogyny as it exists today. Thiel is saying that he and his funded companies are not responsible for the misogynist environments they themselves have built, and furthermore, that they can’t fix them— only a woman founder can.