The phrase “the code is the documentation” captures an idea that is somewhat controversial within the software development community. Personally, while I tacitly agree, I find it elitist and exclusionary, the barrier, being of course, the ability to “read” code to a sufficient level to be able to interpret it meaningfully. But that’s just my subjective opinion, here are some aspects that illuminate different viewpoints in a more objective and balanced manner.

The WIRED article “If Elon Musk Had Been a Happy Child, Would He Still Be Launching Rockets?” by Steven Levy delves into biographer Walter Isaacson’s insights on Elon Musk, drawn from Isaacson’s extensive new biography of the tech mogul, simply titled “Elon Musk”. This critical analysis examines Steven Levy’s WIRED article, scrutinizing its engagement with Walter Isaacson’s biographical approach to Elon Musk, while also questioning the ethical considerations Levy brings into focus.

Punks not Dead sang Watty, but, by now, it most definitely is. When you over intellectualise the argument, it’s definitely not punk anymore. Quick review of a recent article published on Unherd.

Deloitte’s Business Chemistry is a relatively newer player in the field of personality assessments, designed specifically for the workplace. It seeks to categorize individuals into one of four main types: Pioneers, Drivers, Integrators, and Guardians. While it has found a place in corporate settings and has its proponents, like all models, it’s essential to scrutinize its strengths and limitations critically.

The DISC personality assessment is a popular tool used in organizational settings and personal development contexts. Based on a model proposed by William Marston in the 1920s, the DISC assessment categorizes individuals into four main personality types: Dominance (D), Influence (I), Steadiness (S), and Conscientiousness (C). Like many personality assessments, DISC has its proponents and critics. Let’s delve into a critical analysis.