Affordable Housing Assistance To Be Offered To Residents At Town Hall On

first_imgWILMINGTON, MA — The Metro North Regional Housing Services Office’s Housing Coordinator Laurie Stanton will be holding office hours on Tuesday, September 10, 2019, from 2pm to 4:30pm, in Wilmington Town Hall’s Small Conference Room. Stanton will assist residents with their affordable housing questions.The Metro North Regional Housing Services Office helps people find affordable housing in Reading, North Reading, Wilmington, and Saugus.If you are unable to attend office hours on this date, future dates will be announced. Laurie can also be reached at her Reading Office at 781-942-6667 during normal business hours.(NOTE: The above announcement is from the Town of Wilmington.)Like Wilmington Apple on Facebook. Follow Wilmington Apple on Twitter. Follow Wilmington Apple on Instagram. Subscribe to Wilmington Apple’s daily email newsletter HERE. Got a comment, question, photo, press release, or news tip? Email wilmingtonapple@gmail.com.Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:Like Loading… RelatedAffordable Housing Assistance To Be Offered To Residents At Town Hall On October 2In “Government”Affordable Housing Assistance To Be Offered To Residents At Town Hall On April 25In “Government”Affordable Housing Assistance To Be Offered To Residents On December 5 & December 19 At Town HallIn “Government”last_img read more

Googles ad system under EU probe for how it spreads your private

first_img 0 Post a comment Google’s ad practices are under scrutiny in the European Union. James Martin/CNET Ireland’s data protection watchdog has launched an investigation into Google’s collection of personal data for the purpose of online advertising.”A statutory inquiry pursuant to section 110 of the Data Protection Act 2018 has been commenced in respect of Google Ireland Limited’s processing of personal data in the context of its online Ad Exchange,” the Data Protection Commission said in a statement Wednesday.Google didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.The DPC, one of the lead authorities over Google in the European Union, wants to know whether the search giant’s “processing of personal data carried out at each stage of an advertising transaction” is in compliance with the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation. The GDPR is a sweeping law that gives residents of the European Union more control over their personal data and seeks to clarify rules for online services.The DPC inquiry follows a complaint filed in Europe in September by privacy-focused browser maker Brave that says Google violates GDPR by broadcasting personal information to companies bidding to show targeted ads. At the time, Google denied any wrongdoing.On Wednesday, Johnny Ryan, Brave’s chief policy and industry relations officer, said the DPC inquiry signals a change is coming that goes beyond just Google. “We need to reform online advertising to protect privacy, and to protect advertisers and publishers from legal risk under the GDPR,” Ryan said in a blog post.The EU probe comes as consumers, lawmakers and regulators take a harder look at how tech companies collect and use their personal information. Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica scandal last year brought data collection issues to the forefront. Google has also been criticized for its wide-scale data operation and the way its location history settings could mislead consumers with its disclosures. In response, Google and Facebook have both begun to preach the virtues of privacy. Earlier this month, Google CEO Sundar Pichai wrote in a New York Times op-ed that privacy “should not be a luxury good.” He continued, “We’re also working hard to challenge the assumption that products need more data to be more helpful.”Google also pushed a privacy message at its Marketing Live summit last week in San Francisco, where the search giant addressed more than 5,000 advertisers and partners in its ad network. Prabhakar Raghavan, Google’s senior vice president of advertising and commerce, said that even though the company collects lots of user information to improve its products, Google should use “as little of that data as possible over time” for ad targeting.”Whoever’s leading the market [in five years] will be the ones who are actually the most trusted,” Raghavan told CNET. “If we can maintain that trust, then we can remain a market leader. If we don’t, it’s a question.”Originally published May 22, 11:27 a.m. PT.Update, 11:44 a.m. PT and 12:32 p.m PT: Adds more background. Tags Security GDPR Privacy Google Share your voicelast_img read more

India to Grow Fastest in Dollar Nominal Growth Globally in 2015 Says

first_imgReutersGlobally, the Indian economy is poised to witness the fastest US$ nominal growth in 2015, says Credit Suisse.The Switzerland-based bank added that it finds the equity market not expensive in both absolute and relative terms, reported Reuters.In April, India replaced Japan as the world’s third largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP.)The emerging market is likely to see strongest earnings growth amongst its Asian peers, and even globally, the bank adds.last_img

Webster Donation Puts JSC Mission Control Restoration Into Hyperdrive

first_img 00:00 /01:13 Space Center HoustonSpace Center Houston hopes to restore Mission Control at the Johnson Space Center to exactly as it looked during the Apollo years.The $3.5 million donation will be funded by the hotel occupancy tax. Hotels expect the control room restoration will attract more overnight stays from visitors to the area. William Harris is president and CEO of the non-profit Space Center Houston.“Currently it’s one of our most popular stops on the behind-the-scenes tram tour of Johnson Space Center, and you can go into the visitation area and we do an orientation so people can see the actual room through the glass, exactly.” The control room on the floor below continues to be used for the International Space Station. Space Center Houston is raising $5 million for the renovation to the second floor control center, which was declared a National Historic Landmark and taken out of operation in 1995.“Our goal is to restore it to the Apollo era. So, restore the consoles, illuminate them, add other artifacts, so it looks like a working space as it did, you know, forty, fifty years ago.” Curators can look at old pictures and film to see how the control room once looked, and retired control center employees are helping to convey what the environment was like. The Space Center hopes to complete restoration by 2019, in time for the 50th anniversary of the first moon landing. Share To embed this piece of audio in your site, please use this code: X Listenlast_img read more

Seven new giant radio galaxies discovered

first_img GRG are radio galaxies with an overall projected linear length exceeding at least 3.3 million light years. They are rare objects grown in low-density environments. GRGs are important for astronomers to study the formation and the evolution of radio sources.Jonatan Rentería Macario of the Autonomous University of Zacatecas and Heinz Andernach of the University of Guanajuato have lately analyzed images available in two recent radio surveys covering large areas of sky. The data provided by the Jansky Very Large Array (JVLA) 1-2 GHz Snapshot Survey of SDSS Stripe82 and the 150-MHz LOFAR Two-metre Sky Survey Preliminary Data Release (LoTSS-PDR) allowed the researchers to distinguish an impressive number of more than 2,000 extended features suggesting the presence of large radio galaxies. As a result, they confirmed the existence of seven new GRGs.”For our search, we selected two recent radio surveys that cover large areas of sky. (…) Here, we report the discovery of seven new GRGs in two recent surveys, the JVLA 1-2 GHz Snapshot Survey of SDSS Stripe82 and the 150-MHz LOFAR Two-metre Sky Survey Preliminary Data Release (LoTSS-PDR),” the authors wrote in the paper.Two of the seven new GRGs reported in the paper were detected by the JVLA Snapshot Survey, while the rest was found the data provided by LoTSS-PDR. The largest of the newly discovered GRGs, designated J1301+5105, has the projected linear size of about 8.44 million light years, making it one of the biggest giant radio galaxies known to date. Currently, with a projected size of approximately 16 million light years, the J1420-0545 holds the title of the largest giant radio galaxy discovered so far.J0152+0015 is the smallest GRG reported in the study. Its projected linear size is approximately 3.35 million light years. The rest of the giant radio galaxies reported in the paper have sizes ranging from 4.08 to 5.09 million light years. According to the study, other interesting radio sources found by the two surveys will be inspected in more detail in the future, which could reveal the presence of more GRGs, especially radio-faint and distant ones.In concluding remarks, the researchers noted that their discovery proved that visual inspection of radio images is a successful method for finding new GRGs. “Our results show that current and forthcoming low-frequency surveys with excellent sensitivity to low surface brightness features have a large potential to discover significant amounts of giant radio galaxies as well as sources of complex or currently unknown types of morphologies,” the authors concluded. GRG J1301+5105 in LoTSS-PDR. The cross marks the host and the straight line is 10.3′ long. Credit: Macario and Andernach, 2017. Giant radio galaxy found by Indian astronomers © 2017 Phys.org (Phys.org)—Mexican astronomers report the discovery of seven new large extragalactic radio sources called giant radio galaxies (GRG). The GRGs were found by visual inspection of radio images provided by two astronomical radio surveys. The findings were presented October 31 in a paper published on arXiv.org. More information: New Giant Radio Galaxies in the SDSS-JVLA Stripe82 and LoTSS-PDR Survey, arXiv:1710.10731 [astro-ph.GA] arxiv.org/abs/1710.10731AbstractExtragalactic radio sources with projected linear size larger than one Megaparsec 1 Mpc = 3.09e22 m = 3.3e6 light years) are called Giant Radio Galaxies (GRGs) or quasars (GRQs). Over the past few years our search for such objects by visual inspection of large-scale radio surveys like the NRAO VLA Sky Survey (NVSS) and Faint Images of the Radio Sky at Twenty Centimeters (FIRST) has allowed us to quadruple the number of GRGs published in literature. Here we report the discovery of 7 new GRGs in two recent surveys, the JVLA 1-2 GHz Snapshot Survey of SDSS Stripe82 and the 150-MHz LOFAR Two-metre Sky Survey Preliminary Data Release (LoTSS-PDR). Citation: Seven new giant radio galaxies discovered (2017, November 7) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2017-11-giant-radio-galaxies.html Explore further This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.last_img read more

Consider Bengal to be your home make plans to invest here Mamata

first_imgKolkata: Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee urged businessmen to invest in Information Technology (IT) in Bengal which is set to be the future destination in the country and perhaps the whole world.She laid the foundation stone of the Bengal Silicon Valley Hub at New Town on Monday evening. Terming it as “historic,” Banerjee said: “We were not there when investment in IT started in Hyderabad and Bengaluru. But now, both the places are saturated and Bengal is coming up as the next destination. Invest in Bengal and the state government will provide every facility,” she said. Also Read – Rain batters Kolkata, cripples normal lifeThe proposed hub is coming up in 100 acre of land and “if needed, we will provide another 100 acre,” she added.Banerjee maintained that there is no dearth of talent in Bengal. “You will find IT professionals from Bengal working in Hyderabad and Bengaluru and in many foreign countries as well. They will come back if you can give them proper infrastructure and respect. And I believe, they can do miracles,” she pointed out.Urging strong investments in the IT sector in Bengal, she stated the talent pool in Bengal is very high and the attrition rate is as low as 3 percent. The state government has land banks and land-use policy. “Consider Bengal to be your home and make plans to take the state forward. We are there to give you all the support. Consider us to be one of your family members,” she said. The Chief Minister said the situation in Bengal has changed drastically over the past few years. “There was a time when people did not want to invest in Bengal because of bandhs and strikes. The man-days loss amounted to 70 lakh and now it has been brought down to zero. I do not support bandhs and always believe in positive and not negative approach.” Also Read – Speeding Jaguar crashes into Mercedes car in Kolkata, 2 pedestrians killedBanerjee inaugurated three IT parks at Malda, Siliguri (Phase III) and Purulia. She congratulated the budding industrialists who have invested in the IT parks. Ramdas Kamath, the senior vice-president, Infosys, said well-known architect Hafiz Contractor has designed its building that will come up in New Town.”We will take 15 months to complete the building which will be a landmark site representing neo-classical architecture in Bengal. He especially thanked Debashis Sen, Additional Chief Secretary, state IT Department and Swarup Roy, Advisor, IT Promotion Cell for their tireless efforts to bring Infosys to Bengal. Describing Mamata Banerjee as “the best Chief Minister in the country,” Sanjiv Goenka said: “This is the best place to invest and the state government is ready to give every support. I do business in many states but in Bengal, the support I receive from the Chief Minister, her colleagues and the bureaucrats is remarkable.”Top officials of IT companies including TCS, Cognizant, Oracle India, Sify Technologies Limited, HPE-Aruba, DQE, Capgemini were also present at the event.last_img read more

Effective Product Development needs developers and product managers collaborating on success metrics

first_imgModern product development is witnessing a drastic shift. Disruptive ideas and ambiguous business conditions have changed the way products are developed. Product development is no longer guided by existing processes or predefined frameworks. Delivering on time is a baseline metric, as is software quality. Today, businesses are competing to innovate. They are willing to invest in groundbreaking products with cutting-edge technology. Cost is no longer the constraint—execution is. Can product managers then continue to rely upon processes and practices aimed at traditional ways of product building? How do we ensure that software product builders look at the bigger picture and do not tie themselves to engineering practices and technology viability alone? Understanding the business and customer context is essential for creating valuable products. In this article, we are going to identify what success means to us in terms of product development. This article is an excerpt from the book Lean Product Management written by Mangalam Nandakumar. For the kind of impact that we predict our feature idea to have on the Key Business Outcomes, how do we ensure that every aspect of our business is aligned to enable that success? We may also need to make technical trade-offs to ensure that all effort on building the product is geared toward creating a satisfying end-to-end product experience. When individual business functions take trade-off decisions in silo, we could end up creating a broken product experience or improvising the product experience where no improvement is required. For a business to be able to align on trade-offs that may need to be made on technology, it is important to communicate what is possible within business constraints and also what is not achievable. It is not necessary for the business to know or understand the specific best practices, coding practices, design patterns, and so on, that product engineering may apply. However, the business needs to know the value or the lack of value realization, of any investment that is made in terms of costs, effort, resources, and so on. The section addresses the following topics: The need to have a shared view of what success means for a feature idea Defining the right kind of success criteria Creating a shared understanding of technical success criteria “If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together. We have to go far — quickly.” Al Gore Planning for success doesn’t come naturally to many of us. Come to think of it, our heroes are always the people who averted failure or pulled us out of a crisis. We perceive success as ‘not failing,’ but when we set clear goals, failures don’t seem that important. We can learn a thing or two about planning for success by observing how babies learn to walk. The trigger for walking starts with babies getting attracted to, say, some object or person that catches their fancy. They decide to act on the trigger, focusing their full attention on the goal of reaching what caught their fancy. They stumble, fall, and hurt themselves, but they will keep going after the goal. Their goal is not about walking. Walking is a means to reaching the shiny object or the person calling to them. So, they don’t really see walking without falling      as a measure of success. Of course, the really smart babies know to wail their way to getting the said shiny thing without lifting a toe. Somewhere along the way, software development seems to have forgotten about shiny objects, and instead focused on how to walk without falling. In a way, this has led to an obsession with following processes without applying them to the context and writing perfect code, while disdaining and undervaluing supporting business practices. Although technology is a great enabler, it is not the end in itself. When applied in the context of running a business or creating social impact, technology cannot afford to operate as an isolated function. This is not to say that technologists don’t care about impact. Of course, we do. Technologists show a real passion for solving customer problems. They want their code to change lives, create impact, and add value. However, many technologists underestimate the importance of supporting business functions in delivering value. I have come across many developers who don’t appreciate the value of marketing, sales, or support. In many cases, like the developer who spent a year perfecting his code without acquiring a single customer, they believe that beautiful code that solves the right problem is enough to make a business succeed. Nothing can be further from the truth Most of this type of thinking is the result of treating technology as an isolated function. There is a significant gap that exists between nontechnical folks and software engineers. On the one hand, nontechnical folks don’t understand the possibilities, costs, and limitations of software technology. On the other hand, technologists don’t value the need for supporting functions and communicate very little about the possibilities and limitations of technology. This expectation mismatch often leads to unrealistic goals and a widening gap between technology teams and the supporting functions. The result of this widening gap is often cracks opening in the end-to-end product experience for the customer, thereby resulting in a loss of business. Bridging this gap of expectation mismatch requires that technical teams and business functions communicate in the same language, but first they must communicate. Setting SMART goals for team In order to set the right expectations for outcomes, we need the collective wisdom of the entire team. We need to define and agree upon what success means for each feature and to each business function. This will enable teams to set up the entire product experience for success. Setting specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-bound (SMART) metrics can resolve this. We cannot decouple our success criteria from the impact scores we arrived at earlier. So, let’s refer to the following table for the ArtGalore digital art gallery: The estimated impact rating was an indication of how much impact  the business expected a feature idea to have on the Key Business Outcomes. If you recall, we rated this on a scale of 0 to 10. When the estimated impact of a Key Business Outcomes is less than five, then the success criteria for that feature is likely to be less ambitious. For example, the estimated impact of “existing buyers can enter a lucky draw to meet an artist of the month” toward generating revenue is zero. What this means is that we don’t expect this feature idea to bring in any revenue for us or put in another way, revenue is not the measure of success for this feature idea. If any success criteria for generating revenue does come up for this feature idea, then there is a clear mismatch in terms of how we have prioritized the feature itself. For any feature idea with an estimated impact of five or above, we need to get very specific about how to define and measure success. For instance, the feature idea “existing buyers can enter a lucky draw to meet an artist of the month” has an estimated impact rating of six towards engagement. This means that we expect an increase in engagement as a measure of success for this feature idea. Then, we need to define what “increase in engagement” means. My idea of “increase in engagement” can be very different from your idea of “increase in engagement.” This is where being S.M.A.R.T. about our definition of success can be useful. Success metrics are akin to user story acceptance criteria. Acceptance criteria define what conditions must be fulfilled by the software in order for us to sign off on the success of the user story. Acceptance criteria usually revolve around use cases and acceptable functional flows. Similarly, success criteria for feature ideas must define what indicators can tell us that the feature is delivering the expected impact on the KBO. Acceptance criteria also sometimes deal with NFRs (nonfunctional requirements). NFRs include performance, security, and reliability. In many instances, nonfunctional requirements are treated as independent user stories. I also have seen many teams struggle with expressing the need for nonfunctional requirements from a customer’s perspective. In the early days of writing user stories, the tendency for myself and most of my colleagues was to write NFRs from a system/application point of view. We would say, “this report must load in 20 seconds,” or “in the event of a network failure, partial data must not be saved.”  These functional specifications didn’t tell us how/why they were important for an end user. Writing user stories forces us to think about the user’s perspective. For example, in my team we used to have interesting conversations about why a report needed to load within 20 seconds. This compelled us to think about how the user interacted with our software. It is not uncommon for visionary founders to throw out very ambitious goals for success. Having ambitious goals can have a positive impact in motivating teams to outperform. However, throwing lofty targets around, without having a plan for success, can be counter-productive. For instance, it’s rather ambitious to say, “Our newsletter must be the first to publish artworks by all the popular artists in the country,” or that “Our newsletter must become the benchmark for art curation.” These are really inspiring words, but can mean nothing if we don’t have a plan to get there. The general rule of thumb for this part of product experience planning is that when we aim for an ambitious goal, we also sign up to making it happen. Defining success must be a collaborative exercise carried out by all stakeholders. This is the playing field for deciding where we can stretch our goals, and for everyone to agree on what we’re signing up to, in order to set the product experience up for success. Defining key success metrics For every feature idea we came up with, we can create feature cards that look like the following sample. This card indicates three aspects about what success means for this feature. We are asking these questions: what are we validating? When do we validate this? What Key Business Outcomes does it help us to validate? The criteria for success demonstrates what the business anticipates as being a tangible outcome from a feature. It also demonstrates which business functions will support, own, and drive the execution of the feature. That’s it! We’ve nailed it, right? Wrong. Success metrics must be SMART, but how specific is the specific? The preceding success metric indicates that 80% of those who sign up for the monthly art catalog will enquire about at least one artwork. Now, 80% could mean 80 people, 800 people, or 8000 people, depending on whether we get 100 sign-ups, 1000, or 10,000, respectively! We have defined what external (customer/market) metrics to look for, but we have not defined whether we can realistically achieve this goal, given our resources and capabilities. The question we need to ask is: are we (as a business) equipped to handle 8000 enquiries? Do we have the expertise, resources, and people to manage this? If we don’t plan in advance and assign ownership, our goals can lead to a gap in the product experience. When we clarify this explicitly, each business function could make assumptions. When we say 80% of folks will enquire about one artwork, the sales team is thinking that around 50 people will enquire. This is what the sales team  at ArtGalore is probably equipped to handle. However, marketing is aiming for 750 people and the developers are planning for 1000 people. So, even if we can attract 1000 enquiries, sales can handle only 50 enquiries a month! If this is what we’re equipped for today, then building anything more could be wasteful. We need to think about how we can ramp up the sales team to handle more requests. The idea of drilling into success metrics is to gauge whether we’re equipped to handle our success. So, maybe our success metric should be that we expect to get about 100 sign-ups in the first three months and between 40-70 folks enquiring about artworks after they sign up. Alternatively, we can find a smart way to enable sales to handle higher sales volumes. Before we write up success metrics, we should be asking a whole truckload of questions that determine the before-and-after of the feature. We need to ask the following questions: What will the monthly catalog showcase? How many curated art items will be showcased each month? What is the nature of the content that we should showcase? Just good high-quality images and text, or is there something more? Who will put together the catalog? How long must this person/team(s) spend to create this catalog? Where will we source the art for curation? Is there a specific date each month when the newsletter needs     to go out? Why do we think 80% of those who sign up will enquire? Is it because of the exclusive nature of art? Is it because of the quality of presentation? Is it because of the timing? What’s so special about our catalog? Who handles the incoming enquiries? Is there a number to call    or is it via email? How long would we take to respond to enquiries? If we get 10,000 sign-ups and receive 8000 enquiries, are we equipped to handle these? Are these numbers too high? Can we still meet our response time if we hit those numbers? Would we still be happy if we got only 50% of folks who sign up enquiring? What if it’s 30%? When would we throw away the idea of the catalog? This is where the meat of feature success starts taking shape. We  need a plan to uncover underlying assumptions and set ourselves up for success. It’s very easy for folks to put out ambitious metrics without understanding the before-and-after of the work involved in meeting that metric. The intent of a strategy should be to set teams up for success, not for failure. Often, ambitious goals are set without considering whether they are realistic and achievable or not. This is so detrimental that teams eventually resort to manipulating the metrics or misrepresenting them, playing the blame game, or hiding information. Sometimes teams try to meet these metrics by deprioritizing other stuff. Eventually, team morale, productivity, and delivery take a hit. Ambitious goals, without the required capacity, capability, and resources to deliver, are useless. Technology to be in line with business outcomes Every business function needs to align toward the Key Business Outcomes and conform to the constraints under which the business operates. In our example here, the deadline is for the business to launch this feature idea before the Big Art show. So, meeting timelines is already a necessary measure of success. The other indicators of product technology measures could be quality, usability, response times, latency, reliability, data privacy, security, and so on. These are traditionally clubbed under NFRs (nonfunctional requirements). They are indicators of how the system has been designed or how the system operates, and are not really about user behavior. There is no aspect of a product that is nonfunctional or without a bearing on business outcomes. In that sense, nonfunctional requirements are a misnomer. NFRs are really technical success criteria. They are also a business stakeholder’s decision, based on what outcomes the business wants to pursue. In many time and budget-bound software projects, technical success criteria trade-offs happen without understanding the business context or thinking about the end-to-end product experience. Let’s take an example: our app’s performance may be okay when handling 100 users, but it could take a hit when we get to 10,000 users. By then, the business has moved on to other priorities and the product isn’t ready to make the leap. This depends on how each team can communicate the impact of doing or not doing something today in terms of a cost tomorrow. What that means is that engineering may be able to create software that can scale to 5000 users with minimal effort, but in order to scale to 500,000 users, there’s a different level of magnitude required. There is a different approach needed when building solutions for meeting short-term benefits, compared to how we might build systems for long-term benefits. It is not possible to generalize and make a case that just because we build an application quickly, that it is likely to be full of defects or that it won’t be secure. By contrast, just because we build a lot of robustness into an application, this does not mean that it will make the product sell better. There is a cost to building something, and there is also a cost to not building something and a cost to a rework. The cost will be justified based on the benefits we can reap, but it is important for product technology and business stakeholders to align on the loss or gain in terms of the end-to-end product experience because of the technical approach we are taking today. In order to arrive at these decisions, the business does not really need to understand design patterns, coding practices, or the nuanced technology details. They need to know the viability to meet business outcomes. This viability is based on technology possibilities, constraints, effort, skills needed, resources (hardware and software), time, and other prerequisites. What we can expect and what we cannot expect must both be agreed upon. In every scope-related discussion, I have seen that there are better insights and conversations when we highlight what the business/customer does not get from this product release. When we only highlight what value they will get, the discussions tend to go toward improvising on that value. When the business realizes what it doesn’t get, the discussions lean toward improvising the end-to-end product experience. Should a business care that we wrote unit tests? Does the business care what design patterns we used or what language or software we used? We can have general guidelines for healthy and effective ways to follow best practices within our lines of work, but best practices don’t define us, outcomes do. To summarize we learned before commencing on the development of any feature idea, there must be a consensus on what outcomes we are seeking to achieve. The success metrics should be our guideline for finding the smartest way to implement a feature. Read Next: Developer’s guide to Software architecture patterns Hey hey, I wanna be a Rockstar (Developer) The developer-tester face-off needs to end. It’s putting our projects at risklast_img read more