You have to define who is in the team and who is not. Maybe Stakeholders are not. But inside the (cross-functional) team I would advise against "submarines" (german name for a secret project).
If the team can't handle this, the problem is somewhere else.
There's a difference between things that are secret because of people find out they will care, and things that are secret because people should not weigh in due to lack of knowledge or interest. I'm not sure how complex the system you are thinking of is, but in a system of even moderate complexity, the concept of team becomes abstract very quickly.
Not necessarily Putin's demands, but there's talk of Russia asking to join NATO way-back-when: not sure if those are trustworthy, but I am pretty confident Russia would have no fear of NATO if it was not sent off, and was instead part of it.
Also, recognizing independence for Russian-controlled areas of Ukraine would have helped with the current situation too.
> Not necessarily Putin's demands, but there's talk of Russia asking to join NATO way-back-when
Putin wanted to skip the readiness steps applied to aspiring members and just be jumped in. Readiness is quite important, because NATO doesn't work by voting but consensus/unanimity.
> but I am pretty confident Russia would have no fear of NATO if it was not sent off
They weren't sent off, they were admitted to the Partnership for Peace (the onboarding path for membership) before Putin even came into office, and never formally pursued anything farther, Putin specifically indicating that he found applying the accession process used for aspiring members to Russia rather than a direct invitation for full membership improper.
> Also, recognizing independence for Russian-controlled areas of Ukraine would have helped with the current situation too.
Would it? How? Would it stopped Putin from escalating attacks from those areas and then claiming that attacks on them, combined with the historical “fact” that Ukraine was an unjustly created entity ripped from Russian territory, justified the invasion of the rest? How does that work?
Yeah. I've seen a decent article recently (it's in Russian though) about Russia/NATO talks in the 90s. The felling from 'our' side seems to go like this: we tried to get into NATO or at least prevent them from moving close to our borders, but the NATO paper pushers were afraid of losing their jobs and knocked up a threat when there were none.
> recognizing independence for Russian-controlled areas of Ukraine would have helped with the current situation too.
So what you're saying is that these states in question don't deserve the right to self-sovereignity. The people in the independent states wanted in NATO and not the other way around.
NATO would have become a dysfunctional organization. It is not about the Russian fear of NATO. Russian political system cannot get over its loss of an empire, despite us living in the XXI century. It's entirely different root of the problem..
This is a good point but: (1) what happened was considered unthinkable by many, (2) the wold has changed which allowed those sanctions and (3) the idea was not to 'rock the boat' and saying if you do this we will do that could have allowed for the Russian side to plan better playing into their hands and might have encouraged them to start a war.
So this is easy to say now, but I don't think there would have been any takers for this three weeks ago when for instance Germany was still firmly in the mistaken mindset that all of this is so unlikely that they don't need to prepare for it at all.
Doesn't make sense to me. It's a simple If-This-Then-That logic. The sanctions only take place once he invades. If there's no invasion of course there are no sanctions.
Consider that he has own logic of: if they present us with possible sanctions, it's considered aggression, so we attack, else they are weak, so we attack.
I wouldn't buy a car without seat and steering wheel heating anymore. Much more efficient than heating the air (even it the "room" is relatively tiny in a car).
I guess the same principle (concentrate energy on a small target to get better results) is at play with Beefers and AirFyers.
If it’s an IC engine, the convection heating is waste heat from the engine. So the electric heaters in the wheel and seats are massively less efficient.
Lego really dialed the monopoly rent to 11. I wonder what the material cost for a 2,000 pieces set really is? After all it's a bunch of formed plastic pellets.
My journey and a product idea: https://medium.com/hyperlinked/whats-missing-creator-platfor...
Seems like you're missing the part where they have to pay someone (or more accurately, entire teams of people) a lot of money to actually come up with the set idea and instructions.
Boiling LEGO down to just "a bunch of formed plastic" is criminal.
Please read the article before you write a comment.
I explicitly said in it that LEGO is successful because of the combination of instructions and plastic.
I further argue that you could unlock value by unbundle the two. If you have salary data on LEGO designers please share. In the meantime I assume a good model designer would make more in the described platform model. (Comparable to a newspaper journalist going solo with Substack.)
