Hmm. I use 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 (I seldom need to count beyond 31 (and have up to five more bits if needed), or to zero)

You’re right on. We have some good expertise left over from our previous methodology which was both waterfall and siloed so bad feature documents don’t cause too much problem, but once our expertise retires (and we’re not makeing new experts as the silos were removed) the features will need to great to get decent products

And bad management is the biggest thing to make a job miserable

I don’t take it as mocking or anything, I know that some devs in my team preferred waterfall. I’m just saying there are aspects of agile I really enjoy

Waterfall makes higher quality software in many circumstances. It’s optimised for quality.

Agile is optimised for speed explicitly at the expense of quality. Whatever methodology you can only pick two between development speed, cost, and quality

I loved agile as an analyst, we used to use waterfall and you’d hear about incorrect designs months later, or not at all, where in agile you can work out the details with the programmers and get both nearer the business requirements, and better designs

Also I absolutely love the job of scrum master which had no equivalent in waterfall