Azzu

Oh and as for reasoning why, another few points, all projects I've been in just kept being worked on and had constantly changing requirements. There was no real need to plan very much except maybe some rough estimations, that were allowed to be wrong.

There were like some very rough aspects of scrum in professional development, but only in the sense that we'd talk about what we'd like to do in the next sprint, we didn't do multiple plannings or estimations or cared about our velocity or did retrospectives often, and even the sprints were adjusted to last longer or shorter based on what we're going to do, there were a couple of roles people should have missing, and idk what. In the end, the resulting system was just something in the direction of agile/kanban, work just came in, and was handled based on some prioritizing by someone.

My personal projects could be really close to waterfall as well, I thought about a problem, made a rough plan on how to solve it, then just kept solving until I was done. Open source projects, no one organized anything, everyone just works on whatever they like.

Basically, you're the expert in software development paradigms, I'm just a developer that works on problems with code until solved, either given to me by someone or myself. The only ones who care about the paradigm are the business guys who wanna plan some shit.

As long as it is clearly communicated by him what he's doing and why, any approach is fine really. So as long as he tells her his exact purpose of the break and what he needs to stop it, all good.

If that is not done, and it's just a one-sided decision of his to stop talking, not even explaining anything, then it is very bad. It'd basically be like a parent punishing their child and not telling them what for, mentally very problematic. Of course it should be able to be implied by her in some way, but it's very easy to come to the wrong conclusions.

Second question, you simply don't let them. You calmly keep repeating your question, pointing out their intentional ignoring, stating that you will only talk with them about anything else after this question is answered, until they either get so mad as to run away, or they respond to it. But you have to actually stay strong, and not allow them to do it. Depending on other things that need to be communicated, and how stubborn they are, that will hurt yourself as well as them since other important stuff for you might not get communicated. But that is something that needs to be tolerated, because breaking from the original intention is worse for the future, it shows that ignoring the question works, and they'll repeat it.

I mean, they already said they're being harassed.

In general and another situation, I can fully see how someone might add someone to group chat in a way of "hey guys I found another one to add to our chat, their kink is to act all indignant about noticing us sexting, have fun".

I already said my most likely scenario is one person playing two sides.

This is a false view of humans behavior. All human behavior is logically sound, if you can't figure out the logic in it, that's on you, not on them "being illogical".

Trump certainly has motivations and subconscious thought processes that can be reasoned about. They might not be based on true views about reality, which makes them "sound illogical", but once you change your logical reasoning to not be based on an accurate depiction of reality, but based on the delusional version of reality inside Trump's brain, then his actions do start to make logical sense within that framework.

The problem is accurately figuring out his views on reality and actually putting yourself in his delusional shoes. This is incredibly hard, I certainly can't (and don't want) to do it, I just don't have the necessary information and way of obtaining it.

But also, regardless of that, Trump itself is mostly a puppet. There are people behind that actually work on more sound logic, but also have very false views of reality. Figuring out who is influencing what decision of the administration in exactly what way makes this whole explanation thing even harder.

You correctly identify it as futile, but for the wrong reasons, not because it's illogical, but because too much information is hidden from you.

he was sort of always pushing her daily.

This is exactly what it sounded like. Glad you've got this information, now I've got more things to say.

What he's doing comes from a perfectly nice and helpful place. He actually sees her behavior hurt herself and wants to help her hurt less.

But you should never "help" someone in this way. It's the worst thing he can possibly do, it actually only makes things worse.

The only way you can help people is by being there for them and assisting them on their own path. In other words, the only way you can be a positive force is by letting them do whatever the fuck they want, and helping them with that. If "whatever the fuck they want" does not include "getting out of the depression" and "getting rid of anxiety", then there's literally nothing you can do. If you try to get them to do actions that you think might be good for them, even if they actually were good for them if they wanted to do them, if they don't want to do them by themselves all you're doing is just making them feel worse for "being wrong".

It might even be the case that she wants to get out of depression or get rid of her anxiety, but she's taking the wrong actions for it. And he may be trying to get her to do "better actions", that actually accomplish what was set out to do. Even that doesn't work. She has to get to the "better actions" herself. You can maybe ask questions, or point out that the "current action" doesn't seem to be working, but the idea to change her actions has to come from herself.

That is the only way people change. People change by their own will, or they don't. As another person, you can basically just be with them and watch. Anything much more and you're starting to fuck things up more instead of help.

but told me she won’t do anything if he doesn’t stay on about it until it’s done

Then she should be doing nothing. He should be doing his own thing. She either comes out of it by herself, or doesn't. "Staying on about it" gets things done, but it also makes them both more miserable.

The paradigm in my work life I followed most of the time on most projects is "do whatever the project manager decides is important at the moment". I'm not aware of it having a particular name. Technically, they might call it scrum or something else, but really it's not even close to any of these labels. It really was always just "whatever sounds good to them at the time". I guess you could call it "agile", but not by choice necessarily. Please ask more questions on this or provide more options for me to choose if you want a better answer.

On my personal projects, I follow the "start programming and see what comes out at the end of it" paradigm, I'm also not aware of it having a particular label.

Edit: sorry other questions. Type of software is desktop application, web applications, browser extensions, game modifications. And for why these particular paradigms were chosen, they were chosen because a customer/user wants to be happy and doesn't care about what paradigm is used, only the result. As such, the paradigm essentially follows some humans' whims, which mostly doesn't make sense and definitely is nothing "formal" at all.

I can actually perfectly answer your question on how you would describe yourself. And it's literally impossible for anyone to argue with me.

You would describe yourself as « Je suis né au Chili mais je réside à France maintenant. »

I see, makes sense :) interesting and lovely to hear.

How was your day?

Where am I "grilling them"? I'm just asking about their motivation. Is that wrong?

I don't know the app, but if they're literally harassing you, this might also just be someone with two accounts talking with themselves.

If they're different people... "Friends" is just a label. It means "people being friendly with each other, helping each other out in a mutually beneficial relationship, not sexually involved". The "not sexually involved" part is usually implied because if they were sexually involved, you'd call them something else, "partners" or "fuck buddy" or similar. But if someone is sexually open, not doing the standard "partnership/relationship" thing often or at all, then they might just drop the additional description of "friend" to have the property "not sexually involved". It is literally called "friend with benefits" often. So yes, "friends", however someone defines that label, may include talking like this.

What you're really asking is "in usual society, do friends usually talk like this?", to which the answer is no. But you're also implying that friends talking like this, or someone having a slightly different definition of "friend", is somehow a bad thing ("gross"). Which it is not, in a consensual relationship, anything goes. The bad thing is the "harassing you" part. There is no need for you to socially shame their sexual behavior by calling it publicly "gross", the "harassing you" part is already shameful enough. I would focus on your boundaries and enforcing them, you are fully in your right to do that, and not focus on their behavior with other people.

I definitely don't believe that last statement. People don't just randomly do things without getting something out of it.

But you actually answered me, what you're getting out of it is the possibility of making other people feel good/better, the thought of which makes you feel good. That is what you're getting out of it. You said "it feels a bit nice yknow".

Why do you say you're getting something out of it ("feels a bit nice") and then at the same time say "I'm not gaining anything"? This is a direct contradiction.

Just because this is not literally the most important thing, doesn't mean the relationship is necessarily doomed.

But one thing I believe very strongly is that a relationship only works when both people are fine with leaving each other under certain circumstances. If leaving is such a big hurdle that you accept lots of misery instead of it, something is fucked. That's why I hate marriage and the whole "until death do us part" thinking. If you can't leave someone, you're basically saying "I'm fine with you doing the most horrible things to me". Leaving should always theoretically be on the table. People treat leaving or the end of a relationship as this super horrible thing, but in actuality everyone knows that sometimes it's absolutely the right course of action.

To me, it doesn't seem like their relationship necessarily needs to come to an end. From what you have said of course. With more details, this might change. But I can still see lots of paths that could lead to them staying together.