A subgroup of people on the left who believe in communism and mostly hold pro-Russia and pro-China views, while often having a "doomer" mentality in regard to the US.
Unfortunately, that has them made very susceptible to Russian propaganda, to the point where they're now doing the bidding of Russia and helping fascists rise to power.
The mechanisms are similar to MAGA. They've disconnected from classical media and their echo chambers censor posts that highlight positive developments in the US or posts critical of Russia/China. Once inside, their world view collides with the outside and it's hard to get out again. Similarly to Russians and Republicans, they vilify liberals ("liberals are complicit in xy", "scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds", "Marx warned liberalism inevitably leads to fascism", etc.).
On here, they're largely the people dissuading US Democratic Party voters from turning out, via "both sides bad" and recently via claim-to-purity (I'm sure you've encountered one of those "genocide joe" posts, which are kinda awkward, since tankies commonly support/deny China's genocide on the Uyghurs and Russia's genocide on Ukrainians).
I liked agile as it was practiced in the "Extreme Programming" days.
Rather than attempt to design the perfect system from the get-go, you accept that software architecture is a living, moving target that needs to evolve as your understanding of the problem evolves.
Rather than stare down a mountain of ill-defined work, you have neat little user stories that can be completed in a few days at most and you just move around some Kanban cards instead of feeding a soul-sucking bureaucratic ticketing, time tracking and monitoring system.
Rather than sweat and enter crunch mode for deadlines, the project owners see how many user stories (or story points or perfect hours) the team completes per week and can use a velocity graph / burndown chart to estimate when all work will be completed.
.
But it's just a corporate buzzword now. "We're agile" often enough means "we have no plan, take no responsibility and expect the team to wing it somehow" or "we cargo cult a few agile ideas that feel good to management, like endless meetings with infinite course changes where everyone gives feel-good responses to the managers."
Having a goal, a specification, a release plan, a vision and someone who is responsible and approachable (the "project owner") are all part of the agile manifesto, not something it tries to do away with. I would be sad if agile faces the same fate as the waterfall model back in its time and even sadder if we return to the time-tracking-ticket-system-with-Gantt-chart hell as the default.
Maybe we need a new term or an "agility index" to separate the cases of "incompetent manager uses buzzword to cover up messy planning" from the cases of "project owner with a clearly defined goal creates a low-bureaucracy work environment for his team." :)