david.doolin

The first 1/4 of the book is a world class rant. The remaining 3/4 is a really good introduction to sane investment strategy, with some good tips on how to play in the stock market in the closing material.

Read this years and years ago, it's on my list to reread.

Pretty good. Rereading.

Read this as part of a Bradfield course. Packed with ideas, some more useful than others at any given time, but definitely worth reading.

Not the whole story, but an interesting and effective system for engaging when communication is difficult. May not always work for all people all the time, but definitely worth applying the principles when otherwise at an impasse.

Not a lot of tactical advice, but I'm putting the strategy to work.

Read this a few years ago. Some really interesting ideas, not sure how well-supported the science is.

I've read this completely through at least twice, and taken notes on several chapters. Worthy reference.

Indispensable.

Really good, flawed only in the author's insistence that their four models are sufficient for all organizational needs. This may be true, but the presentation precludes discussion.

It is, in fact, caricacture, and brilliantly accomplished.

An excellent lesson in how not to make a martyr.

I read this several years ago, and, paging through it again just now, want to reread it. Absolutely fantastic.

This is a reference book, and I've referenced it several times, hence counting it “read.”

I found it instructive to examine the proportion of casualties with respect to branch of service. The USMC served well. Semper Fi.

Wikipedia reports an unnamed military analyst repudiates Abrams' claim of Clear and Hold strategy.

Fast read, but very little exploration useful for applying Boyd's concepts. The big take home for me: “Do your homework.”

It took me two tries to get through this one.

The best I can some up with is “thought provoking,” as it's making me think about a number of assumptions currently held as gospel in both corporate HR and the talent industry.

While the book seemed to start from a science-based point of view, by the end I'm having to classify it as a polemic (because the author has a PhD, otherwise I'd call it a bit of rant). I did not find much immediately actionable material which will help me tune my current hiring pipeline.

However, the author exposes so many absurdities in current thinking that I'm inclined to a future reread.

Good material, a little light for me on immediate demonstration, will be rereading to extract actionables.

Pile on.

I worked through the book implementing the code as I read. Definitely worthwhile. Probably worth a reread/rework.

I really liked this. I had it first as a textbook, then read it cover to cover several years later. Sadly, I cannot find my copy at the moment.

The software industry would benefit using methods advocated by this book.

Another of the long list of books which I've read over the years and haven't gotten around to adding here.

There is an argument that this book is required reading for software architects. The author lays out a design methodology which was later extended in a follow-on book, and picked up by the software architecture community.

I really like this book. As a diehard c coder, there is a lot in here that is immediately practical. The philosophy is applicable to programming in any language.

I own at least a dozen books on various aspects of linear algebra, ranging from community college level textbooks (Anton) to treatments targeting specific industries such as computer graphics. Invariably, I end up poring over the relevant material in Halmos to ensure that both the exposition in some other text and my understanding of the topic is correct.

Time spent reading this relatively thin book is measured in “hours per page.” It's time well spent.