Why “Move Fast and Break Things” Doesn’t Work Anymore • Hacker News Board

Re: Why “Move Fast and Break Things” Doesn’t Work Anymore

#61

Post by Aperocky » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 6:13 PM UTC

ryguytilidie wrote: post #59

jevgeni wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The geniuses at HBR never claimed in the article that it applies to chips. The article says that increase in chip performance lead to a prevalent strategy in business (mainly tech) to be the first.

Its crazy how tribalistic HN has become. The whole Boeing fiasco has produced SO MANY "gosh, all those MBAs are at fault. I assign 0 fault to the engineers!" and every. single. time. There is a problem relating to a management/engineering decision, blame from HN ALWAYS goes to "the MBA types" and very literally never to engineering. I guess I just don't understand what the point of this type of tribalism is? Feeling…

With high position came great responsibility. If the engineer instead of management were making those decision, we would blame correspondingly.

Re: Why “Move Fast and Break Things” Doesn’t Work Anymore

#62

Post by MisterTea » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 6:17 PM UTC

ryguytilidie wrote: post #59

jevgeni wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The geniuses at HBR never claimed in the article that it applies to chips. The article says that increase in chip performance lead to a prevalent strategy in business (mainly tech) to be the first.

Its crazy how tribalistic HN has become. The whole Boeing fiasco has produced SO MANY "gosh, all those MBAs are at fault. I assign 0 fault to the engineers!" and every. single. time. There is a problem relating to a management/engineering decision, blame from HN ALWAYS goes to "the MBA types" and very literally never to engineering. I guess I just don't understand what the point of this type of tribalism is? Feeling…

So the MBA's arent responsible for the people they manage? Or are the engineers rogue and answer to no one at Boeing?

Re: Why “Move Fast and Break Things” Doesn’t Work Anymore

#63

Post by adventured » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 6:26 PM UTC

paulie_a wrote: post #32

lowdose wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last October the U.S. Military replaced the eight 1970s floppy disks controlling all nuclear missiles. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/10/19/us-milita...

They had no need to upgrade. If anything they had a massive need to downsize the inventory of weapons. Plus the security protection was shockingly irresponsible. The code was all zeros

The code hasn't been all zeros for 40 to 50 years. It was all zeros on some of the arsenal for about 15 years from ~1962 until ~1977.

Re: Why “Move Fast and Break Things” Doesn’t Work Anymore

#64

Post by ben509 » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 6:27 PM UTC

Frost1x wrote: post #41

throwGuardian wrote: post #14

Please, someone tell the geniuses at Harvard business that no one ever used "Move Fast, break things" for chips. Having been in the industry long enough, I've seen plenty a launch date moved, and chip-respins executed in favor of risking a recall of hardware from the field. It's only non-critical, consumer/casual software/applications that can afford to move fast, and break things. Your bank, or medical records, or e…

>Your bank, or medical records, or even traffic light controls simply cannot move fast and break Don't tell the banks and financial industry that (looking at you, Equifax).

At least in finance it's more "move slowly and hope no one notices it's broken."

Re: Why “Move Fast and Break Things” Doesn’t Work Anymore

#65

Post by ben509 » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 6:37 PM UTC

netcan wrote: post #57

joshred wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey quibbler, you defend a castle (not a moat).

In the spirit of quibbling: Moat: from Medieval Latin mota: “a mound, hill, a hill on which a castle is built, castle , embankment, turf” In the spirit of mixed metaphors: business catchphrase for the 20s: stock your hill with crocodiles

I was wondering what the heck dictionary you found that definition in, but then I realized you're conflating the etymology with the definition.

Re: Why “Move Fast and Break Things” Doesn’t Work Anymore

#66

Post by stazz1 » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 6:38 PM UTC

Frost1x wrote: post #41

throwGuardian wrote: post #14

Please, someone tell the geniuses at Harvard business that no one ever used "Move Fast, break things" for chips. Having been in the industry long enough, I've seen plenty a launch date moved, and chip-respins executed in favor of risking a recall of hardware from the field. It's only non-critical, consumer/casual software/applications that can afford to move fast, and break things. Your bank, or medical records, or e…

>Your bank, or medical records, or even traffic light controls simply cannot move fast and break Don't tell the banks and financial industry that (looking at you, Equifax).

I believe that is a remarkable case of moving so slowly that everything broke anyway.

Re: Why “Move Fast and Break Things” Doesn’t Work Anymore

#67

Post by friendlybus » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 6:47 PM UTC

ryguytilidie wrote: post #59

jevgeni wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The geniuses at HBR never claimed in the article that it applies to chips. The article says that increase in chip performance lead to a prevalent strategy in business (mainly tech) to be the first.

Its crazy how tribalistic HN has become. The whole Boeing fiasco has produced SO MANY "gosh, all those MBAs are at fault. I assign 0 fault to the engineers!" and every. single. time. There is a problem relating to a management/engineering decision, blame from HN ALWAYS goes to "the MBA types" and very literally never to engineering. I guess I just don't understand what the point of this type of tribalism is? Feeling…

The tech community has always had that element. It's nicer here than on Slashdot but it's here too.

We've been through a boom for strong-man tech ceos with elon and amaz launching all kinds of projects. There's going to be a natural pendulum swing the other way for a bit.

Re: Why “Move Fast and Break Things” Doesn’t Work Anymore

#68

Post by salawat » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 6:54 PM UTC

ryguytilidie wrote: post #59

jevgeni wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The geniuses at HBR never claimed in the article that it applies to chips. The article says that increase in chip performance lead to a prevalent strategy in business (mainly tech) to be the first.

Its crazy how tribalistic HN has become. The whole Boeing fiasco has produced SO MANY "gosh, all those MBAs are at fault. I assign 0 fault to the engineers!" and every. single. time. There is a problem relating to a management/engineering decision, blame from HN ALWAYS goes to "the MBA types" and very literally never to engineering. I guess I just don't understand what the point of this type of tribalism is? Feeling…

It comes from the fact that all the people at the top refused to back down or slow down despite all the warning flags being raised in engineering, and persisted in maintaining a system of incentives that left engineers in a position to choose between having to do something unethical, and keeping food on their family's table; all in the name of stock price.

If it were Engineers at the top, we'd probably be lambasting them for abdication of their responsibility too if they made that decision.

Make no mistake. If you would be a leader of men, tread carefully. For where you lead they will follow, and if you ignore their warnings and protestations, and lead them to calamity, upon your shoulders will rest responsibility. If you try and admit you can't make it work; no one can blame you. If you rush in as the fool convinced everything will work itself out, you were either incompetent, or worse, deranged, and thus deserving if ostracization and example-making-of.

It's just how it works.

Re: Why “Move Fast and Break Things” Doesn’t Work Anymore

#69

Post by tomc1985 » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 7:06 PM UTC

ryguytilidie wrote: post #59

jevgeni wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The geniuses at HBR never claimed in the article that it applies to chips. The article says that increase in chip performance lead to a prevalent strategy in business (mainly tech) to be the first.

Its crazy how tribalistic HN has become. The whole Boeing fiasco has produced SO MANY "gosh, all those MBAs are at fault. I assign 0 fault to the engineers!" and every. single. time. There is a problem relating to a management/engineering decision, blame from HN ALWAYS goes to "the MBA types" and very literally never to engineering. I guess I just don't understand what the point of this type of tribalism is? Feeling…

Having been through business school, the MBAs are much more likely to be complete numbnuts, an observation which is very strongly correlated with most of the CEOs and managers I have spent time with close-up

Re: Why “Move Fast and Break Things” Doesn’t Work Anymore

#70

Post by ryguytilidie » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 7:07 PM UTC

MisterTea wrote: post #62

ryguytilidie wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its crazy how tribalistic HN has become. The whole Boeing fiasco has produced SO MANY "gosh, all those MBAs are at fault. I assign 0 fault to the engineers!" and every. single. time. There is a problem relating to a management/engineering decision, blame from HN ALWAYS goes to "the MBA types" and very literally never to engineering. I guess I just don't understand what the point of this type of tribalism is? Feeling…

So the MBA's arent responsible for the people they manage? Or are the engineers rogue and answer to no one at Boeing?

"how could you say we're really tribalistic and blame mbas for everything? Are you implying they werent 100% responsible and that engineers MIGHT have shared in the blame slightly? hahaha."

Well this, if nothing else, certainly proved my original point?