81–90 of 124 posts
> With every new generation of chips came new possibilities and new applications. The firms that developed those applications the fastest won. Initially, I was really disappointed in this article. Facebook, on the client-side, was 'possible' on a Pentium 4. Perhaps a III. Internet speeds where sufficient in the early 2000's, and MySpace was created a year before Facebook. We all know who won. I really had a hard time…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Point taken, but they also don't keep breaking the same things, over and over; simply because it is not cost-effective to avoid the breakage. Makes business sense, but I've always been one of these knuckleheads that wants to write great code; simply because I like to do it. I got into the habit of practicing zero-tolerance on quality. I've never found any level of breakage acceptable in my own work. I literally get p…
When SpaceX breaks stuff it is simply because not all the variables are known, not because they cut corners and harm their customers in favor of their bottom line or speed of execution.
Remember when the ability to land a spent booster was being poo-poohed by the "old guard"? Remember those really awesome booms?
Nowadays, landing the boosters has become so routine that it isn't even mentioned anymore.
That's cool.
I am kind of in awe of the way they work. I'm not sure that I'd be up for working in that environment, myself, but I have mad respect for them.
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…
https://qz.com/1776080/how-the-mcdonnell-douglas-boeing-merg...
(Sorry about the 'amp' link)
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
While I agree with your point, I don't agree with the idea, that the engineers there are some Dickensian exploited workers struggling to feed their starving family. Those are white collar middle class employees mostly.
The answer? Not many. The industry is highly consolidated at this point. So the competition that normally ensures workers can vote with their feet isn't there.
So... Yeah. When you're already hired by the biggest actor in town, the ethical calculus changes whether you want to admit it or not.
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…
The problems that MBAs are trying to solve are not those at which your average engineer is particularly good. Also, these problems are usually ill defined and not easily testable. On top of that, to "deploy" your solution you need to show a schizophrenic amount of confidence for the amount of ambiguity and risk you plan to take, and you have to do it all in the form of a PowerPoint slide deck for people who are most…
What does that mean? "A lot"?
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…
It’s funny. If an article mentions how much someone in management gets paid, it’s all about how they don’t deserve it, they’re profiting off someone else’s sweat, they’re useless, it’s unfair, etc. Then you see something like a data breach or the Boeing fiasco and management belongs in jail because they didn’t put good processes in place for the engineers.
If you are compensated better than 90% of your workforce, then you should receive better than 90% of the blame every single time something goes wrong. You're that important, no?
Sadly the author doesn't understand what iterating quickly means. It's not a means of achieving greater performance in a known area, but a means of finding something that works in an unknown space. So the completely opposite argumentation would've worked. For the last 10+ years we spent iterating over several startups to find how to use this new technology of mobile and internet, and now that we have found most reaso…
Nowhere in the article has the author claimed that. :/
But rapid iteration is the most efficient means of exploration for many areas. Exploration is the reason many people use the "move fast and break things" rapid iteration strategy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Ethical decisions have consequences that include blame. Engineers are well-paid, highly sought after individuals. As long as they manage their finances responsibly, walking away from a job should not be as dire as you make it sound.
The Aerospace folks don't enjoy the luxury of the exaggerated salary, last I checked.
So maybe there's some bias there. However, the circles I wander tend to face the same financial struggles as well. Just speaking from experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To the OP’s point, I think the claim is that this doesn’t work well if the unknown space is safety critical.
Yes, that would go under "cheaply" in my previous comment.
Are you saying it works well in safety critical software development?
Cheaply in the case of adverse outcomes (whether cost, environmental impact, or impact on life) seems at odds with the very definition of software that has a high severity if it fails. I.e., to say safety critical software can be developed “cheaply” seems to ignore the costly consequences of that software failing