Live data from Hacker News

Work on interesting problems. Not interesting tech

ruky.me

31–40 of 97 posts

Re: Work on interesting problems. Not interesting tech

#31
post #5

There are downsides to this. The early parts of my resume read like a list of major software project disasters of the 1990s. Among other things, I worked on Taligent OS and WorkplaceOS. (Never heard of them? That's my point.) As a result of chasing interesting problems (and a stint as a university sysadmin), my salary history led me to be significantly underpaid for most of my career.

The only screenshot [0] I can find of TaligentOS looks remarkably like The BeOS. Did some TaligentOS guys move on to produce the BeOS? [0] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7Gi8GgW0AAoguu.png

Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taligent

The whole convoluted story of Taligent and WorkplaceOS is something to behold.

It's a pity because the initial promise back in the early 90s was something I was genuinely excited about but alas, it was all promise and no shipping

Re: Work on interesting problems. Not interesting tech

#32

Want to work on interesting problems? Build software for doctors' offices and medical groups! Help lawyers crawl out of their low-tech hole! Work on software to revolutionize public classrooms! Why work on interesting tech when you could throw yourself at intractable problems that we never get any closer to solving?

We're doing this kind of thing in banking right now. Would like to attack medical and insurance next.

Re: Work on interesting problems. Not interesting tech

#33

Want to work on interesting problems? Build software for doctors' offices and medical groups! Help lawyers crawl out of their low-tech hole! Work on software to revolutionize public classrooms! Why work on interesting tech when you could throw yourself at intractable problems that we never get any closer to solving?

I think with lawyers, the problem is basically GUIs. Because most computer users, even very high-skilled computer users like lawyers, are used to consuming software in the form of GUIs, you tend to get these kind of all-encompassing WYSIWYG programs like Word, with mysterious internals, and an endless labyrinth of useful tricks that lawyers tend to know, which are in one way amazing, but in another way essentially limited by the imaginations of the programmers, because they're monolithic and basically inflexible.

This is basically an education / culture problem. I'm sure in two hundred years, people will recognize that 'sort' or 'uniq' is really elemental functionality like a saw or a hammer, and baking it all into one giant saw-hammer-sanding machine that's really only good for making tables, and occasionally eats your cat, is just not the way to go. Until that point, I don't think that some plucky new startup is going to magic away all the problems. I mean, obviously there are some crazy low-hanging fruit out there, but the fundamental issue starts with how people are using computers in the first place.

Re: Work on interesting problems. Not interesting tech

#34
post #26
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, I sure am glad Curtis and the Wright brothers didn't take this stance after Lord Kelvin claimed "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" before they proved him wrong less than 20 years later. Or NASA when Lee Deforest claimed flight to the moon was impossible "regardless of all future advances." Or when Einstein claimed ""There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable.…

> when Einstein claimed ""There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable." Not to be pedantic, but was Einstein incorrect at that time/in the future? Were there any actual indications that nuclear energy would be obtainable at that time? Einstein didn't seem to say, "Obtaining nuclear energy is absolutely impossible, and can never be achieved." All he said was that there is not the…

I guess it's hard to tell without over-parsing his words, but you bring up an important distinction.

It may be fair to read it as a scientist essentially saying "we have no evidence it's possible." But as I read it, the addition of "ever" came across as saying he thought it was an unsolvable problem rather than one that had yet to come upon a solution.

Re: Work on interesting problems. Not interesting tech

#35
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate on how/why you came to that conclusion?

Even interesting jobs involve a fair amount of rote work, doing it using tech you enjoy working with makes that go a lot easier.

Counterpoint: http://boringtechnology.club/

Re: Work on interesting problems. Not interesting tech

#36
These things are fairly orthogonal. There are interesting problems, there's interesting tech. Sometimes interesting problems require interesting tech to solve, but not usually. Often boring problems are best-solved with interesting tech, but they can optionally be solved with boring tech. In my experience, solving interesting problems with boring tech is far more frustrating and unfulfilling than solving boring problems with interesting tech. But again, they're pretty orthogonal.

There are a tremendous number of jobs using interesting tech to solve boring problems. This is really the bread-and-butter of most tech careers. You might be selling widgets or building another social network or something that is mind-numbingly boring and unfulfilling, but if you're into the tech, you might still enjoy your day-to-day. That's certainly been the bulk of my career. I've also worked on solving interesting problems using boring tech, and while it was nice to see the results at the end, the path leading there wasn't as fun.

If you're lucky enough to land both, that's great. I've worked on interesting problems with both interesting and boring tech (NASA projects), except it didn't pay well. I've worked on boring problems with interesting tech (fintech) and that both paid well and was actually more challenging and more fun. And I've worked on a whole lot of boring problems with boring tech (countless ecommerce web projects).

At the end of the day, if I can't have both, interesting tech is probably more important to me, because that's what I spend almost all my time dealing with, and I'm still a hacker at heart and appreciate the tech in itself. It does leave me feeling, most of the time, like my work has no meaning, but I can find meaning in other endeavors. There aren't enough interesting problems that also pay the bills to go 'round, so most of the time I just want my day-to-day to be engaging.

Re: Work on interesting problems. Not interesting tech

#37
The author doesn't say who or how what about the project was interesting, just that it was interesting and that it made him endure Java. My experience is the opposite. I don't care so much what I'm making, as long as it's not something making the world a worse place. I care about what technology and methods I can use to do whatever. That is interesting to me from a craft point of view.

Re: Work on interesting problems. Not interesting tech

#38
I'm getting tired of this take. There's such as thing as programming for the joy of programming. You can love a clever algorithm with no "business value". Code can be beautiful and fun to write without being useful, or optimally-useful-per-unit-of-time-invested.

Re: Work on interesting problems. Not interesting tech

#40

Want to work on interesting problems? Build software for doctors' offices and medical groups! Help lawyers crawl out of their low-tech hole! Work on software to revolutionize public classrooms! Why work on interesting tech when you could throw yourself at intractable problems that we never get any closer to solving?

What a defeatist mindset lol
Post reply on HN