Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"No, it's less effort than that"

smartguess.is

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 388 posts

Re: "No, it's less effort than that"

#361

Post by lmm »

23B1 wrote: post #342
lmm wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thats how coalition-building, budgeting, and reporting works in business. Not saying it should dominate your schedule, but it's just how organizations work. Nah. Internal competition is a negative for the business. Selfish individuals do it so that they can get better results for themselves. Refusing to take part is the right thing for the business.

I never said it had to be competitive nor is my comment recommending that. You don’t own 100% of your time when participating in group activities.

> I never said it had to be competitive nor is my comment recommending that.

You said "Thats how coalition-building, budgeting, and reporting works in business." In my experience that's only true in the bad kind of business where there's too much internal competition.

> You don’t own 100% of your time when participating in group activities.

You're responsible for your time. You should share it generously with people who want to put it towards something productive, but you should also push back when people want to waste it.

Re: "No, it's less effort than that"

#362

Post by 23B1 »

lmm wrote: post #361
23B1 wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said it had to be competitive nor is my comment recommending that. You don’t own 100% of your time when participating in group activities.

> I never said it had to be competitive nor is my comment recommending that. You said "Thats how coalition-building, budgeting, and reporting works in business." In my experience that's only true in the bad kind of business where there's too much internal competition. > You don’t own 100% of your time when participating in group activities. You're responsible for your time. You should share it generously with people…

Internal competition can be good and bad, just like any other management principle. But at the end of the day, an organization needs consensus or it’ll implode, and some people are required to help build that consensus, amongst other duties that extend well beyond product. This is as true for business as it is in any other group dynamic.

Re: "No, it's less effort than that"

#363

Post by 23B1 »

nine_zeros wrote: post #356
23B1 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>$400k/year is not enough Except to many it is - and I’m perfectly happy arguing from the majority in this case, because the failure rate for companies that do not adopt many of the best practices you rail against is extremely high. You also seem to be making arguments for things that already exist and are universal, like performance-based comp, etc.

> You also seem to be making arguments for things that already exist and are universal, like performance-based comp, etc. This appears to be a form of projection because that is not what I was arguing for. And things that "already exist" don't always exist. They especially don't exist in the form they are in FAANGs. In fact, in my experience, the companies that copied FAANG style are the ones that suffered more than…

If you’re not getting well-remunerated for your work at at FAANG or a startup that IPOs… you probably need to get some help finding or negotiating on your next job my dude.

Re: "No, it's less effort than that"

#364

Post by lmm »

23B1 wrote: post #362
lmm wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I never said it had to be competitive nor is my comment recommending that. You said "Thats how coalition-building, budgeting, and reporting works in business." In my experience that's only true in the bad kind of business where there's too much internal competition. > You don’t own 100% of your time when participating in group activities. You're responsible for your time. You should share it generously with people…

Internal competition can be good and bad, just like any other management principle. But at the end of the day, an organization needs consensus or it’ll implode, and some people are required to help build that consensus, amongst other duties that extend well beyond product. This is as true for business as it is in any other group dynamic.

You need consensus, sure. You don't time estimates from engineering estimates for it, and even if you did, badgering engineers to make their numbers smaller wouldn't make getting consensus any easier.

Re: "No, it's less effort than that"

#365

Post by 23B1 »

lmm wrote: post #360
23B1 wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing personal but I’m guessing you are either relatively inexperienced or maybe in a market that is different than the U.S. The reward is your salary/bonus/stock, and it obviously works… because work gets done and tech talent is well-remunerated for it. The technical leadership structure you seem to be recommending already exists; plenty of ELTs have or are comprised of experienced people with deep technical roots…

> The reward is your salary/bonus/stock, and it obviously works… because work gets done and tech talent is well-remunerated for it. By that logic, responding to requests for estimates with sarcasm and cynicism also works, because work gets done and tech talent is well-remunerated for it.

The dudes who respond to requests for estimates with sarcasm and cynicism get fired. I’ve fired them.

Re: "No, it's less effort than that"

#366

Post by replyifuagree »

c0pium wrote: post #358
replyifuagree wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But 100 phone calls will, there is actually no such relationship in code - in fact deleting code significantly reduces liability, I guarantee reducing sales calls will not have the same effect.

That’s not how sales works. At all.

Yes it is.

Re: "No, it's less effort than that"

#367

Post by replyifuagree »

c0pium wrote: post #359
replyifuagree wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, the shotgun approach actually works with sales - especially if the sales force has been slacking and not chasing leads. Whereas with code, deleting code and writing less code is very much preferred because each line of code written increases the complexity and risk in the system. This is why business teams who are shirking discovery and instead focusing on the anti-pattern of trying to increase engineerin…

None of that is how sales works. “Just try harder” is bad advice in basically any context. Everyone in this thread is trying to point out to you that your assumptions about sales are the same as the LoC assumption that equivalently clueless people make about software.

There is a proven relationship between contacts made and sales made. Which is why sales managers constantly push sales staff to be making calls. Sales has been around for way longer than development, the underlying theory for sales is well known. Just like the underlying theory for manufacturing is well known.

Re: "No, it's less effort than that"

#368

Post by nine_zeros »

23B1 wrote: post #363
nine_zeros wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You also seem to be making arguments for things that already exist and are universal, like performance-based comp, etc. This appears to be a form of projection because that is not what I was arguing for. And things that "already exist" don't always exist. They especially don't exist in the form they are in FAANGs. In fact, in my experience, the companies that copied FAANG style are the ones that suffered more than…

If you’re not getting well-remunerated for your work at at FAANG or a startup that IPOs… you probably need to get some help finding or negotiating on your next job my dude.

> If you’re not getting well-remunerated for your work at at FAANG or a startup that IPOs… you probably need to get some help finding or negotiating on your next job my dude.

Once again, you are missing the point of the last post which makes me suspect you are exactly the mediocre manager who gets complained about a lot. Let me guess, you hold weird ideas such as "If they don't do XX, YY, I will fire them" - never once blaming yourself for hiring them in the first place.

Re: "No, it's less effort than that"

#369

Post by rrr_oh_man »

regularfry wrote: post #350
rrr_oh_man wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unless a team has put hard work into unintuitive ways of working, the average ticket will spend grossly more time waiting than actually being worked on. What do you mean by "unintuitive ways of working"?

Here's a relatively small example: if you want to minimise lead time (which is almost always true) then one thing you don't want is for potentially releasable work to sit waiting for anything . That includes code reviews, if you have them on the route to production. So the right thing to do is usually for a PR being ready for a code review to be a drop-everything event for the person who's going to review it. As in,…

That's an interesting take!

Re: "No, it's less effort than that"

#370

Post by lmm »

23B1 wrote: post #365
lmm wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reward is your salary/bonus/stock, and it obviously works… because work gets done and tech talent is well-remunerated for it. By that logic, responding to requests for estimates with sarcasm and cynicism also works, because work gets done and tech talent is well-remunerated for it.

The dudes who respond to requests for estimates with sarcasm and cynicism get fired. I’ve fired them.

Maybe in some businesses. I suspect those business do less well than the ones that fire people like you instead.
Post reply on HN