Live data from Hacker News

The Failed Commodification of Technical Work

ludic.mataroa.blog

201–210 of 210 posts

Re: The Failed Commodification of Technical Work

#201
post #171

the author does make some good points, but I was a bit taken aback by the whole "who could possibly get excited about logistics of all things?!" bit. makes me wonder what else he simply doesn't "get" because he has written entire areas off as intrinsically boring and lacking in value.

Not at all - I probably just wrote badly and gave off the wrong tone there. I love that people can find excitement in almost anything. But uh, yeah, the book is very strange. There are a lot of characters that just take all sorts of insane abuse at work, and then with a grim face think: "This company is my family. I will not fail. Parts Unlimited will conquer the opposition."

Like, dude, this is pathological. Yes, you can work hard and try to save people's jobs, but where's the part where your friends strongly advise you to simultaneously look for work elsewhere because this place is toxic?

The "excited for logistics" thing was just uh... well, the first quote about the "excited" person just reads horribly in the context above, and The Goal wasn't even a fast-paced thriller. I believe the energy is best described as "Hail Corporate!"

Re: The Failed Commodification of Technical Work

#202
post #180
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, to me, that was not literature, but a guidebook with examples. Here is Bill, he's tired and overworked. If only he can focus on the important tasks and clear the clutter... Here is Security guy. He is grumpy and is in a war with the developers because they don't follow his ancient and unworkable security practices. if only he could update his security practices to something more modern and cool. Here is…

it was literally meant to be a guidebook with examples. I found that an entertaining way to present the material - if you were looking for literature or subtlety I can see why you would have found it patronising but personally I didn't feel talked down to when I read it.

If it was meant to be a guidebook with examples, why all the fuss about it?

You don't see people worshipping Cooking for Dummies, so why are we so cult-y about Scrum or The Phoenix Project. What's with the weird zen/Kung fu kind of vibe of it, as if they have just discovered sliced fknin bread?

Sadly, I genuinely think that for some people the Phoenix Project is an eye opener. Their enthusiasm on just discovering how to be a professional in the role they have been half assing for decades bugs the living crap out of me.

To me, reading TPP felt like reading a patronizing self help book. I found it nauseating, shallow, bland, and anyone expressing even a tinge of enthusiasm about it feels like an affront to my sensibilities.

Re: The Failed Commodification of Technical Work

#203
post #202
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it was literally meant to be a guidebook with examples. I found that an entertaining way to present the material - if you were looking for literature or subtlety I can see why you would have found it patronising but personally I didn't feel talked down to when I read it.

If it was meant to be a guidebook with examples, why all the fuss about it? You don't see people worshipping Cooking for Dummies, so why are we so cult-y about Scrum or The Phoenix Project. What's with the weird zen/Kung fu kind of vibe of it, as if they have just discovered sliced fknin bread? Sadly, I genuinely think that for some people the Phoenix Project is an eye opener. Their enthusiasm on just discovering how…

> Their enthusiasm on just discovering how to be a professional in the role they have been half assing for decades

that is literally an entire genre of fiction - amateurs who have no idea what they are doing get a wise old teacher and shape up into a killer team. i suspect a lot of the enthusiasm for the book comes from the popularity of "people level up and the magic happens" stories.

Re: The Failed Commodification of Technical Work

#204
post #3

I think - and it's only a think - that the author has ignored that a large part of what used to be called technical work is now commodified. I remember when a mail merge literally meant printing out lots of address labels and then manually sticking them onto a letter & envelope. Word 2.0 (?) solved that problem for the 1990s and MailChimp has commodified it for the 21st century. Double-entry book-keeping was technica…

I wonder if there's a term for Amdahl's law but applied to human processes. Like the other side of "law of diminishing returns".

Amdahl's Law applies cleanly to human processes. Perhaps the most revealing example is the origin of "computer" as a human occupation and how scaling the compute process happened at Los Alamos https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/history/human-computers-lo...

The more general aspect of Amdahl's law is captured by certain scaling laws and limits generally related to communication (see full bisection bandwidth) and certain architectures (e.g. Cray) meant to optimize for this

Re: The Failed Commodification of Technical Work

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if there's a term for Amdahl's law but applied to human processes. Like the other side of "law of diminishing returns".

Amdahl's Law applies cleanly to human processes. Perhaps the most revealing example is the origin of "computer" as a human occupation and how scaling the compute process happened at Los Alamos https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/history/human-computers-lo... The more general aspect of Amdahl's law is captured by certain scaling laws and limits generally related to communication (see full bisection bandwidth) and certai…

It semantically works but it has not been adopted by people outside computing, I'd guess think the definition isn't relatable or understandable enough for people coming from humanities/biz backgrounds, so it might well be possible that there's a parallel concept there.

Re: The Failed Commodification of Technical Work

#206
post #3

I think - and it's only a think - that the author has ignored that a large part of what used to be called technical work is now commodified. I remember when a mail merge literally meant printing out lots of address labels and then manually sticking them onto a letter & envelope. Word 2.0 (?) solved that problem for the 1990s and MailChimp has commodified it for the 21st century. Double-entry book-keeping was technica…

Some aspects have indeed been commodified. But what about the bigger picture?

How simple is it to run a business, a website, organise a travel around or pay a bill nowadays, compared to 1994 or 2004?

At times, I can't help but feel that the previous generation had a more leisurely pace of life, which led to a more fulfilling lifestyle. Nowadays, time seems to pass at a rapid pace, with high levels of stress.

Allow me to share two experiences:

a) The other day, while at the bank, I witnessed at least three individuals over the age of 60 struggling to complete simple tasks, aimlessly wandering around and pleading with the staff for assistance. These tasks are supposed to be easily accessible through online banking, but due to certain exceptions, the system did not support their specific needs. As a result, they were forced to make appointments, with the earliest available slot being three to four months away. One of them needed to withdraw money from a blocked account to purchase wood and heat her home, but the bank's staff refused to budge, insisting that she wait three months to solve the problem.

b) Just two years ago, my father was in Sicily and could not find a way to make a simple phone call back home. Yet, in the 1970s, all he had to do was walk into the bar in the area with a few coins.

Not to mention that while once upon a time your average person could fix the lights, the car, the heating, the non-automatic door, etc. by themselves now they need to call the professionals.

Re: The Failed Commodification of Technical Work

#207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm not following what your point is. I'm not sure how I could be clearer. >Would there be a way to make everyone expendable faster is it wasn't just white entitled dudes? You might want to check this for errors.

I am not following your point either. Surely there must be a way to reword it?

It would help if someone would articulate what is unclear.

Forgive me, but on this subject, I've encountered many who are fully capable of understanding, but would rather not. So I'd ask that you try harder. Perhaps restate what you think I mean, and I can correct you if it's mistaken?

Re: The Failed Commodification of Technical Work

#208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There's still no better training for programming than the equivalent of master/journeyman/apprentice. This is inseparable from the fact that programming is still a domain dominated by white males from upper middle-class families (and immigrants from countries with functional, non-boondoggle professional training and/or demoscene). DEI as a rainbow-wash goes away when organic mentorship of black kids and young women…

I'm absolutely certain there are much more non-white (Indian, Chinese, Vietnamese...) programmers than white. And if we stop with the racism, are you sure it's not the programming that made these guys upper middle class?

> I'm absolutely certain there are much more non-white (Indian, Chinese, Vietnamese...) programmers than white.

Worldwide, sure. I'm speaking about the US.

>And if we stop with the racism

That would be up to you. I haven't said anything that's racist.

>are you sure it's not the programming that made these guys upper middle class?

That would be even worse. It would mean that the white men who lived childhoods of lesser means and found success in the tech industry, presumably under the guidance of seniors who themselves (under your hypothetical) were more likely to be first-gen professionals, looked at black and brown kids in similar situations and thought, "Fuck you, got mine."

Re: The Failed Commodification of Technical Work

#209
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Windows apps from the 1990s still work, because they are distributed as binaries. Only if you have the right libraries, and runtimes, and OS interfaces, and even if you have all that, oh no, it's a MIPS binary and you don't live in 1996! Any proprietary API exists precisely as long as the owner says it does. Open standards don't suffer from that malady.

>Only if you have the right libraries, and runtimes That generally only happens with .NET based programs in Windows systems. You always need some .NET v2,3,3.5,4,4.5, etc., runtime.

Totally agree. There is no backward compatibility with .NET runtime - if your application is built/linked to a given version, it won't work with any other version of .NET

Re: The Failed Commodification of Technical Work

#210
post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Only if you have the right libraries, and runtimes That generally only happens with .NET based programs in Windows systems. You always need some .NET v2,3,3.5,4,4.5, etc., runtime.

Totally agree. There is no backward compatibility with .NET runtime - if your application is built/linked to a given version, it won't work with any other version of .NET

That's simply not true. Newest .NET 8 does not need the assemblies you reference to target .NET 8 - as long as the TFM is any version of 'netstandardx.x', 'netcoreappx.x' or 'net5'+ it will work.

You can even make proxy-projects that target netstandard2.0 but reference .NET Framework and with certain compat shims the code will just run on .NET 8 unless it relies on some breaking changes (which have mostly to do with platform-specific behavior, there have been no breaking changes for the language itself since I think C# 1 or 2? some odd 20 years ago).

As for the runtime itself - the application can restrict itself from being run by a newer version of runtime but you can absolutely do so. The lightweight executable that just loads runtime and executes the startup assembly may complain but just try it - build a console app with 'net5.0' target and then run it with latest SDK with 'dotnet run mynet5app.dll' - it will work.

Post reply on HN