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

15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

nvie.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 427 posts

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#81

Post by 7bit »

anonymous908213 wrote: post #32

Microsoft employee (VP of something or other, for whatever Microsoft uses "VP" to mean) doing damage control on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/scott.hanselman.com/post/3mez4yxty2... > looks like a vendor, and we have a group now doing a post-mortem trying to figure out how it happened. It'll be removed ASAFP > Understood. Not trying to sweep under rugs, but I also want to point out that everything is moving very f…

Any excuse that tries to play down its own fault by pointing out other companies also have faults, is dishonest.

And that's exactly what happened here.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#82

Post by aftergibson »

Archive.org shows this went live last September: https://web.archive.org/web/20250108142456/https://learn.mic...

It took ~5 months for anyone to notice and fix something that is obviously wrong at a glance.

How many people saw that page, skimmed it, and thought “good enough”? That feels like a pretty honest reflection of the state of knowledge work right now. Everyone is running at a velocity where quality, craft and care are optional luxuries. Authors don’t have time to write properly, reviewers don’t have time to review properly, and readers don’t have time to read properly.

So we end up shipping documentation that nobody really reads and nobody really owns. The process says “published”, so it’s done.

AI didn’t create this, it just dramatically lowers the cost of producing text and images that look plausible enough to pass a quick skim. If anything it makes the underlying problem worse: more content, less attention, less understanding.

It was already possible to cargo-cult GitFlow by copying the diagram without reading the context. Now we’re cargo-culting diagrams that were generated without understanding in the first place.

If the reality is that we’re too busy to write, review, or read properly, what is the actual function of this documentation beyond being checkbox output?

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#86

Post by nvader »

WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #70

I propose to adopt the word „morge”, a verb meaning „use an LLM to generate content that badly but recognizably plagiarizes some other known/famous work”. A noun describing such piece of slop could be „morgery”.

I read through all the proposals in this discussion and I like yours the best out of them.

Seconded!

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#87

Post by blibble »

AndroTux wrote: post #43

“It was careless, blatantly amateuristic, and lacking any ambition, to put it gently. Microsoft unworthy.” Seems to be perfectly on brand for Microsoft, I don’t see the issue.

LLM infested crap, directly pushed to customers without any pushback

so standard Microslop

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#88

Post by clort »

prmoustache wrote: post #68
anonymous908213 wrote: post #32

Microsoft employee (VP of something or other, for whatever Microsoft uses "VP" to mean) doing damage control on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/scott.hanselman.com/post/3mez4yxty2... > looks like a vendor, and we have a group now doing a post-mortem trying to figure out how it happened. It'll be removed ASAFP > Understood. Not trying to sweep under rugs, but I also want to point out that everything is moving very f…

> In either case -- no review process, or a failed review process -- the failure is definitionally systemic. Ortho and grammar errors should have been corrected, but do you really expect a review process to identify that a diagram is a copy from another one some rando already published on the internet years ago?

plenty of people on the internet recognised it immediately, so sure, he may have been a rando when he created it, but not so much 15 years later..

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#89

Post by pointlessone »

prmoustache wrote: post #68
anonymous908213 wrote: post #32

Microsoft employee (VP of something or other, for whatever Microsoft uses "VP" to mean) doing damage control on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/scott.hanselman.com/post/3mez4yxty2... > looks like a vendor, and we have a group now doing a post-mortem trying to figure out how it happened. It'll be removed ASAFP > Understood. Not trying to sweep under rugs, but I also want to point out that everything is moving very f…

> In either case -- no review process, or a failed review process -- the failure is definitionally systemic. Ortho and grammar errors should have been corrected, but do you really expect a review process to identify that a diagram is a copy from another one some rando already published on the internet years ago?

It’s not just a copy. It’s a caricature of a copy with a plenty of nonsense in it: typos and weird “text”, broken arrows, etc. Even a cursory look gives a feeling that something’s fishy.

Re: 15 years later, Microsoft morged my diagram

#90

Post by logifail »

prmoustache wrote: post #68
anonymous908213 wrote: post #32

Microsoft employee (VP of something or other, for whatever Microsoft uses "VP" to mean) doing damage control on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/scott.hanselman.com/post/3mez4yxty2... > looks like a vendor, and we have a group now doing a post-mortem trying to figure out how it happened. It'll be removed ASAFP > Understood. Not trying to sweep under rugs, but I also want to point out that everything is moving very f…

> In either case -- no review process, or a failed review process -- the failure is definitionally systemic. Ortho and grammar errors should have been corrected, but do you really expect a review process to identify that a diagram is a copy from another one some rando already published on the internet years ago?

Shouldn't "where are we sourcing our content" be part of any publication review process?
Post reply on HN