301–309 of 309 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trying to parse your sentence, which is ambiguous... You're saying that the manager-of-managers would argue that the number of PRs should affect perf ratings? Or the MoM would push back against the line managers who were giving ratings based on # of PRs?
They were reviewing perf designations, then pulling up PR count, then arguing against designation based on the number of PRs opened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, thanks for the story. This is what I was trying to say. The idea that it's completely okay for companies to misallocate billions of dollars across the industry while people are legitimately suffering do to myriad of reasons is just bonkers level of selfishness. I worked at a company that had an $80,000 monthly AWS spend when the total users in question was less than 100,000. The most concurrent users was This ob…
Ah I see the point you're making now. Yes, sometimes (often) businesses make very bad decisions. But that doesn't imply that every project that does not ship was a poor investment of time and resources.
Instead we had a corporate jobs program that benefited no one outside of Meta's offices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> sorry, but this just sounds like a rationalisation for "we built the wrong thing". If it were so easy to decide what the right thing is to build before you build it then business would be easy. That's the whole reason options have value. Having 3 shippable products ready to go when you can only effectively ship 1 puts the whole team in a much better position than choosing 1, focusing everyone on it, and hoping you…
> If it were so easy to decide what the right thing is to build before you build it then business would be easy. It's not easy. That's why it's important to be straightforward and just move on without all the navel gazing. > ... hoping you hit the lottery with product-market fit. There's this thing called "research" where you talk to real people, instead of guessing. > That doesn't retroactively make their effort wor…
Obviously you should talk to people.
But that doesn't lead to guarantees of product-market fit. People can describe their problems, but they usually can't describe the solution. If they already knew the solution they'd likely have already addressed the problem!
> ruthlessness is an asset when it comes to we built the wrong thing. ruthlessness gets us moving on faster.
Sure, I think we are sort of saying the same thing. I'm saying you should work on it even though it may be ruthlessly rejected later, potentially even without ever shipping.
It's part of the game and it's not worth crying over. The ruthless thing is to acknowledge the work you did, that it had value to whoever was paying you to do it, and then move on to the next thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ya gotta start smoking weed after you're done with school, that's the way to success
The best strategy is to figure out what you are going to do after smoking weed before you smoke weed. So, draft your prompt and send it before lighting up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A more equitable distribution of company profits does not imply the company loses money. It does not imply useless make-work jobs. I fully agree, and remind you it's completely legal and simple for you to go and start a company that does equitable distribution of company profits. More people should do it instead of complaining that few people do.
> I...remind you it's completely legal and simple for you to go and start a company that does equitable distribution of company profits. More people should do it instead of complaining that few people do. No. Instead of doing that, the effort should go into making all companies act that way. IMHO, what you just did is part-and-parcel of one angle of the "propaganda to justify and obscure it" that I referred to above…
That's because creating a business is a lot of hard work and risk, and surely you'd instead better virtue signal in your free time to look better to other people who are also lazy.
But then again you're very young.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you can deliver the same thing in fewer correct lines of code it really depends on what you're doing. If your goal is "become interoperable with the N different and incompatible network protocols that people have devised for doing task X" I'd really like to know a solution that doesn't have at least some part of the amount of code that scales with N. Example: consider https://bitfocus.io/connections which connec…
This is still not an argument for more lines of code. It demonstrates that lines of code are positively correlated with number of features, yes. But that's like saying the number of nails scales with the size of a house. More nails does not create more house.
sure, but less nails definitely prevents you from having more house
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is still not an argument for more lines of code. It demonstrates that lines of code are positively correlated with number of features, yes. But that's like saying the number of nails scales with the size of a house. More nails does not create more house.
> More nails does not create more house. sure, but less nails definitely prevents you from having more house
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes I understand that. The tendency of engineers to willfully refuse to understand what's going on in their businesses and scoff at the things they are refusing to understand by dismissing them as "overcomplicated" and "business doublespeak" is what my comment that started this thread was about.
Did you see the part in my big story time comment where i convinced the ceo his business strategy was wrong? do you think i did that with a flippant and dismissive comment? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48497153 i get the sense that you think i'm "one of those engineers". I am not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah I see the point you're making now. Yes, sometimes (often) businesses make very bad decisions. But that doesn't imply that every project that does not ship was a poor investment of time and resources.
I disagree, especially if we are talking about potentially hundreds of billions in waste. How much better would say software be if instead of Meta wasting $100billion on Reality Labs we gave one time $100,000 grants to open source developers? That would be helping over 1,000,000 open source developers that are actually writing useful helpful software for others. Instead we had a corporate jobs program that benefited…
I agree with you about facebook's poor decision making.