Live data from Hacker News

“Just remove the duck” (2013)

rachelbythebay.com

171–180 of 347 posts

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#171

Putting on my client/product manager hat for a moment, this is incredibly annoying. You are putting me in the position of either (a) fixing the obvious ducks and not looking closely at the real problems, or (b) having to micromanage you and scheduling another review to make further changes. Maybe you get your desired result (a), but my opinion of your work is going to be much lower since you are making obvious duck-s…

Nobody is saying to intentionally put things wrong into the software in order to get your attention on the wrong things. They are saying that there are people who will ask for changes when there isn't value to them, but only because it allows them to make a difference.

I've seen cases where people have completely ruined products in ways like this. I don't think that anybody is actually saying that "broken" / "poor" features should be added just to be removed... Possibly unless you have been working with one of the people who require you to change things without unreasonably.

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#172

Putting on my client/product manager hat for a moment, this is incredibly annoying. You are putting me in the position of either (a) fixing the obvious ducks and not looking closely at the real problems, or (b) having to micromanage you and scheduling another review to make further changes. Maybe you get your desired result (a), but my opinion of your work is going to be much lower since you are making obvious duck-s…

Nobody is saying to intentionally put things wrong into the software in order to get your attention on the wrong things. They are saying that there are people who will ask for changes when there isn't value to them, but only because it allows them to make a difference.

I've seen cases where people have completely ruined products in ways like this. I don't think that anybody is actually saying that I should add broken features.

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#173

Putting on my client/product manager hat for a moment, this is incredibly annoying. You are putting me in the position of either (a) fixing the obvious ducks and not looking closely at the real problems, or (b) having to micromanage you and scheduling another review to make further changes. Maybe you get your desired result (a), but my opinion of your work is going to be much lower since you are making obvious duck-s…

Taken literally this is pretty bad. Wasting time to placate hands on incompetent managers is not sustainable. This is also why design by committee fails - everyone wants to seem like they have some input.

The reality is this always exists to a degree. Politics exist. It can be hard to come up with an objective definition of best, especially around usability. (A/B testing helps, but only so far) So one has to learn how to do the politics to get things done.

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it's a move which works when people demand changes in order to leave their mark or to be seen as "doing something"[0], it doesn't work in the case of people demanding changes because they actually want these changes. [0] an attitude I find myself unthinkingly adopting when doing reviews.

i have the guilts reviewing work of non native english speakers and asking them to rename functions after review. hard to ask for it without it seeming completely petty, particularly when everything else is perfect. it does represent a minor improvement.

This problem isn't isolated to non-native English speakers. The potential cost of poorly named methods/variables/classes, etc. is high enough on a complex product that it's almost always worth raising the issue in reviews. If your reviews are run positively it really shouldn't be an issue.

As an aside, I recently saw a job listing that included the requirement to be able to "defend your code in reviews" - I would say that's an environment where reviews probably aren't positive experiences.

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#175
post #8

A story from the time recounts that Piero Soderino, the head of the powerful Florentine Republic, even told the famously irascible Michelangelo that David's nose was much too large. Michelangelo then hid some marble dust in his hand, climbed back up his ladder and pretended to do some more "chiseling" on the offending proboscis. While he did so, he let some marble dust fall from his hand. The pompous Soderino was foo…

There are countless fables about record company executives dropping by the mastering studio to hear the new hit in its finished form. They'd inevitably make some ill-posed request, of the familiar "it needs to pop more!" variety. The wily engineer directs them towards a large and important looking knob, telling them that they are free to dial in as much "pop" as they think the track needs. Of course, they screw up th…

> There are countless fables about record company executives dropping by the mastering studio to hear the new hit in its finished form.

There are, but equally, there are tales of real genius among record company bosses too. Here's an awesome example, which I read in soundonsound a few years ago. From an interview with Giorgio Moroder on how he created the disco single "Love To Love You Baby", and the instrumental role of record boss Neil Bogart:

> This then provided us with a four‑minute, metronomic beat that had a kind of groove going on, and that really was the origin of drum machines, and the thing that enabled us to stretch it to a 16‑minute version, kept in perfect time, when Neil Bogart requested it.”

> According to Moroder, it was on a Friday that Bogart called him, at about three o'clock in the morning LA time, ecstatic over the number and insisting that it should be extended to cover the entire side of an album. Bellotte fills in the details...

> "Bogart was having an orgy at his house, there was a lot of coke going on and, to use his own language, they were all 'f*cking to this track' and the crowd there had him replay the song over and over again. Suddenly, a 'Eureka' thought hit Bogart; he recalled 'In‑A‑Gadda‑Da‑Vida' by Iron Butterfly, which had taken up a whole side. In a flash he came up with the idea of doing the same with 'Love To Love You Baby' and he needed it within a week. So we just proceeded to get down to it on that weekend, and since things always went very fast back then, within the week he had what he wanted.”

....

> The last song on the album, recorded in two to three hours and designed to transport listeners into the future, 'I Feel Love' would quickly become a gay anthem, not least because of Neil Bogart's astute marketing, while topping the UK singles chart and climbing to number six on the Billboard Hot 100. However, it was considered to be nothing more than a filler when the record was finished.

>"We never thought of it as a stand-out track, we just thought it part of a good album,” Bellotte comments. "However, when we sent the album off to LA, Neil Bogart called back straight away and said, 'The single is 'I Feel Love', it needs three edits and these are the edits.' Doing these immediately improved the fluidity of the track no end. He was that kind of a record man. And, of course, those edits no longer exist, because they would have been sliced from the quarter‑inch master and simply thrown on the floor. That's how it was then. If you ever did any editing, the floor was cluttered with all the stuff you didn't use. We never saved anything, it was just discarded. However, because of his uncanny feel for the music, Bogart knew exactly where the track should be edited and, of course, the improvement was fantastic.”

Crazy story, isn't it?

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So right on about doing the same thing by accident. Early in my life, I programmed synths in a studio - and I practiced a variation on this. I would listen to what sound they wanted, then I would play them something that was likely pretty close. They they would complain about it not being quite right, so I would play 3 or 4 different sounds that I knew were completely wrong, then return to the first sound. To which t…

>So right on about doing the same thing by accident. There is nothing that can describe the mixture of confusion, shame, and artistic/technical self-doubt that you feel upon realising that the compressor you just spent half an hour lovingly tweaking, to seemingly great effect, is bypassed.

Yes! Perfectly captured.

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are countless fables about record company executives dropping by the mastering studio to hear the new hit in its finished form. They'd inevitably make some ill-posed request, of the familiar "it needs to pop more!" variety. The wily engineer directs them towards a large and important looking knob, telling them that they are free to dial in as much "pop" as they think the track needs. Of course, they screw up th…

So right on about doing the same thing by accident. Early in my life, I programmed synths in a studio - and I practiced a variation on this. I would listen to what sound they wanted, then I would play them something that was likely pretty close. They they would complain about it not being quite right, so I would play 3 or 4 different sounds that I knew were completely wrong, then return to the first sound. To which t…

I could believe that the original sound actually does seem different after the 3 or 4 other sounds were priming the brain. Our senses don't operate in isolation. Just think of #thedress, or a note played in isolation vs played after a sequence of notes in a key in which the original note does not appear.

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#178
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone remember Archon and Archon 2? They were similar although you actually fought a battle for each contact between pieces.

Two of my favorite games when I was younger. I wonder if they are available from any where these days?

Just install a relevant emulator. Almost all 8 bit games are available publicly these days. This is the version I played:

http://www.atarimania.com/game-atari-400-800-xl-xe-archon_s3...

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#179
post #117
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this anecdote might help explain Jobs's success. There is a tendency when one is running or developing a product to convince yourself that your efforts are producing a genuinely good product that your customers will like. Frequently that isn't true, and the product is rightly trashed by the outsiders. The thing is, the people on the inside would have trashed it too if they had not been insiders. Jobs seems to…

He really nailed it with the mouse.

There are some people who really love Apple's mice, even the notorious "hockey puck" one. (Which to be fair was actually pretty comfortable to use, assuming you ever got the damn thing pointing the right way.) I'm not one of them, but I'm not really a huge fan of mice, period -- and their current weirdo mouse-with-touch-surface certainly offers a lot of gesture control, and it's not that uncomfortable. (Granted, "The Apple Mouse: Hey, you've used worse" isn't a very compelling slogan.)

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#180

This is virtually the same as what is more often called "bikeshedding", though with a different (just as famous) story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law_of_trivialit...

no, it isn't bikeshedding at all.

It's related, though -- it's a process you can do to help minimize the impact of bikeshedding by baiting it with something innocuous.

E.g., you design your awesome nuclear power plant, and put a REALLY ugly bikeshed, so that the reviewers will feel compelled to expend their change-requesting energy on that, rather than on changing something that might affect the important stuff.

Post reply on HN