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

“Just remove the duck” (2013)

rachelbythebay.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 347 posts

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#241

Post by aros »

sxp wrote: post #120
TallGuyShort wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a huge Steve Jobs fan, but I had a professor who had worked as a designer under Steve Jobs and tried something similar. Steve insisted that a new mouse needed to be just a fraction of a millimetre slimmer so a person's palm was lower and closer to the work surface. They figured he was being an unreasonable "delicate genius" and returned a few days later with the identical mouse and claimed they had reworked it to…

There is a similar story about Larry Page when Gmail was being developed: Before Google launched Gmail in 2004, its creator, Paul Buchheit, brought it to Page’s open cubicle office for a review. As Buchheit called the program up on Page’s computer, the boss made a face. “It’s too slow,” Page said. Buchheit disagreed. It was loading just fine, he said. No, Page insisted. It had taken a full 600 milliseconds for the pa…

How is this story similar? It's not even related to the topic.

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#242

Post by raziel2p »

dilap wrote: post #169
Karawebnetwork wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, 600 milliseconds is a number that comes up often. You don't have to be precise to the milliseconds, you only have to be able to recognize 100 milliseconds, 500 milliseconds and 1000 milliseconds. The rest is guessing work. It's the same thing with the width of elements on the web. Know what 10px is, and you will be able to guess anything.

I used to play a racing game called Trackmania; there was no collision, but it was really competitive in that you'd be racing simultaneously networked w/ other players. You could definitely tell when you completed the lab in a time that was say 10ms behind a different time. 600 milliseconds, +- say 50ms, is pretty recognizable.

Top level players will gain ~10ms or more on eachother every other turn. At a level below the very top you're going to see gaps far bigger. With experience, you'll definitely be able to tell which parts of the track you did well or poorly at, but there is no way you're going to be able to get an accurate feel for all of those tiny gains and losses over the course of a 30-60 second track to accurately judge exactly how far ahead or behind another time you are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6Ri6XUq6no

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#244

Post by clay_to_n »

whyaduck wrote: post #174
throwawayaway wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

On the other hand, I could see that as meaning "know what you're talking about so that you can defend the decisions you make."

As an intern, I've had many times where I'd say "I did it this way using A B and C, is that the best way? Are there any improvements you'd suggest?" after completing work. But in a more senior position, you probably don't want people second guessing / not really understanding these decisions.

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#245

Post by minthd »

Ensorceled wrote: post #185
dchichkov wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a more likely, albeight sadder explanation. Steve was simply able to read the faces of the team and correctly guess that they didn't comply. As a compliance professional he was very sensitive to that and immediately reacted.

Or, a more likely and less idiotically cynical explanation is that a man famous for having vision, aesthetic sense and incessant drive for excellence that enabled him to completely revolutionize multiple technology industries ACTUALLY had vision and a sense of aesthetics.

Take into account that at least some his image was the result of a carefully planned PR. This is a known marketing tool for companies who sell luxury products.

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#246

Post by omegaham »

samf wrote: post #211

I have thought about the same tactic if you are selling your house, and the potential buyer is bringing an inspector. "Break" three things in your house, e.g., remove the cover from a bathroom exhaust fan, loosen a faucet so that it rattles, and remove all of the light bulbs from an overhead fixture. The inspector will find these, the buyers will require that they be fixed, and it will be easy for you to do so. If yo…

Just to provide a counterpoint, I had a master sergeant who would flip the fuck out if he saw obvious problems. The idea was that if he could find obvious problems, then his juniors don't give a fuck at all, and there are going to be a lot more not-so-obvious problems. This was a cue for him to go on a rampage through the section and cause pain and hardship for everyone.

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#247

Post by grecy »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #232
grecy wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel bad for the wasted cold cuts. I've recently started hunting to get my meat, and I seem to be really sensitive to this kind of terminology lately. You feel bad for the wasted animal that was killed .

I would imagine most people are either okay with animals living in X condition and then killed, or not okay with animals living in X condition and then killed. Why does it matter what you do with the corpse?

> Why does it matter what you do with the corpse?

If you have to kill something, or destroy something, at least have a good reason for doing so.

Cutting down a whole forest for no reason is not a good way to behave.

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#248

Post by Dylan16807 »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #39

>> The sacrificial duck kept the meddling manager away from the stuff that was important. The territorial dog analogy is perfect. I've seen parks where they put fake fire hydrants and other features in the dog area so they can feel satisfied without leaving their designated area.

That's not really fakery, though. It's giving the dog a 100% valid marker to use. The dog doesn't care if it can supply water.

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#249

Post by sstradling »

dccoolgai wrote: post #224
sstradling wrote: post #193

I'm reminded of a blog post by an old govvie that hated this approach. His argument was that every time we work around a problem in our process, whether it was a bad system or an incompetent co-worker or manager, we became the problem. Every time we added a duck or built a workaround we were building frameworks that would hold a bad policy in place for longer than if we just stopped and said "that's stupid". Adding t…

I think that you don't really understand the duck until you are unlucky enough to work in a situation that is dysfunctional enough to warrant it. I hope you never do, stranger. I agree with your sentiment as an idealist, but my experience in some deeply deeply dysfunctional situations suggests that the duck can sometimes - when used judiciously - be the tool you need.

I've been in some pretty bad ones (USG software dev) - I agree that sometimes you might need an emergency duck, but that's when you need to start looking somewhere else. If they're crazy or dysfunctional enough for more than an occasional ED, odds are that they'll break you or fire you eventually.

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#250

Post by Dylan16807 »

grecy wrote: post #247
Dylan16807 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would imagine most people are either okay with animals living in X condition and then killed, or not okay with animals living in X condition and then killed. Why does it matter what you do with the corpse?

> Why does it matter what you do with the corpse? If you have to kill something, or destroy something, at least have a good reason for doing so. Cutting down a whole forest for no reason is not a good way to behave.

Cutting down a forest is only a problem if I'm not growing suitable new forest to replace it.

If I'm buying meat in the store I'm definitely paying for it to be replaced.

I don't see why a good reason is necessary when it comes to a renewable resource.

I support demanding good reasons for non-renewable resources.

Post reply on HN