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

291–300 of 347 posts

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#291

Post by snowwrestler »

Nacraile wrote: post #165
Flemlord wrote: post #152

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…

I think you're missing the point. The point here is that some PMs feel that if they're not demanding changes, they are not necessary / not doing their job / etc. If there's nothing wrong with the completed work, such a PM will demand unnecessary changes, in order to justify themselves. The duck is a passive counter to the PM's pathological behaviour: ensure there's always some easily-fixed fault, so the PM can feel l…

> The point here is that some PMs feel that if they're not demanding changes, they are not necessary / not doing their job / etc. If there's nothing wrong with the completed work, such a PM will demand unnecessary changes, in order to justify themselves.

Is that the point? Or is the point that some developers/designers don't like to get edited, so they tell themselves that their PM is pathological?

There's more than one valid perspective on things, and in my experience professional relationships work better when everyone realizes that.

edit: spelling

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#292

Post by grecy »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #273
grecy wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you're actively killing a living thing. In the same way I think it's not productive to call an animal that will killed "cold cuts", I don't think it's productive to refer to a living animal as a "renewable resource". Also implying that you can kill and waste as many of them as you like simply because you paid for it is not productive either. In all honesty, it's disappointing to see people refer to living cre…

I feel like the distinction between active killing and passive killing is overblown. A lot of things die simply because I exist. If it was a top priority to minimize it I wouldn't eat meat at all. I'm not trying to be insulting by calling things resources. Even the most important things like time are renewable in some important contexts. Waste is not productive by definition, not sure where you're going with that. It…

Thanks for the conversation, I appreciate it.

> I feel like the distinction between active killing and passive killing is overblown.

I used to feel the same way. A genuine question - have you ever done any active killing yourself?

I feel like it was a massive perspective changing experience for me to kill and butcher a ~1000lb wild creature.

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#294

Post by jimmaswell »

pluma wrote: post #212
jimmaswell wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Most people really like thinly sliced meats Why would you want thinly sliced meat? That doesn't make any sense to me.

It changes the surface feel of the meat. The concept shouldn't be too puzzling. There's a whole class of cooking (molecular gastronomy) entirely based on taking this to the extreme.

I've always found it much nicer to eat thick chunks of meat but I guess it's not the norm for lunchmeats.

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#295

Post by SonicSoul »

fallinghawks wrote: post #104
flarg wrote: post #87

I hate this story. I think it's important to differentiate between people who have the right knowledge to request a change and those that think they have the right solely because of seniority; but it's also rather disrespectful to 'cheat' and make fake changes just to make the someone happy. No-one deserves to be treated like a 'mark' for our tricks. My experience has been that being honest, polite and knowledgeable…

I would guess you've never browsed through clientsfromhell.net. Being honest, polite, and knowledgeable doesn't change the fact that the person who hires you may be ignorant, too busy, dead set on cheating you, or needs to assert his/her sense of control by insisting on changing something you considered finished.

that may be so, but tricking them into making the right decision is not a good long term decision. If they can't respond to reason perhaps changing teams and companies is a better approach.

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#297

Post by Gravityloss »

How much of our work in this business is just useless theater?

I couldn't stand working in a place where it was a significant portion of work. But it is probably unavoidable to some degree.

I see that code reviews for newcomers' commits often have these elements:

First review: "you did X. That's not smart. Do Y instead."

The new employee goes back to rework their commit.

Second review: "you did Y. That's not smart. Do X instead."

After a few weeks / months it starts getting reasonable. It's not as extreme, and it's well disguised in friendly demeanor, but there's still some similarities to what it was like in the army "boot camp".

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#298

Post by nickbauman »

Alex3917 wrote: post #188
nickbauman wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not even wrong. Design is defined by making studied choices within the constraints of the need or purpose. Rarely are these emotional, and when they are it is merely because of a successful connection between the people and the ideas that the purpose of the design created. The emotion is a side effect of good design, not the point. Only Marketing people see design as "emotional" because they see the world through a l…

> Only Marketing people see design as "emotional" because they see the world through a lens of shaping human behavior through our primate genetic programming. The word design literally means 'fate', i.e. the absence of free will. Shaping behavior is the point, making studied choices is only the means to the end. C.f. Robert Frost's poem Design: http://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/design

Evolution doesn't plan. Design that shapes behavior assumes a god-like view of the world which employed by humans always arrogates to the point of overreaching. For design to be humane, it is behavior that shapes design, not the other way around.

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#299

Post by whyaduck »

clay_to_n wrote: post #244
whyaduck wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have no problem with anyone, from interns on up, constructively criticizing my code/architecture/design decisions. I work for a company with an exceptionally strong engineering culture and no one shies away from expressing an opinion when invited (and sometimes when not invited). That said, "defend" is a poor choice of words for code review. If someone asks me why I did something, I tell them. It's not a defense, it's an explanation. If they have a better way to do what needs to be done that's GOOD. If we disagree, we discuss why we disagree. Defending is what you do when someone's attacking you, not when you're collaborating.

Re: “Just remove the duck” (2013)

#300

Post by Dylan16807 »

grecy wrote: post #292
Dylan16807 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the distinction between active killing and passive killing is overblown. A lot of things die simply because I exist. If it was a top priority to minimize it I wouldn't eat meat at all. I'm not trying to be insulting by calling things resources. Even the most important things like time are renewable in some important contexts. Waste is not productive by definition, not sure where you're going with that. It…

Thanks for the conversation, I appreciate it. > I feel like the distinction between active killing and passive killing is overblown. I used to feel the same way. A genuine question - have you ever done any active killing yourself? I feel like it was a massive perspective changing experience for me to kill and butcher a ~1000lb wild creature.

I haven't. Maybe I'll try it some time.

Though there's a lot of difference in the wild vs. farmed part of the equation, not just in the details of killing.

Post reply on HN