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

Automate the boring parts of your job

stackoverflow.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–17 of 17 posts

Re: Automate the boring parts of your job

#11

Post by faeriechangling »

tybulewicz wrote: post #2

Obligatory XKCDs: - Is It Worth The Time? https://xkcd.com/1205/ - Automation https://xkcd.com/1319/

XKCD 1205 is completely wrong because it fails to account for the fact that manual work tends to introduce random errors into the mix which are difficult to reverse. Whereas if automation is well designed, it's often very possible to correct any errors you made in the automation, and once you get it right it will always be right.

The other thing is that a task that takes 30 seconds doesn't just take 30 seconds, the context switch is actually quite a burden and even just having to remember to do the thing.

Re: Automate the boring parts of your job

#12

Post by ipaddr »

yarg wrote: post #5

It actually amazes me the degree to which people just don't realise that what they are doing can be automated - even in software companies. I caught my manager one day, manually traversing application screens taking screenshots and then clipping them down to size. At least an hour's work, with each and every release (or at least those with configuration changes). "Raise a ticket, I can do that automatically." An hour…

Why have we ended up in a place where a developer is asking a manager to raise a ticket so they are allowed to create something only she will see. What happens if you just did it without the ticket?

Re: Automate the boring parts of your job

#13

Post by ipaddr »

faeriechangling wrote: post #11
tybulewicz wrote: post #2

Obligatory XKCDs: - Is It Worth The Time? https://xkcd.com/1205/ - Automation https://xkcd.com/1319/

XKCD 1205 is completely wrong because it fails to account for the fact that manual work tends to introduce random errors into the mix which are difficult to reverse. Whereas if automation is well designed, it's often very possible to correct any errors you made in the automation, and once you get it right it will always be right. The other thing is that a task that takes 30 seconds doesn't just take 30 seconds, the c…

With an error rate of 10%

Would you rather have 10% errors each time or 10% of the time the script has an error and could wipe everything out.

Every place I've worked with accepts 10% returns, 10% of visitors leaving immediately, 10% of a customer's data being incorrect somehow.

Very few accept perfect flawless followed by completely breaking everything 1/10 times.

Re: Automate the boring parts of your job

#14

Post by Bnichs »

In my experience in larger software companies, the hardest part of automation is convincing management that it's worth it to stop other development for long enough to automate a problem away. A lot of managers are fine throwing people at a problem if it means meeting a date and making the team look good while under the hood all the knobs are being turned by hands by an ever struggling staff.

And then the worst case I've found myself in is where the people you hire specifically to automate are told to do things manually at first "until we get the automation out." Then you end up in a constant cycle of promising automation that will never exist because all of the workload is falling to the automators who have no time to fix anything.

Re: Automate the boring parts of your job

#15

Post by ElCapitanMarkla »

ipaddr wrote: post #12
yarg wrote: post #5

It actually amazes me the degree to which people just don't realise that what they are doing can be automated - even in software companies. I caught my manager one day, manually traversing application screens taking screenshots and then clipping them down to size. At least an hour's work, with each and every release (or at least those with configuration changes). "Raise a ticket, I can do that automatically." An hour…

Why have we ended up in a place where a developer is asking a manager to raise a ticket so they are allowed to create something only she will see. What happens if you just did it without the ticket?

Could just be so you have a ticket to record time against.

Re: Automate the boring parts of your job

#16

Post by faeriechangling »

ipaddr wrote: post #13
faeriechangling wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

XKCD 1205 is completely wrong because it fails to account for the fact that manual work tends to introduce random errors into the mix which are difficult to reverse. Whereas if automation is well designed, it's often very possible to correct any errors you made in the automation, and once you get it right it will always be right. The other thing is that a task that takes 30 seconds doesn't just take 30 seconds, the c…

With an error rate of 10% Would you rather have 10% errors each time or 10% of the time the script has an error and could wipe everything out. Every place I've worked with accepts 10% returns, 10% of visitors leaving immediately, 10% of a customer's data being incorrect somehow. Very few accept perfect flawless followed by completely breaking everything 1/10 times.

You should be fired if your automation is breaking 10% of the time.

All I'm saying is that the true costs of manual work usually isn't accounted for correctly. I see these costs spiralling into so much wasted work that it starts incurring more and more risk. Preference for gradual decay over Big Bang collapses isn't nessecarily rational, people tend to prefer living next to coal plants than nuclear plants despite the fact they're far far far more likely to die living next to the coal plant. It is in fact that irrational bias which needs to be resisted.

Re: Automate the boring parts of your job

#17

Post by yarg »

ipaddr wrote: post #12
yarg wrote: post #5

It actually amazes me the degree to which people just don't realise that what they are doing can be automated - even in software companies. I caught my manager one day, manually traversing application screens taking screenshots and then clipping them down to size. At least an hour's work, with each and every release (or at least those with configuration changes). "Raise a ticket, I can do that automatically." An hour…

Why have we ended up in a place where a developer is asking a manager to raise a ticket so they are allowed to create something only she will see. What happens if you just did it without the ticket?

For the commit message, for time-keeping, in order to assign it back to her when the changes were made.
Post reply on HN