[flagged]
Can you please not post unsubstantive comments? It looks like you've been doing it repeatedly, and we're trying for something else here.
Normalization of Deviance (2015)
111–120 of 228 posts
Re: Normalization of Deviance (2015)
#112This is a big term in aviation, because in most cases in order for something catastrophic to happen it requires a lot of things to have failed. And one way to ensure that enough things fail is to start deviating from your maintenance, inspections, or general responsibilities. Related: the swiss cheese models.
It's also why things in aviation are so fixed and difficult to change. Not having any new civil aviation planes for 30 years worked... how about 40, 50? When will it break? Well, when someone develops an easy to build, easy to fly, inexpensive experimental craft and zillions of people do it all at once (hasn't happened yet). One of the more interesting things I've found is that a huge number (easily a majority) of in…
> They also know all the ins-outs of the training and rule books (with recent changes) so they know how to pass all the tests and how to teach that. Sooooo you have a bunch of inexperienced pilots teaching all the new pilots...
Sounds like there's some similarities with everyone focusing on Leetcode interviews, and then one generation of that filtering and then mentoring the next, and repeat.
The companies don't know what that's costing them, until there's a problem that can't be ignored.
In the case of software engineering (poorly studied, relative to aviation) the company will generally never learn whether a non-Leetcode&promo-focused team could've avoided the problems in the first place, nor whether non-Leetcode experience could've handled a problem that happened anyway.
Re: Normalization of Deviance (2015)
#113If you enjoyed this - I highly recommend watching Adam Curtis' Can't Get You Out of My Head: https://thoughtmaybe.com/cant-get-you-out-of-my-head/
Re: Normalization of Deviance (2015)
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is personal information that risks identifying them more than they already had at the time of posting. It took about two seconds to put everything together. I don't have a dog in this fight politically one way or the other, people don't need to identify themselves IRL here.
Who are you to decide what others are comfortable sharing on here. It is quite literally as simple as the person I replied to choosing not reply to my comment. Why is this issue a concern to you? > I don't have a dog in this fight politically one way or the other Neither do I. > people don't need to identify themselves IRL here I don't think they do either. Why are you assuming I "needed" this information?
Can you not? They're right.
Re: Normalization of Deviance (2015)
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to give a different, concrete, perspective (and push a hot button HN issue), I've spent a fair amount of time working on extremely large web applications, and by far the #1 "WTF WTF WTF" thing that new hires say is "what do you mean you aren't using $TODAYS_HOT_JS_FRAMEWORK??" Once you get away from "should we use version control" and into actually difficult software engineering questions, it's not clear how to…
If "what do you mean you aren't using $TODAYS_HOT_JS_FRAMEWORK" is the first question they ask, then you can end their employment right then and there. Hire people whose "wtf" you take seriously.
Both parties would feel like they're dodging a bullet.
People still griping about $TODAYS_HOT_JS_FRAMEWORK are clearly out of touch in 2023. It was funny commentary in 2013. It still rang a little true until around 2016. Now it's just an indicator you are the one not to be taken seriously.
It's React, Vue, or Angular and it's been that way for many years now.
Re: Normalization of Deviance (2015)
#116[deleted]
Re: Normalization of Deviance (2015)
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's often a wise tradeoff between criticizing systems you've just seen after being at the company 5 minutes and actually spending some time at the company to learn the historical context of why the thing you think is insane/shit is insane/shit before telling everyone who built it how insane/shit it is. People generally don't wake up in the morning and go into work motivated to make insane/shit things - context, t…
> There's often a wise tradeoff between criticizing systems you've just seen after being at the company 5 minutes and waiting 6 months to understand the context. I know this is reasonable advice, but it makes me deeply cynical. After 6 months I will have learned to live in the shit (to use your term), and so it still seems like I have nothing to gain by speaking up or trying to fix things. A culture that accepts shit…
This is exactly where I am at right now. I have a million dollar mortgage and interest rates are going up. I'm keeping my head down and perpetuating technical debt until I can hop jobs for a higher salary.
Criticising the status quo is not a winning move for me, especially when it's lead to the company's engineering team tripling in size. If I'm asked, I'll pick some low hanging fruit– remove reliance on legacy/redundant JavaScript libraries such as jQuery, and spent time writing better unit tests. But so far I haven't been asked.
Re: Normalization of Deviance (2015)
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't have a reader view in your browser, just paste this into your global CSS: p { line-height: 1.7; max-width: 60em; font-size: 1.2em; margin-left: 5em; } It pretty much fixes the default readability which is essentially zero on this site otherwise.
Yuck! I hate it when sites monkey around with max-width. I've got a nice 27 inch monitor. I want to use all of it. It's refreshing to see a site that doesn't insist on second-guessing the width that I set my browser window.
So you look like you watch a tennis game when you read text? Funny.
On a more serious note: A maximum length for text makes sense ergonomically, which is why especially big prints like newspapers or magazines work with columns. Columns however haven't really cought on in the web, because they do not combine very well with the whole scrolling thing.
Re: Normalization of Deviance (2015)
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's often a wise tradeoff between criticizing systems you've just seen after being at the company 5 minutes and actually spending some time at the company to learn the historical context of why the thing you think is insane/shit is insane/shit before telling everyone who built it how insane/shit it is. People generally don't wake up in the morning and go into work motivated to make insane/shit things - context, t…
I get what you're saying, but this is exactly how deviances are normalized. When you've been with the company for a long time and are familiar with the history, it's easy to rationalize why things are the way they are and that they can't be improved. You can explain something that's crazy with context and historical pressure. Dan's point is that sometimes the new person's judgement is correct, and there actually is a…
> the new person's judgment is basically always ignored, and that's a mistake
Remember, the new person has something that nobody else on the team can ever learn, no matter how much they study or how long they work. The new person has a fresh perspective.
Re: Normalization of Deviance (2015)
#120Write total shit for code, then look like a 'genius' for 'fixing' bugs, only to have them come back again in the future (further looking like a clown to the rest of the team)