Live data from Hacker News

Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

news.cornell.edu

131–140 of 354 posts

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#131
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A decent chunk of OOP patterns was due to lack of language features, notably passing and returning functions

Are you referring to function pointers? I believe C has allowed passing and returning functions from... the jump, no?

You can return function pointers but not first class functions, which means you can’t do closures and other FP things in C

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#133

If anyone wants a chuckle, I vibe-coded an endless supply of "synergizing paradigm" terms as a slideshow for a fake corporation. It's fun to put on in the background on a tv somewhere to see if anyone notices. https://brightpath-global-solutions.com/ Edit: repo link: https://github.com/chronick/global-business-solutions

Some of those pictures are delightfully cursed

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#134

If anyone wants a chuckle, I vibe-coded an endless supply of "synergizing paradigm" terms as a slideshow for a fake corporation. It's fun to put on in the background on a tv somewhere to see if anyone notices. https://brightpath-global-solutions.com/ Edit: repo link: https://github.com/chronick/global-business-solutions

A delightful update to https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RXJKdh1KZ0w

Ah, “the only difference being…”

That’s always the line you’re listening for. Everything before that is bullshit, everything after is trying to justify the new product for that one change.

In favor of preferable outcomes of operational excellence as part of our customer success. Barf.

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#135
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a historical example or does anyone have an anecdote of some crunch time where the CEO blowing hot air was the best thing for morale? Compared to what I might think a lot of us would prefer in many cases, which might be an honest assessment & making us part of the journey to overcome whatever adversity.

"an honest assessment & making us part of the journey to overcome whatever adversity" I suspect that most people just aren't wired up that way - we have a natural tendency to want to follow leaders and what we seem to want most from leaders is certainty and confidence. Does it matter what leaders are certain and confident about - not really.

It is hard to argue with a vague statement like "most people" without a proper scientific study. But I disagree: following the scientific principle, and being willing to change opinion in the face of new evidence increases my trust in someone. Someone who is certain and confident without showing their work / sources make me suspicious. And critical thinking is (pardon the pun) a critical skill.

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just function pointers. E.g. in Scala: def addX(x: Int): Function[Int,Int] = { y => x+y } addX(5) then returns a function that adds 5. So closures, which are equivalent to objects (behind the scenes, the compiler needs to allocate a structure to remember that 5 and know the "member function" to call to do the plus), and usually more straightforward. Once you get used to doing this, you realize it's useful everywh…

Pardon my ignorance, isn't that a lambda in c++?

Yes, and in Java and other languages (e.g. in Lean you can literally use the syntax λ x ↦ x + 5). When OOP was more of the zeitgeist, these languages didn't have lambda functions.

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#137

There does exist some purpose for corp-speak: it is a shared language for people in disparate parts of a large organization to communicate with. It is a tool, mostly for managers. Managers use it with peers because their job is coordination and communication. Managers shouldn’t talk to their reports in corp-speak, but think of it like a shared protocol for all messages in the corporate message bus.

You may be right but often I feel it’s a tool to sound confident while at the same time having no idea what they are doing.

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>a sieve to keep the hordes of fools at bay Corporate speak as a signalling mechanism is only effective among the "clueless" in the Gervais model. If any CEO tried to talk 1:1 to a competent board member that way, they would lose all credibility. Once you've operated at a certain level you get it >a system for turning bullshit into parse errors. This is the (cynical version of) the framing I tend to hold about corpor…

The Gervais model is predicated on sociopathy as the driving force of social cohesion. This is the kind of model a sociopath would construct. There are other models available to us. Social organizations require some sort of glue to bind them together. They need ways to maintain cohesion despite vagueness and to obscure (small) errors. There is a cap put upon max individual output, but aggregate output is much higher…

Hate to ask, but since it came up again and a quick search couldn’t find it - what’s that Gervais model? Links / explanations welcome!

Edit: seems that searching for „Gervais principle“ turned up what was talked about…

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#140

If anyone wants a chuckle, I vibe-coded an endless supply of "synergizing paradigm" terms as a slideshow for a fake corporation. It's fun to put on in the background on a tv somewhere to see if anyone notices. https://brightpath-global-solutions.com/ Edit: repo link: https://github.com/chronick/global-business-solutions

This is awesome. Almost all of these are believable even if you're looking at pretty carefully. I need this on a firestick or something.
Post reply on HN