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

I Knew a Programmer Who Went Completely Insane

startingdotneprogramming.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 336 posts

Re: I Knew a Programmer Who Went Completely Insane

#201

Post by onemorepassword »

> It has been my experience that good producers are more likely to be asked to continue to produce.

It's my experience that good producers prefer to keep producing, maybe with a little more freedom and a bigger paycheck.

Anybody who wants anything else but is incapable of expressing that through actions and words (other than going apeshit) is unlikely to be capable of actually doing whatever else they want to do. Leaders stand up even if their job description is "producing", they don't simmer in a corner and then explode.

Given how this person handled the situation I would say the company was absolutely right.

Re: I Knew a Programmer Who Went Completely Insane

#202

Post by UK-AL »

danielna wrote: post #143

I think part of the problem here is that many devs often don't understand how much power they yield over their own situation. If you're good enough to be depended upon in every panic situation, that means you have more say than you think in the circumstances surrounding your work -- specifically regarding pay, scope creep, working environment, etc. If you don't assert yourself nobody will coddle you, because that's h…

Managers will actively try to stop you gaining power. In most cases authority will play a game of chicken with developers if they know they are considering leaving, rather conceding.

Re: I Knew a Programmer Who Went Completely Insane

#203

Post by UK-AL »

JanezStupar wrote: post #23
corwinstephen wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is going to sound insulting and I don't mean it that way, but does anyone ever wonder about the fact that managers are frequently considerably less intelligent than the people they manage? I think that's what drives the frustration a lot of the time. The thing is, just because they're less intelligent doesn't mean they're not good managers, but it think it certainly makes it a lot harder for programmers, who are…

I guess that you are still a novice. Usually managers did the work of their underlings. However seldomly a competent person gets promoted - as you need someone to do the work. And since the less competent person will be relatively better manager than producer in comparison to the competent person, the less competent guy gets the promotion. I strongly advise everyone to read the Putt's Law, where this phenomena is bro…

"managers did the work of their underlings." - only in very traditional companies that promote on seniority.

Its not uncommon for someone straight out of college, working as an "ideas" man to manage programmers.

Re: I Knew a Programmer Who Went Completely Insane

#205

Post by ttrreeww »

michaelochurch wrote: post #160
pkteison wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The beginning was good, but when you claimed that smart people are certain to not get along with authority you went way out on an unsupported limb. I personally think passion and drive correlate to conflict a lot stronger than intelligence does; plenty of smart people know how to choose their battles and bite their tongues, and the suggestion that if they do they must not be super smart is just outrageous.

Around 130, you start to question and dislike authority, but you can still hold back. At 150, authority comes to you looking for fights (even if you don't do anything to it) because you make it insecure about its inherent illegitimacy and moral emptiness. Actual 150s are pretty rare: about 43 per 100,000 people. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=3.333+sigma

You are totally right...

Re: I Knew a Programmer Who Went Completely Insane

#206

Post by ttrreeww »

DigitalSea wrote: post #2

This is sadly a lot more common than people think. I have a similar story from a prior employer, a system administrator who was often asked to fix problems usually caused by bad managerial decisions of which he always flagged initially as being problematic but nobody listened to him, even after it turned out he was right from the start, he was one of those guys who knew their shit. He was a really nice, quiet and res…

It's the injustice in the system. People just can't handle it anymore. It's only going to get worse as they keep on printing money and give it to the rich as well.

Re: I Knew a Programmer Who Went Completely Insane

#207

Post by infinite8s »

stray wrote: post #130
singular wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I have never had a problem about the volume or difficulty of work in any job I've ever had. In fact, some of my favorite memories of work have been sprints to finish something, whether in software, retail/distribution, or food service." I'm sure if I put you on a 120 hour week for a few months you'd change your opinion about that, even if you were to ship something at the end of it. I don't think it's a good idea no…

120-hour week for a few months? Shipped at the end of it? Is that a real project you worked on? If so, and if it happened a couple years ago in Colorado -- I was one of your coworkers. And I left just a couple weeks after the rest of you guys. That was some crazy shit but in the end we did ship. And on time, even. But I can't even pass that freeway exit any more without feeling a sense of dread.

120-hours for multiple weeks? Is that even possible? Why would anyone without substantial ownership stake even do that?

Re: I Knew a Programmer Who Went Completely Insane

#208

Post by stray »

infinite8s wrote: post #207
stray wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

120-hour week for a few months? Shipped at the end of it? Is that a real project you worked on? If so, and if it happened a couple years ago in Colorado -- I was one of your coworkers. And I left just a couple weeks after the rest of you guys. That was some crazy shit but in the end we did ship. And on time, even. But I can't even pass that freeway exit any more without feeling a sense of dread.

120-hours for multiple weeks? Is that even possible? Why would anyone without substantial ownership stake even do that?

Who said there wasn't substantial skin in the game?

And actually I remember it as 110 hour weeks (though it's possible that I was the slacker of the bunch).

Yeah, we had something like 3 months of working 15 to 18 hours per day, 7 days per week.

Totally possible.

Totally stupid.

Re: I Knew a Programmer Who Went Completely Insane

#209

Post by Surio »

michaelochurch wrote: post #149
edw519 wrote: post #84

Although this is an extreme example, I sympathize and often have feelings like this. But it's not about the amount of work; it's about the constant internal struggle. Let me explain. I have never had a problem about the volume or difficulty of work in any job I've ever had. In fact, some of my favorite memories of work have been sprints to finish something, whether in software, retail/distribution, or food service. I…

You have fought the hydra bravely, and I commend you for that. May the road rise up to meet you. May the wind be always at your back. What do you suppose we do? For the long-term, here's the financial structure for the solution that I see: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais-macle... . Essentially, I think VC-istan and MegaCorps are both dead ends when it comes to genuine technical excellence (whic…

>> First, these companies are designed to become profitable, not to exit, so compensation is profit-sharing, not the joke equity offered by VC-istan

That really, really resonated! Now for a counterpoint. When I read that remark, I recalled reading a recent interview of Groupon's COO and I quote this para:

In 2007, he started Global Scholar to “help teachers give differentiated education to kids using technology. It was a fantastic experience. I raised $50 (INR 2,698.63) million in the toughest economy since the Depression. In 30 months, I gave four times returns to my investors and then sold the company in 2010-11.” On why he did so, he quips, “The moment you start a company, it is for sale… at the right price. You can’t have emotions…” (emphasis mine)

Now tell me, just how exactly are you even going to combat deeply entrenched mindsets like those, which also happen foster the usual confirmation and survivor bias dreams in most, if not all aspiring "wantapreneurs"?

Michael, I really commend your insight into the problem, but "you have an uphill struggle ahead of you" might be the understatement of the year.

EDIT: formatting and word rearrangements and deleted some line that might be misconstrued!

EDIT 2: Sigh. I really wish, that when people downvote something they don't agree with, they take a moment to tell why.

Re: I Knew a Programmer Who Went Completely Insane

#210

Post by npsimons »

derefr wrote: post #20
Zenst wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly it is more common than people even think. Oddly enough it is always the ones that are most productive and I know from personal experience you can clear 200 tickets in a week and somebody doing the same job and paid more gets thru that in a year and you are the one being shafted as you spend your time doing the work instead of office politics.

Perhaps, instead of seeing your job as "what the job description says", you should see it as "whatever actually gets me rewarded." Which is to say, at some companies, playing office politics is your real job. "Work" is just a signal you can emit to show that you are willing to submit enough to not get fired.

Perhaps HR should put what actually gets rewarded in the job listing. That way, both employers and employees can save a lot of time by not interviewing for jobs they aren't interested in. If employers were more honest and listed job requirement such as "kissing ass" and "play office politics like you're a congressperson", then we'd all know what jobs to avoid.
Post reply on HN