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

Be Kind

briangilham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 458 posts

Re: Be Kind

#271

Post by kaikai »

whamlastxmas wrote: post #188
kenrikm wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laughing at someone's code is like laughing at someone's painting or their novel or really any other creative endeavor. It's not ok period.

If someone's work is poor enough that a reasonable person might laugh at it, then there's nothing wrong with that. Hence the phrase "laugh at our mistakes". It doesn't mean you are a bad coder/painter, it just means you made mistakes that were a little funny and can learn from them like anyone else.

There's a difference between laughing at your own mistakes and laughing at someone else's. People who are ridiculed for making mistakes are incentivized to hide their mistakes rather than learning from them.

Re: Be Kind

#272

Post by JoshTriplett »

kefka wrote: post #240
mundo wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of an old VP of mine who came thundering out of his office, absolutely livid, shouting, "What idiot gave me permissions to delete the source backups???"

From a security perspective, there is the least privilege concept. Why does the VP have that kind of access by default? I understand having a separate account if needs are there, of having some sort of priv-escalation. In my new job as network engineer, all the RH boxes have SElinux off. I don't get it, nor can anyone give a cogent answer. And up 4 floors, we have a selinux kernel Dev. I'd greatly like to even limit…

> Why does the VP have that kind of access by default?

Two common reasons. First, because the VP or someone in a similar position resented not having such access; it's sometimes hard for people to accept that people who work "for" them hierarchically have permissions they don't. And second, because either they or the person who previously held their position had a legitimate reason for such access in the past, and didn't drop it when they no longer had such a reason.

But yes, even if they have a legitimate reason for such access, they shouldn't have that permission all the time, only when they intentionally don that hat.

Re: Be Kind

#273

Post by badminton1 »

I have seen people that react positively to feedback.

But some people take things very personally, even if you try to be very polite and respectful.

Sometimes people, especially people with narcissist traits or people obsessed with rank, will not accept any feedback coming from a someone from a "lower rank".

Re: Be Kind

#274

Post by isuraed »

This reminds of important lessons I've learned from the classic How to Win Friends and Influence People - never ever criticize people and you will get the best out of them. There are countless other great lessons in this book about being a leader and dealing with people.

Re: Be Kind

#275

Post by jacalata »

MrMullen wrote: post #248
justin_oaks wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firing for laughing? Did you forget the point of the article? Be kind. Don't hand out harsh punishments for mistakes. Teach instead. (Only fire if the person is immune to teaching.)

Let me relay a story about people who laugh at and mock other people's work. My wife used to work as a copy editor at a major newspaper and worked with one of those "laugh at and make rude comments about other people's work" kind of people. The copy editing checks had to be checked by another copy editor before it was allowed to be forwarded to the layout team for placement in the news paper. How the story checkin an…

hmm, seems a bit harsh. For instance if your guy had done that once and been taken to the side and told "stop, shut up, never do that again, next time you're fired" then (a) the work environment would have improved much faster and (b) he might have never done it again. Firing instantly for one harsh comment/action seems like foolishness, just like keeping a known problem person around forever (as in your story) seems like foolishness.

Re: Be Kind

#276

Post by hughes »

patio11 wrote: post #261
endymi0n wrote: post #25

When he returned to the air field, Bob Hoover walked over to the man who had nearly caused his death and, according to the California Fullerton News-Tribune, said: “There isn’t a man alive who hasn’t made a mistake. But I’m positive you’ll never make this mistake again. That’s why I want to make sure that you’re the only one to refuel my plane tomorrow. I won’t let anyone else on the field touch it.”

There is a perhaps apocryphal story about the time when Mizuho Securities lost ~$225 million by attempting to sell 610k shares at 1 yen instead of 1 share at 610k yen. When asked whether he intended to fire the person who physically keyed in the order, the relevant department head stated that he did not intend to waste the firm's substantial investment in teaching them to act with due deliberation.

I wish that story ended with the developer of the trading software learning a lesson about user interfaces

Re: Be Kind

#277

Post by danielweber »

niij wrote: post #164
tomjen3 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I should just leave a security vulnerability rather than fix it on a Friday, because I won't be available Saturday?

Read to comprehend, not to argue.

Great, now what am I going to do with my life?

Re: Be Kind

#278

Post by Cymen »

southphillyman wrote: post #39
crush_xc wrote: post #17

This was literally the biggest issue for when I started at my first job. We had a team member who was terribly condescending and talked down to everyone but especially me. You could tell that he hated the fact that he was on a team with a junior developer and took every chance he had to made sure I knew I wasn't as good as him. It makes a terrifying environment to ask questions because who knows what kind of response…

Maybe I have just had bad experiences but a lot of developers do this thing where they answer a question with a snarky question. Sometimes it's annoying to be asked basic questions but behaving in a condescending way lends to people not asking questions at all and not communicating issues. It doesn't matter if the person is Jr. or Sr. I've seen good capable Sr. developers miss stories because they would rather be sil…

I think it comes down to trust. In a lot of teams where the trust is poor, one can't ask a question without your competency coming into question in a subtle way: many developers will latch onto it and try to exhibit their business-specific or technical knowledge in a form of one-upmanship. So they have turned it into a competition instead of a conversation.

A good way to detect these environments is when you observe those who have been there longer not asking obvious questions. That usually means the trust issue is there. When you start asking those obvious questions, at first you get that feedback loop of slight condescension. But then others start asking questions and you often get a fruitful conversation.

Having worked outside of the startup world and in the startup world, I think this is a little more prevalent in the startup world because there is another axis besides experience involved in these conversations: how long the person has been with the startup. It's common to have an official or unofficial hierarchy based on experience but in the startup world, there is another hierarchy based on how long you have been at the startup. That additional axis means it comes up a little more in the startup world (in my experience so far).

Re: Be Kind

#279

Post by [deleted] »

endymi0n wrote: post #25

When he returned to the air field, Bob Hoover walked over to the man who had nearly caused his death and, according to the California Fullerton News-Tribune, said: “There isn’t a man alive who hasn’t made a mistake. But I’m positive you’ll never make this mistake again. That’s why I want to make sure that you’re the only one to refuel my plane tomorrow. I won’t let anyone else on the field touch it.”

[deleted]

Re: Be Kind

#280

Post by Arjuna »

endymi0n wrote: post #25

When he returned to the air field, Bob Hoover walked over to the man who had nearly caused his death and, according to the California Fullerton News-Tribune, said: “There isn’t a man alive who hasn’t made a mistake. But I’m positive you’ll never make this mistake again. That’s why I want to make sure that you’re the only one to refuel my plane tomorrow. I won’t let anyone else on the field touch it.”

I was not familiar with this story; that prompted me to research it. I found it interesting that this aviation incident had a positive outcome, in the form of safety innovations: the Hoover Nozzle and the Hoover Ring. Wikipedia states:

"A perhaps-undesired recognition is the Hoover Nozzle used on jet fuel pumps. The Hoover Nozzle is designed with a flattened bell shape. The Hoover Nozzle cannot be inserted in the filler neck of a plane with the Hoover Ring installed, thus preventing the tank from accidentally being filled with jet fuel.

This system was given this name following an accident in which Hoover was seriously injured, when both engines on his Shrike Commander failed during takeoff. Investigators found that the plane had just been fueled by line personnel who mistook the piston-engine Shrike for a similar turboprop model, filling the tanks with jet fuel instead of avgas (aviation gasoline). There was enough avgas in the fuel system to taxi to the runway and take off, but then the jet fuel was drawn into the engines, causing them to stop.

Once Hoover recovered, he widely promoted the use of the new type of nozzle with the support and funding of the National Air Transportation Association, General Aviation Manufacturers Association and various other aviation groups (the nozzle is now required by Federal regulation on jet fuel pumps)." [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Hoover#Hoover_Nozzle_and_H...

Post reply on HN