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

My Colleague Julius

ploum.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 136 posts

Re: My Colleague Julius

#91

Post by carlosjobim »

prmoustache wrote: post #74
carlosjobim wrote: post #34

This is not a comment about the main story in the article, but about a paragraph at the end: "My boss came to see me. He told me that the team’s productivity was dangerously declining. That we should use artificial intelligence more effectively. That we risked being overtaken by competitors who, without a doubt, were using the very latest artificial intelligence." This is the oldest scam in the book. A boss will neve…

> But the author and his team seem to be willing victims of scammers and exploiters, so what else is to be expected? This is just a fictional story meant to be an allegory about AI. I don't understand why people takes it so literally in the comments.

That's not how I read it. The comparison to AI comes at the end, written out literally.

Re: My Colleague Julius

#92

Post by georgeecollins »

There are two games in a career, a game of expertise and a game of status. Most people on this forum play the authority game, its in the name. But typically groups of humans only listen to an expert when the expert's ideas are propounded by a high status individual. And by status I don't mean class (in this group I assume I don't have to explain expertise) I mean presentation, appearance, biography, provenance.. Both things really matter with humans.

Re: My Colleague Julius

#93

Post by ChilledTonic »

I have to say I became a lot happier in this field once I aligned myself more with Julius.

I think what happens to developers and engineers is that since we have the ability to attune our toolsets very specifically to our needs, we assume everyone can do the same.

This is untrue. Most people live a life of hodge-podge technical solutions that don’t work very well, meaning their expectations for how software should work is supremely low.

Once I understood this I became Julius. Management does not care how or why the software does or doesn’t work - they just want 12 rules for life style platitudes and charisma.

The part about sending Julius to meetings while everyone else worked to fix things particularly stood out. The meetings are useless, but that’s where everyone glad hands. Gladhanders get raises.

The difference is that I like to think I’m still pretty good and doing my job. I’m just acknowledging that pure l33t skills does not a career ladder make. If anything it could even be a hindrance.

Perhaps this is a cynical response.

Re: My Colleague Julius

#94

Post by MathMonkeyMan »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #71
fakedang wrote: post #69

TIL I'm Julius lol.

Are you sure? I'm always assuming that the Julius's aren't self aware, they don't know that they are like that. If they know, then they aren't Julius, it would be impossible to act this way if you were aware of it, without being a psychopath. Maybe that should be the discussion. Is Julius a psychopath, and that is what bubbles to the top of corporate hierarchies.

I think that on some level, Julius knows. He's just very good at avoiding it.

Re: My Colleague Julius

#95

Post by roenxi »

photonthug wrote: post #84
intelVISA wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pete's just a rational actor in this scenario, the real issue is management with no insight into the reality of what they're 'managing'.

Mostly agree, although Pete is kind of a jerk if he’s self aware enough to notice exactly what he’s doing to repeatedly and intentionally exploit this pattern of ignorance in management anyway. But engineers blaming engineers that benefit from being a rational actor inside the mainstream incentive structure of corporate life is basically a distraction, because it gives management a pass for their mismanagement. Like,…

What choice does Pete have? There is a certain romance in defying management but that sort of move is ... career limiting in multiple ways. Management are not there to be defied.

Persuasion and honesty are great tactics with good managers. With bad managers they tend not to work. Bad managers will demand bad software and only be happy when they find someone to deliver it.

Re: My Colleague Julius

#96

Post by dredmorbius »

I'd worked briefly with a "Julius".

Unpleasant assignment at a decidedly unethical firm, and frankly often-dodgy industry, my own stay was brief.

Technical masters from a top-tier university, had all the toys, flashy wheels, etc.

But stymied by the most elementary coding tasks.

"Julius" turned up in headlines a few years later charged (and subsequently convicted, sentenced, and incarcerated) for insider trading / securities fraud.

I can find links for the legal case, very little if anything online since.

Re: My Colleague Julius

#97

Post by epicureanideal »

ChilledTonic wrote: post #93

I have to say I became a lot happier in this field once I aligned myself more with Julius. I think what happens to developers and engineers is that since we have the ability to attune our toolsets very specifically to our needs, we assume everyone can do the same. This is untrue. Most people live a life of hodge-podge technical solutions that don’t work very well, meaning their expectations for how software should wo…

> Management does not care how or why the software does or doesn’t work - they just want 12 rules for life style platitudes and charisma.

Which clearly shows that something is wrong in the industry, or how management roles are filled, or how wealth and influence and opportunities are distributed generally.

Re: My Colleague Julius

#98

Post by epicureanideal »

Earw0rm wrote: post #85
asimpletune wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counter agreement often made is that if there was a better alternative to this then, like a company run by people who understand the fundamentals of what they actually make, then they would outcompete all these lazy bones, self-serving business people. My observation however has been that in fact many such companies have come, they have indeed dominated their competitors, only to later become infiltrated by the s…

There are two possible outcomes: - The Julii infiltrate and take over, - A company run by Julii from the outset comes to dominate the market. This is because "what we actually make" is a specialist skill, whereas business, sales, operations, financial planning and governance, HR, culture, legal are broadly generalist; and the bigger you get, the greater the important all that stuff becomes, relatively, to core execut…

I would argue it’s because the whole economy is basically an oligopoly and there aren’t really enough opportunities for competition. Once a company reaches a certain level, it focuses on pulling up the ladder rather than climbing the ladder.

Re: My Colleague Julius

#99

Post by dredmorbius »

buggy6257 wrote: post #16

If this is going to enter our lexicon as a short-name for this type of person, I'll point out that since "Julius" is originally latin derived, the pluralization should follow that of most/all latin nouns, and thus be "Julii".

As we're a tech site, the plural is clearly Juliuxen.

Re: My Colleague Julius

#100

Post by __turbobrew__ »

angarg12 wrote: post #4

I've met a breed of career min-maxers adjacent to Julius that I have a hard time describing. Picture this: you join a new team with a senior engineer, call him Pete. Pete wrote the initial version of a new product, and you joined the team to take over and continue it's development. Pete is bona fide genius who can work miracles and he is always in the critical path of each new initiative, you are told. Once you open…

Im kindof a Pete.

It is a ying-yang kind of situation where you need people to do the greenfield stuff and just get something working and you also need people who balance that through documentation, rollout, and day 2 operations.

I am in a feedback loop of if what I built sucks I will get paged and woken up in the night, but that only includes operational health and not necessarily “good” architecture and documentation.

I will say that 9/10 times when I cut corners or do something which is hacky it is really only an aesthetics thing and does not affect metrics which matter. The best thing you can do is make things simple and hacky, it leads to quick MVP and is easy to refactor. Complex and hacky is where you get into all sorts of problems.

Post reply on HN