7 ms·
It certainly does nothing of the sort. There should absolutely be some kind of consequence associated with this kind of flaming dumpster fire making it's way in
by knieveltech 9y ago
It certainly does nothing of the sort. There should absolutely be some kind of consequence associated with this kind of flaming dumpster fire making it's way into a production environment.
- castis 9y agoWell then the entire world should rejoice that people like yourself and OP are not in control of other peoples livelihood.
- emh68 9y agoWhat about all the people who have lost their jobs after a company goes under due to horrible product teams? If someone isn’t pulling their weight, you have to boot them for the greater good.
- castis 9y agoThose people and that scenario have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. An unrelated end user of a product should have no power over a persons work status just because they don't like the product. > the greater good subjectivity at its finest
- emh68 9y agoOh I see, yeah I agree. “Person responsible for X should be fired” is something I see all the time, but it never occurred to me that it might be a serious request.
- toss1 9y agoReally? This is not only a worse-than-useless, waste-of-user-time feature on its own, but it actively interrupts the user to get their attention! So, this PM decided to put into a production environment a feature that interrupts a customer's workflow for no good benefit. It doesn't even benefit Microsoft, so he's not even being a bandit. This is the very definition of stupid. Hurt the other guy, hurt yourself, for no benefit to either [1]. So, why would or should any employer continue to pay a person who performs such an obviously stupid action in a production environment to continue in the same position? We may have a right to jobs if we continue to produce output that benefits the customers and employer, not simply because we continue to exist. Start harming your customers and/or employers, and why should you continue to receive their resources? [1] http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/serendipia/Stupidity.html http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/serendipia/Stupidity.html
- castis 9y agoThe question was not whether or not an employer should continue to pay a person. The question was whether or not some angry internet person should be responsible for the livelihood of a developer of a product they are having difficulty with.
- toss1 9y agoOh, so it'd be ok if the "angry internet person" hust happened to be the PM's boss, noticed this abomination & fired them? Indeed, if more "angry internet people" (with good clear points like this one) actually provoked performance reviews, we might have better software. Quit the sophistry. The guy had a real point and you're merely trying to make distracting noise.
- castis 9y agoYour skewed view of my words led you to a strange end point. Ill quit the sophistry when you stick to arguments that make sense.
- knieveltech 9y agoIt's telling to see how casually the notion of personal accountability in the workplace is discarded. For the record, OP getting his wish still leaves the individuals responsible in control of their own livelihood, they just chose poorly.