3 ms·
> but you're using an overly-broad brush No, not really. If you notice people working - say, construction - in a particular way, and they're trading safety fo
by _jal 8y ago
> but you're using an overly-broad brush
No, not really.
If you notice people working - say, construction - in a particular way, and they're trading safety for speed, and if you weren't concerned with worker-safety, you might consider that tradeoff their business. If you also found that it led them to build buildings that overlapped other people's properties, you might note that the tradeoffs they choose might also lead to that problem.
Especially if you notice that other construction firms are making the same sorts of tradeoffs and also having the same problems.
I'm not saying that firms who "move fast and break things" are inevitably also unethical, shitty companies. Everyone sacrifices QA depth for release at some point. But there's nothing wrong with pointing out many high-profile companies who trumpet their pride of it are, in fact, unethical, shitty companies.
- greglindahl 8y agoThe wrong thing about combining not-very-related things is that you're wasting your ire and offending ethical people at the same time. Great for starting an argument, not so great for convincing people. BTW, your construction example is terrible. Unsafe construction worksites are illegal, and continuous integration and deployment of software is not.
- _jal 8y agoBut they do appear to be related. You see the same things in the same companies, and the commonalities are consistent with treating consequences of the quest for growth at all costs as acceptable. When you have people racing a (real or perceived) time window, they don't stop pushing when humans are involved rather than software. > your construction example is terrible Takes all kinds. Including people who intentionally read things obtusely.