5 ms·

"But the best way to have a future is to be part of a team that values progress over politics, ideas over territory and initiative over decorum." Recently had

"But the best way to have a future is to be part of a team that values progress over politics, ideas over territory and initiative over decorum." Recently had to quit my job because of exactly this. People will sabotage things simply because they want the useful idea to be theirs.

pmikesell 8y ago
In my experience, the probability of this happening increases proportionally with the size of the company.
- porphyrogene 8y ago
  Wouldn't that mean that the probability is always 100% because the company is always 100% of its current proportion?
  - m12k 8y ago
    No, "proportional" just means the two things correspond in size, not that the sizes are equal. In other words there is a positive correlation between the values.
    - porphyrogene 8y ago
      According to the Wikipedia page for proportionality[1], the values "can also be viewed as a two-variable linear equation with a y-intercept of 0". Direct (as opposed to inverse) proportionality is a type of positive correlation but they are not the same thing. Because we are dealing with probability percentage as a proportion of the company's size either the size is greater than zero and the probability is 100% or both values are zero. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics)
      - EpicDavi 8y ago
        These are the absolutely useless arguments I come to Hacker News for.
        narag 8y ago
        Did you read TFA? Stay the hell out of other people's arguments ;)
        moneytide1 8y ago
        Saying many words without really saying anything.
      - reificator 8y ago
        > can also be viewed Then I think it's safe to say that that's not the view being used in this discussion.
  - moneytide1 8y ago
    I don't think "100%" and "probability" can exist in the same sentence (speaking in binary but also saying 0.999) I think the parent was inferring that there was a chance progress could be reversed at his/her past companies because of the office politics/territory/decorum mentioned in the original article. Raw efficiency averted by someone's need for the spotlight.
  - nimonian 8y ago
    So, I think you're confusing 'probability' with 'cardinality of the set of successful outcomes' (let's call that k). If k is proportional to the size of the company (n, say), then you are absolutely right that k/n (i.e. the probability) will not change as n changes. But the statement actually says that the _probability_ is proportional to n, not k. So no, the probability is not constant. The idea of the probability being directly proportional to n is not technically correct for other reasons (with large enough n, this would allow for probabilities larger than 1), but not for the reasons you're mentioning here. Perhaps more importantly, the meaning of the comment is independent from this pedantry and should be interpreted less literally so we can focus on its actual meaning.
- twblalock 8y ago
  I've seen it happen more often at a startup than at the giant company I now work for. There are some people who will act like that no matter the circumstances.
darioush 8y ago
Building something that works in a short period of time when a team has failed to do that over several quarters demonstrates little more than the fact that your organization has hired people less competent and productive than you. Unless you want to work where you're the least competent person, this isn't necessarily bad. Hiring highly competent people to build software does not scale as well as hiring (many) more less competent people. It is simply cheaper after the company grows to a certain size. Process is more repeatable and predictable when programmers are more or less interchangeable mercenary byte plumbers who care about their own career growth compared to when everyone is deeply passionate about quality and competent about technical excellence.
- zozbot123 8y ago
  > Hiring highly competent people to build software does not scale as well as hiring (many) more less competent people. This becomes less and less true as the size and complexity of the relevant software projects grows over time. If highly competent developers have anything going for them, it's their skill both in successfully coping with software complexity, and in preventing undue complexity/keeping it under check in the first place. See also The Mythical Man-Month, etc. etc.
- DavidWoof 8y ago
  > Hiring highly competent people to build software does not scale as well as hiring (many) more less competent people. I can't imagine an aphorism I disagree more with. I constantly come across companies with similar-sized platforms where one has a development staff 10 times the size of the other (both in cost and size), all due to the complexity and quality of the code. In the long run, few things are more expensive than a mediocre programmer.
  - ramraj07 8y ago
    You're absolutely right, but what he said is also true: the act of hiring by itself becomes fairly unscalable unless you're lucky and get a constant stream of good candidates (which again won't work in your favor if your company isn't primarily known for its engineering).
squarefoot 8y ago
"People will sabotage things simply because they want the useful idea to be theirs." Not just that, they will sabotage things if it makes them more profitable, which probably happens in thousands companies worldwide everyday. 1. Get a contract. 2. Sell some crappy software to the customer. 3. Wait for them to ask for more speed. 4. Complain it's their fault because their hardware is too old. 5. Offer to either install new hardware or rewrite the software. 6. Profit! Guess what happens if someone makes the software perform optimally at step 2.
- moneytide1 8y ago
  It requires an inefficient mind to plan obsolescence.
- rocky1138 8y ago
  The way capitalism is supposed to work is you quit this job and open a shop which does the same thing as the existing company but doesn't artificially reduce speed, using that as a competitive advantage. The end result is that the first company is required to either adopt your strategy or fail, either solution leading the consumer to a better result.
  - XorNot 8y ago
    Which is why the no-compete was invented...
    - rocky1138 8y ago
      I've read that those may be illegal or unenforceable according to the law. Check your jurisdiction.
  - Viliam1234 8y ago
    > quit this job and open a shop which does the same thing as the existing company but doesn't artificially reduce speed That would require rewriting the whole application (without the artificial speed reduction part), which may be a lot of work.

pmikesell 8y ago

In my experience, the probability of this happening increases proportionally with the size of the company.

porphyrogene 8y ago
Wouldn't that mean that the probability is always 100% because the company is always 100% of its current proportion?
- m12k 8y ago
  No, "proportional" just means the two things correspond in size, not that the sizes are equal. In other words there is a positive correlation between the values.
  - porphyrogene 8y ago
    According to the Wikipedia page for proportionality[1], the values "can also be viewed as a two-variable linear equation with a y-intercept of 0". Direct (as opposed to inverse) proportionality is a type of positive correlation but they are not the same thing. Because we are dealing with probability percentage as a proportion of the company's size either the size is greater than zero and the probability is 100% or both values are zero. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics)
    - EpicDavi 8y ago
      These are the absolutely useless arguments I come to Hacker News for.
      - narag 8y ago
        Did you read TFA? Stay the hell out of other people's arguments ;)
      - moneytide1 8y ago
        Saying many words without really saying anything.
    - reificator 8y ago
      > can also be viewed Then I think it's safe to say that that's not the view being used in this discussion.
- moneytide1 8y ago
  I don't think "100%" and "probability" can exist in the same sentence (speaking in binary but also saying 0.999) I think the parent was inferring that there was a chance progress could be reversed at his/her past companies because of the office politics/territory/decorum mentioned in the original article. Raw efficiency averted by someone's need for the spotlight.
- nimonian 8y ago
  So, I think you're confusing 'probability' with 'cardinality of the set of successful outcomes' (let's call that k). If k is proportional to the size of the company (n, say), then you are absolutely right that k/n (i.e. the probability) will not change as n changes. But the statement actually says that the _probability_ is proportional to n, not k. So no, the probability is not constant. The idea of the probability being directly proportional to n is not technically correct for other reasons (with large enough n, this would allow for probabilities larger than 1), but not for the reasons you're mentioning here. Perhaps more importantly, the meaning of the comment is independent from this pedantry and should be interpreted less literally so we can focus on its actual meaning.
twblalock 8y ago
I've seen it happen more often at a startup than at the giant company I now work for. There are some people who will act like that no matter the circumstances.

darioush 8y ago

Building something that works in a short period of time when a team has failed to do that over several quarters demonstrates little more than the fact that your organization has hired people less competent and productive than you. Unless you want to work where you're the least competent person, this isn't necessarily bad. Hiring highly competent people to build software does not scale as well as hiring (many) more less competent people. It is simply cheaper after the company grows to a certain size. Process is more repeatable and predictable when programmers are more or less interchangeable mercenary byte plumbers who care about their own career growth compared to when everyone is deeply passionate about quality and competent about technical excellence.

zozbot123 8y ago
> Hiring highly competent people to build software does not scale as well as hiring (many) more less competent people. This becomes less and less true as the size and complexity of the relevant software projects grows over time. If highly competent developers have anything going for them, it's their skill both in successfully coping with software complexity, and in preventing undue complexity/keeping it under check in the first place. See also The Mythical Man-Month, etc. etc.
DavidWoof 8y ago
> Hiring highly competent people to build software does not scale as well as hiring (many) more less competent people. I can't imagine an aphorism I disagree more with. I constantly come across companies with similar-sized platforms where one has a development staff 10 times the size of the other (both in cost and size), all due to the complexity and quality of the code. In the long run, few things are more expensive than a mediocre programmer.
- ramraj07 8y ago
  You're absolutely right, but what he said is also true: the act of hiring by itself becomes fairly unscalable unless you're lucky and get a constant stream of good candidates (which again won't work in your favor if your company isn't primarily known for its engineering).

squarefoot 8y ago

"People will sabotage things simply because they want the useful idea to be theirs." Not just that, they will sabotage things if it makes them more profitable, which probably happens in thousands companies worldwide everyday. 1. Get a contract. 2. Sell some crappy software to the customer. 3. Wait for them to ask for more speed. 4. Complain it's their fault because their hardware is too old. 5. Offer to either install new hardware or rewrite the software. 6. Profit! Guess what happens if someone makes the software perform optimally at step 2.

moneytide1 8y ago
It requires an inefficient mind to plan obsolescence.
rocky1138 8y ago
The way capitalism is supposed to work is you quit this job and open a shop which does the same thing as the existing company but doesn't artificially reduce speed, using that as a competitive advantage. The end result is that the first company is required to either adopt your strategy or fail, either solution leading the consumer to a better result.
- XorNot 8y ago
  Which is why the no-compete was invented...
  - rocky1138 8y ago
    I've read that those may be illegal or unenforceable according to the law. Check your jurisdiction.
- Viliam1234 8y ago
  > quit this job and open a shop which does the same thing as the existing company but doesn't artificially reduce speed That would require rewriting the whole application (without the artificial speed reduction part), which may be a lot of work.