4 ms·
The article you just read told you that the teams working on critical software have to be cheap, not good. That's not "just rabble-rousing." That's a scandal.
by atpalmer 7y ago
The article you just read told you that the teams working on critical software have to be cheap, not good. That's not "just rabble-rousing." That's a scandal.
As you say, you're commenting without having any experience with the issue, but, as you can imagine, there's very little overlap between cheap and good.
- la_barba 7y agoActually, the article just broadly mentioned that they worked on some aspect of the software. There is no evidence (in the article) that they were working on critical software, and it was their piece of software that caused the current problem. You can't blame the notepad team because the windows kernel crashed. In any case, even if we accept your premise, my point was that assigning blame to the person you hired rather than your process of hiring that let a large team of unqualified people work on your critical software is odd. (Not saying you personally are blaming them, but that was my general point) >but, as you can imagine, there's very little overlap between cheap and good. Why? Even outside of software, for e.g. my wife is a post doctoral scientist and she gets paid a pittance for working 9 sometimes 10 hour days doing critical research. Somebodys wage being associated with the quality of their output only happens in a small cross-section of industries. I work in pharma and while I'm happy with my compensation, its a fraction of SV startup salaries. I know.. this might come across as super salty, but I don't think their wage is in anyway co-related with the quality of their output.