5 ms·

This seems like an argument for buying SDEs needed software. It doesn't seem like an argument against the idea that you can work somewhere where they refuse to

This seems like an argument for buying SDEs needed software. It doesn't seem like an argument against the idea that you can work somewhere where they refuse to buy things like this, and still have it be a good job. If your job pays well, work is interesting, good commute, good benefits, good manager, good coworkers, important mission, or a net positive combination of these things, that seems way more important than whether or not they'll buy you arbitrary software.

xpe 6y ago
> This seems like an argument for buying SDEs needed software. It depends on what the company values. This is what I meant when I wrote: "What does a company truly value? Are they mindful and realistic about their costs and benefits?" > ALittleLight: It doesn't seem like an argument against the idea that you can work somewhere where they refuse to buy things like this, and still have it be a good job. Correct, I made no such argument. You are free to make that value judgment. It depends where you sit. Maybe you want to dig into ways an organization can improve? If so, that gets into questions about organizational values as well as costs and benefits of various options. > ALittleLight: If your job pays well, work is interesting, good commute, good benefits, good manager, good coworkers, important mission, or a net positive combination of these things, that seems way more important than whether or not they'll buy you arbitrary software. Again, feel free to make such a value judgement. However, I would not use the word 'arbitrary' here, since in employment situations, there will be some understanding around expenses, often set out in policies and conversations. Even in organizations that are more flexible with expenses, employees are expected to use good judgment for business expenses.
xpe 6y ago
I'm curious: were you expecting that my comment offer "an argument against the idea that you can work somewhere where they refuse to buy things like this, and still have it be a good job."? If so, why?
- Chris2048 6y ago
  Because it seems like you are talking to a dev, not a manager. Assume the dev is already onboard with the idea of being compensated; the original comment was "I'd be more concerned if you had a hard time getting reimbursed" i.e from the POV of the employee.
  - xpe 6y ago
    I was asking ALittleLight. Chris2048: are you the same person?
  - xpe 6y ago
    I don’t understand. Is it fair to say you (Chris2048) have some expectation around how the thread evolved based on your assumptions of what is relevant? I see the best conversations here as trying to understand each other.
    - Chris2048 6y ago
      I don't understand what you are asking. I am not the same person, but I'm not sure that matters unless you know of OP specifically, you are asking: "how was my intention interpreted as X". Im telling you the context of the thread implied it, otherwise your comments arent relevant to the POV of a dev.
      - xpe 6y ago
        Yes, I saw you aren't using the same account name. That's why I asked. At the risk of saying something we already know, HN discussion isn't limited to one person's definition of what a "hacker" or "developer" is: > On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find > interesting. That includes more than hacking and > startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, > the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's > intellectual curiosity. I think it is easy to forget, so I just want to write this here... People here may work on building technology (hardware, software, biotech), running companies, leading teams, thinking about problems to solve, how to be effective, how to deal with stress and mental issues, and lots more. So, talking about organizational culture is on-topic. You may prefer to discuss something from the point of view of a software developer. You may have desire to keep threads organized and on-topic. Personally, I think your assessment of the "context of the thread" is both overly narrow and off target. But my goal is not to convince you my interpretation is correct... ...My goal is to show that your interpretation of the context of the thread is subjective. Again, subjective is fine; we don't need to agree. I want to emphasize that reasonable people can see it differently from you. I hope that you (and everyone on HN) can recognize this and think it through before they say a comment is "irrelevant". So, forgive me for asking, but I can't help but wonder how you approached this thread. With curiosity? With a goal of understanding? With some other driving factors? I would like to highlight a few important points from the HN guidelines that think we can all learn from (myself included) ... > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of > other people's work. A good critical comment teaches > us something. > Please respond to the strongest plausible > interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one > that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; > don't cross-examine. Comments should get more > thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets > more divisive. On a personal note, I put considerable thought into my comment -- phrasing it with open-ended questions where I implied some arguments in play. I offered food for thought. I was hoping for substantive responses, not claims that the comment was off topic. In addition, I found some of the resulting comments to be unconstructive. I think we owe it to each other to help each other and make the most of our precious time here on the planet. One motivation for reading this comment, frankly, is a plea for people to re-examine their communication tendencies and the resulting effects on (a) your ability to learn (e.g. a growth mindset); (b) this community; (c) all communities.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  The thread, as I understand it, goes something like: 1. The company should buy you this. 2. They may not. 3. If they didn't, that would be a concern. 4. Why? 5. Argument that the company should buy extra software. Point 5 is off topic. There might be a good job that wouldn't buy you extra software and that wouldn't really be a concern. It's like if someone said "Your job is bad if they don't offer free lunch". I might say "My job doesn't offer it, but it's not a concern because I like my job for other reasons" and your reply would be advocating for the benefits of free lunch. Free lunch might be great, but the topic is whether it's a concern that the company doesn't offer it, not whether it's great or not.
  - xpe 6y ago
    Ah, this appears to be the core of it: according to your interpretation of the thread, my comments are off-topic. After re-reading the thread, it is clear that your 'understanding' (as written above) of the thread is inaccurate. I'll annotate the first five comments in the thread, with your 'understandings' and my responses: Original post: > allenleein: "Early user here. Obsidian is literally the best > app in 2020 so far IMO. -Blazingly fast -Clean UI -Free -Sync > [...] -Great community" Your 'understanding': > 1. The company should buy you this. Your understanding is inaccurate: allenleein does not say a company should buy Obsidian. Follow-up comment: > usr1106: "[it is] Not really [free]. The license says you are > not allowed to take notes about work you get compensated for. > So free only for 100% hobby projects. > > Working in a start-up I don't have big 100% hobby projects > that would require a lot of note keeping. YMMV Your 'understanding': > 2. They may not [buy you this] Your understanding is inaccurate: usr1106 says nothing about what an organization should or should not buy. A better summary would be: usr1106 disagrees about what 'free' means, explains the license, and does have hobby projects that would qualify as free. > codezero: I'd be more concerned if you had a hard time getting > reimbursed for this kind of software at your job. Your 'understanding': > 3. If they didn't, that would be a concern. Fair enough. Follow-up comment: > libria: "What's the concern for? A lot of great jobs still > have penny-pinching managers. I've worked somewhere notoriously > Frugal that was good and paid well but had no problem denying > requests like this."" Your 'understanding': > Why? Your understanding is incomplete. In addition to asking why, libria also offers a framing and makes a value judgment about what constitutes a good job. Some of your other comments in this thread refer to this framing and value judgment. That's fine, but other comments are in no way obligated to agree or buy-in to that framing. Follow-up comment: > xpe: I'll respond with a connected set of questions... > > Is it worth the time to deny a (well intentioned) $150 request > made by a software developer who costs a company (for example) > $150K total (salary, benefits, and fixed costs)? $150 is 0.1% > of $150K. > > What are the benefits and costs? Some questions to ask include: > > [... time spent? likely effects? consistency in other areas? ...] > > I think my overarching point is, again, illustrated by questions: > What does a company truly value? Are they mindful and realistic > about their costs and benefits? [... P.S. ... snip] Your 'understanding': 5. Argument that the company should buy extra software. Your understanding is inaccurate. I asked many questions that don't give one particular universal answer about purchasing; the questions, I hope, suggest an approach to finding an answer that works for you. A charitable reading (see the HN Guidelines) of my comment would see that I was responding to this part of libria's comment: "What's the concern for?" To put it very simply, I would be concerned by a company that was not mindful and realistic about their costs and benefits. Why? It is simple: I value working for mindful and realistic companies. In summary, your understanding is inaccurate.

xpe 6y ago

> This seems like an argument for buying SDEs needed software. It depends on what the company values. This is what I meant when I wrote: "What does a company truly value? Are they mindful and realistic about their costs and benefits?" > ALittleLight: It doesn't seem like an argument against the idea that you can work somewhere where they refuse to buy things like this, and still have it be a good job. Correct, I made no such argument. You are free to make that value judgment. It depends where you sit. Maybe you want to dig into ways an organization can improve? If so, that gets into questions about organizational values as well as costs and benefits of various options. > ALittleLight: If your job pays well, work is interesting, good commute, good benefits, good manager, good coworkers, important mission, or a net positive combination of these things, that seems way more important than whether or not they'll buy you arbitrary software. Again, feel free to make such a value judgement. However, I would not use the word 'arbitrary' here, since in employment situations, there will be some understanding around expenses, often set out in policies and conversations. Even in organizations that are more flexible with expenses, employees are expected to use good judgment for business expenses.

xpe 6y ago

I'm curious: were you expecting that my comment offer "an argument against the idea that you can work somewhere where they refuse to buy things like this, and still have it be a good job."? If so, why?

Chris2048 6y ago
Because it seems like you are talking to a dev, not a manager. Assume the dev is already onboard with the idea of being compensated; the original comment was "I'd be more concerned if you had a hard time getting reimbursed" i.e from the POV of the employee.
- xpe 6y ago
  I was asking ALittleLight. Chris2048: are you the same person?
- xpe 6y ago
  I don’t understand. Is it fair to say you (Chris2048) have some expectation around how the thread evolved based on your assumptions of what is relevant? I see the best conversations here as trying to understand each other.
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    I don't understand what you are asking. I am not the same person, but I'm not sure that matters unless you know of OP specifically, you are asking: "how was my intention interpreted as X". Im telling you the context of the thread implied it, otherwise your comments arent relevant to the POV of a dev.
    - xpe 6y ago
      Yes, I saw you aren't using the same account name. That's why I asked. At the risk of saying something we already know, HN discussion isn't limited to one person's definition of what a "hacker" or "developer" is: > On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find > interesting. That includes more than hacking and > startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, > the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's > intellectual curiosity. I think it is easy to forget, so I just want to write this here... People here may work on building technology (hardware, software, biotech), running companies, leading teams, thinking about problems to solve, how to be effective, how to deal with stress and mental issues, and lots more. So, talking about organizational culture is on-topic. You may prefer to discuss something from the point of view of a software developer. You may have desire to keep threads organized and on-topic. Personally, I think your assessment of the "context of the thread" is both overly narrow and off target. But my goal is not to convince you my interpretation is correct... ...My goal is to show that your interpretation of the context of the thread is subjective. Again, subjective is fine; we don't need to agree. I want to emphasize that reasonable people can see it differently from you. I hope that you (and everyone on HN) can recognize this and think it through before they say a comment is "irrelevant". So, forgive me for asking, but I can't help but wonder how you approached this thread. With curiosity? With a goal of understanding? With some other driving factors? I would like to highlight a few important points from the HN guidelines that think we can all learn from (myself included) ... > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of > other people's work. A good critical comment teaches > us something. > Please respond to the strongest plausible > interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one > that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; > don't cross-examine. Comments should get more > thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets > more divisive. On a personal note, I put considerable thought into my comment -- phrasing it with open-ended questions where I implied some arguments in play. I offered food for thought. I was hoping for substantive responses, not claims that the comment was off topic. In addition, I found some of the resulting comments to be unconstructive. I think we owe it to each other to help each other and make the most of our precious time here on the planet. One motivation for reading this comment, frankly, is a plea for people to re-examine their communication tendencies and the resulting effects on (a) your ability to learn (e.g. a growth mindset); (b) this community; (c) all communities.
ALittleLight 6y ago
The thread, as I understand it, goes something like: 1. The company should buy you this. 2. They may not. 3. If they didn't, that would be a concern. 4. Why? 5. Argument that the company should buy extra software. Point 5 is off topic. There might be a good job that wouldn't buy you extra software and that wouldn't really be a concern. It's like if someone said "Your job is bad if they don't offer free lunch". I might say "My job doesn't offer it, but it's not a concern because I like my job for other reasons" and your reply would be advocating for the benefits of free lunch. Free lunch might be great, but the topic is whether it's a concern that the company doesn't offer it, not whether it's great or not.
- xpe 6y ago
  Ah, this appears to be the core of it: according to your interpretation of the thread, my comments are off-topic. After re-reading the thread, it is clear that your 'understanding' (as written above) of the thread is inaccurate. I'll annotate the first five comments in the thread, with your 'understandings' and my responses: Original post: > allenleein: "Early user here. Obsidian is literally the best > app in 2020 so far IMO. -Blazingly fast -Clean UI -Free -Sync > [...] -Great community" Your 'understanding': > 1. The company should buy you this. Your understanding is inaccurate: allenleein does not say a company should buy Obsidian. Follow-up comment: > usr1106: "[it is] Not really [free]. The license says you are > not allowed to take notes about work you get compensated for. > So free only for 100% hobby projects. > > Working in a start-up I don't have big 100% hobby projects > that would require a lot of note keeping. YMMV Your 'understanding': > 2. They may not [buy you this] Your understanding is inaccurate: usr1106 says nothing about what an organization should or should not buy. A better summary would be: usr1106 disagrees about what 'free' means, explains the license, and does have hobby projects that would qualify as free. > codezero: I'd be more concerned if you had a hard time getting > reimbursed for this kind of software at your job. Your 'understanding': > 3. If they didn't, that would be a concern. Fair enough. Follow-up comment: > libria: "What's the concern for? A lot of great jobs still > have penny-pinching managers. I've worked somewhere notoriously > Frugal that was good and paid well but had no problem denying > requests like this."" Your 'understanding': > Why? Your understanding is incomplete. In addition to asking why, libria also offers a framing and makes a value judgment about what constitutes a good job. Some of your other comments in this thread refer to this framing and value judgment. That's fine, but other comments are in no way obligated to agree or buy-in to that framing. Follow-up comment: > xpe: I'll respond with a connected set of questions... > > Is it worth the time to deny a (well intentioned) $150 request > made by a software developer who costs a company (for example) > $150K total (salary, benefits, and fixed costs)? $150 is 0.1% > of $150K. > > What are the benefits and costs? Some questions to ask include: > > [... time spent? likely effects? consistency in other areas? ...] > > I think my overarching point is, again, illustrated by questions: > What does a company truly value? Are they mindful and realistic > about their costs and benefits? [... P.S. ... snip] Your 'understanding': 5. Argument that the company should buy extra software. Your understanding is inaccurate. I asked many questions that don't give one particular universal answer about purchasing; the questions, I hope, suggest an approach to finding an answer that works for you. A charitable reading (see the HN Guidelines) of my comment would see that I was responding to this part of libria's comment: "What's the concern for?" To put it very simply, I would be concerned by a company that was not mindful and realistic about their costs and benefits. Why? It is simple: I value working for mindful and realistic companies. In summary, your understanding is inaccurate.