4 ms·
That rework based on suspicion is typically how it’s done. :) Add to that subject matter expert review. For example, I used to work on a sheet of scoop size cal
by 1123581321 6y ago
That rework based on suspicion is typically how it’s done. :) Add to that subject matter expert review. For example, I used to work on a sheet of scoop size calculations for industrial digging and nothing from it would reach sales staff or customers until a couple of the crusty old experts played with it and vouched for the calculations.
Imperfect measures, but they keep the work within the grasp of everyday/business users in a way a formal test suite wouldn’t necessarily.
- hinkley 6y agoI didn't rework it because I thought the numbers were bad. She and I agreed to ground rules, [but] I could not commit to the consequences even though the 1st order consequences came out in my favor. The second-order consequences would be that I'd tricked her, intentionally or otherwise, which is decidedly unhealthy in a partnership. I had contributed 2/3rds of the income but 2/5ths of the debts (the latter being the main sticking point) so while 'fair' was not going to be 50:50, I'm not some monster who's going to buy high end electronics while my partner is eating ramen. I expected worse news for myself after re-doing the numbers, and in fact I ended up with a little bit more spending money with the new numbers. I mention this only because I have come to expect policy people to stick to their initial narrative a little more enthusiastically than I could. Getting them to review data and policy unless there is a clear benefit for themselves is difficult. It's very common for people to get promoted by challenging this friction in ways that benefit everyone (because the deciders couldn't connect the dots). It's always newsworthy, and I wish it weren't.