4 ms·
Nothing to do with "mean". There's no need to emotionalize. It's about focusing on people with (1) the most leverage over the decision-making process and (2)
by vanusa 5y ago
Nothing to do with "mean". There's no need to emotionalize.
It's about focusing on people with (1) the most leverage over the decision-making process and (2) perfect visibility into the consequences (legal and otherwise) of their actions.
That is -- when you're dealing with the mob, you doing go after the delivery boy. You go after the foot soldiers and kingpins.
- cool_dude85 5y agoI would argue that when it comes to developing software, usually the one with the most leverage is the worker who develops it. If she says no, then it doesn't get developed. Maybe in team environments it's a bit trickier when you're looking at a feature as a whole, but each individual has full leverage over the code they produce. That they don't have leverage over the decision-making process seems like a cop out.
- vanusa 5y agoIf she says no, then it doesn't get developed. That's not how the world works. When she says no, they just find someone else. That they don't have leverage over the decision-making process seems like a cop out. No one said they have "no" leverage. Just that those at the executive level have infinitely more.
- yawaworht1978 5y agoBy that logic, if every dev would face very serious legal consequences, the client could not just hire another dev. I never liked the "will find another" trope. The Chinese , after the opium wars, simply executed dealers and users. Very radical, but you bet dealers wouldn't just find the next user and vice versa
- jeltz 5y agoI am for fines for the developers and prison times for the execs. I think both are culpable.
- DangitBobby 5y agoUsers could also just not use these apps. Are they not also culpable?
- yawaworht1978 5y agoThat's a bit like saying heroin addicts simply shouldn't use it, the companies are starving for revenue.