3 ms·

I worked for a bunch of startups and I'm not surprised by this. Nobody really cares. Security isn't a topic ever. Founders pay you VC money to fly across the

by k__ 5y ago

I worked for a bunch of startups and I'm not surprised by this. Nobody really cares. Security isn't a topic ever. Founders pay you VC money to fly across the country to talk for days about UI wireframes, but nobody ever cares about where or how you store data.

nikanj 5y ago
”In the cloud” for web 2.0, ”On the block chain” for web 3.0
- capableweb 5y ago
  Unintentionally public data for web 2.0, intentionally public data for web 3.0
willcipriano 5y ago
Non-technicals can bikeshed[0] all day long about UI. "Move that a little to the right, what about cornflower blue?" but have to sit around looking useless when it comes to discuss the engine that will drive that UI. People don't like to feel useless, so they don't talk about the tech. I think this is the reason most software just flat out sucks. It's easy to use if you ignore the part where it doesn't work half the time. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
- estaseuropano 5y ago
  But its a solvable problem: oblige all decision takers to get training on the IT side and get all IT staff to get training on how to explain/communicate what they do.
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    Gleefully declaring you are non-technical in a tech company is like gleefully declaring you are illiterate in a publishing house. Publishing houses just refuse to hire people who can't read rather than getting the executives hooked on phonics.
    - ozim 5y ago
      In a tech company. Most companies don't consider themselves "tech" and there is a lot of space for people who refuse to learn "technical mumbo jumbo" like just basic use of web browser or getting at least some knowledge of how browser is working.
      - bumby 5y ago
        I agree, in most companies, software is an enabling function and not part of the core deliverable.
  - bumby 5y ago
    >But its a solvable problem I would push back a little bit that this is the sole reason (and thus not quite as solvable a problem as one might think). A couple other reasons that help explain why a lot of software sucks: 1) Unlike other engineering disciplines, there is not strict adherence to codified standards. It's easy for me to argue that my solution is adequate, even when if yours may be objectively better. An electrician or civil engineer has much less leeway for creativity because they are constrained by codes, standards, and industry-accepted best practices where adherence/compliance is culturally ingrained. Software, by comparison, is very much the Wild West. 2) It's very easy to change. Because software is relatively easy to change, it means configurations are often less stable. Especially at scale (and combined with the lack of standards), this can cause problems. 3) It's relatively cheap to implement (superficially at least) and there's a low barrier for entry (superficially at least). Software doesn't have the culture of other engineering disciplines regarding accreditation. I'm not a huge fan of credentialism personally, but it can provide a stop-gap in terms of skills, especially when those doing the hiring don't know how to properly assess those skills.
Nextgrid 5y ago
Nobody will care until there are real monetary penalties for data breaches. The GDPR technically mandates those but it has a major enforcement problem.

by k__ 5y ago

nikanj 5y ago

”In the cloud” for web 2.0, ”On the block chain” for web 3.0

capableweb 5y ago
Unintentionally public data for web 2.0, intentionally public data for web 3.0

willcipriano 5y ago

Non-technicals can bikeshed[0] all day long about UI. "Move that a little to the right, what about cornflower blue?" but have to sit around looking useless when it comes to discuss the engine that will drive that UI. People don't like to feel useless, so they don't talk about the tech. I think this is the reason most software just flat out sucks. It's easy to use if you ignore the part where it doesn't work half the time. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality

estaseuropano 5y ago
But its a solvable problem: oblige all decision takers to get training on the IT side and get all IT staff to get training on how to explain/communicate what they do.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  Gleefully declaring you are non-technical in a tech company is like gleefully declaring you are illiterate in a publishing house. Publishing houses just refuse to hire people who can't read rather than getting the executives hooked on phonics.
  - ozim 5y ago
    In a tech company. Most companies don't consider themselves "tech" and there is a lot of space for people who refuse to learn "technical mumbo jumbo" like just basic use of web browser or getting at least some knowledge of how browser is working.
    - bumby 5y ago
      I agree, in most companies, software is an enabling function and not part of the core deliverable.
- bumby 5y ago
  >But its a solvable problem I would push back a little bit that this is the sole reason (and thus not quite as solvable a problem as one might think). A couple other reasons that help explain why a lot of software sucks: 1) Unlike other engineering disciplines, there is not strict adherence to codified standards. It's easy for me to argue that my solution is adequate, even when if yours may be objectively better. An electrician or civil engineer has much less leeway for creativity because they are constrained by codes, standards, and industry-accepted best practices where adherence/compliance is culturally ingrained. Software, by comparison, is very much the Wild West. 2) It's very easy to change. Because software is relatively easy to change, it means configurations are often less stable. Especially at scale (and combined with the lack of standards), this can cause problems. 3) It's relatively cheap to implement (superficially at least) and there's a low barrier for entry (superficially at least). Software doesn't have the culture of other engineering disciplines regarding accreditation. I'm not a huge fan of credentialism personally, but it can provide a stop-gap in terms of skills, especially when those doing the hiring don't know how to properly assess those skills.

Nextgrid 5y ago

Nobody will care until there are real monetary penalties for data breaches. The GDPR technically mandates those but it has a major enforcement problem.