4 ms·

I would consider someone a moron if they cited something tried in the 70s and provided no contemplation for why circumstances may have changed over the past 50

I would consider someone a moron if they cited something tried in the 70s and provided no contemplation for why circumstances may have changed over the past 50 years. That is just not a real answer. It might be correct, but that is absolutely unacceptable team behavior. I'd also be pretty pissed if someone tried to dump book references on me if it's their job to be the expert on that subject. My gut reaction to that sentiment is that this person is going to refuse to actually discuss content. This hypothetical dinobaby is immediately one of my least favorite people.

vanusa 5y ago
I would consider someone a moron if... I'd be pretty pissed if ... Sounds like you'd be a natural pick to run a company with 270,00 employees.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  thanks!
salawat 5y ago
Hi! I'm the expert on the subject you hired! <Drop book references with further context and justifications for why your case falls right in line with those discussed in the literature, like an expert in the field would be expected to do> I mean, don't get pissed because it's been tried before, and no one will let you recultivate low hanging fruit to pick anymore. The fact more people are not well read on this type of stuff, is mind boggling. Even more mind boggling is people being upset about someone directing them away from the pit of misery, wailing, and gnashing teeth.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  It is far more mind boggling to me that you think that this is an effective way to communicate.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
I mean, if you're the one coming up with the strategy, and someone else says "yeah, that's been tried a few times and never worked", I think it is then on you to explain why This Time Things Will Be Different!
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  No, not really. You are presumably on a team together. You should discuss it and share your knowledge and figure it out, together.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    Part of that is saying "this has been tried several times and it has failed". As in, you shouldn't try this unless you know why it failed before and why it will be different this time. That isn't on someone else to figure out for you, unless you want to task them with figuring it out for you I guess. Honestly, if I worked for someone who got angry and called someone a moron immediately for questioning their new strategy I'd be looking for another job. Nothing is worth dealing with that kind of person.
    - spywaregorilla 5y ago
      > Part of that is saying "this has been tried several times and it has failed" Of course > As in, you shouldn't try this unless you know why it failed before and why it will be different this time. Also correct > That isn't on someone else to figure out for you, unless you want to task them with figuring it out for you I guess. No, completely wrong. You're in a meeting. Collaborate. You are nothing but a huge detriment if you just voice your opinion, put your head down, and smugly say "told ya so" if they do it and it doesn't work. It is on the team collectively to solve problems together and you get 0 points for being right in retrospect.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
hinkley 5y ago
While I can appreciate the complaint about 'assigning homework', we do in fact have epicycles of trying old ideas out again. What's important is to look at whether the constraints have changed at all. Certain software architectures excel when the ratio of CPU to memory to network to storage is just so, and those inequalities shift around depending on what the state of the art is in computing at the moment. Some new breakthrough may temporarily put us back into the same situation we were in in 1996 and so all of those ideas get retreaded. What has generally happened is however is that there are stable states that tend to repeat, and so some ideas are a reasonable default, and others are context sensitive and may need to be backed out if for instance the storage people get tired of being shown up by the networking people and introduce something with 1/5th the latency of the previous solution. But too often it's just a pendulum swing between two competing options that are both painful, and familiarity breeds contempt. Those glorious moments at the bottom of the pendulum swing are the only time we have any peace. If 1 of something is awful, 100 of them is probably awful too. 3 might be wonderful, but half the team steamrolls right past it without stopping to look around. Where the technology treadmill concerns new languages and tools, it's in the interest of young people for there to be upheaval because from their perspective, they have a level playing field if we are using a tool that is 2 years old. They also haven't experienced the heartbreak of pouring too much of yourself into a doomed technology and so they are willing to rathole on just about anything. That 'cynicism' they see might just be someone with an advanced case of Same Shit, Different Day. "This didn't work the last three times," is offered on its own merits, but some people put a lot more thought behind it. It could mean "don't try new things just because they're new" or it could mean, "the new thing has not solved any of the problems that killed it the last three times." I think if you mean the latter, it's partly on you that you get lumped in with the former, because you could chose to invest 10% more effort into your reply and sound less like a naysayer. But honestly it's exhausting chasing after kids every time they pick up something new and put it immediately in their proverbial mouth.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  > What's important is to look at whether the constraints have changed at all. Right. Discuss it. That's my whole point. Maybe they haven't changed. Maybe you are correct and you are completely correct to aggressively fight the idea. That's fine. But if you don't engage people on the team you're not a useful team member. Saying I saw this in the 70s and it didn't work is the least impressive argument possible, and frankly is just begging for ageist biases. It looks like you haven't considered that things might have changed. If I tried last week, I would still emphasize the reasons why it didn't work rather than when it didn't work.

vanusa 5y ago

I would consider someone a moron if... I'd be pretty pissed if ... Sounds like you'd be a natural pick to run a company with 270,00 employees.

spywaregorilla 5y ago
thanks!

salawat 5y ago

Hi! I'm the expert on the subject you hired! <Drop book references with further context and justifications for why your case falls right in line with those discussed in the literature, like an expert in the field would be expected to do> I mean, don't get pissed because it's been tried before, and no one will let you recultivate low hanging fruit to pick anymore. The fact more people are not well read on this type of stuff, is mind boggling. Even more mind boggling is people being upset about someone directing them away from the pit of misery, wailing, and gnashing teeth.

spywaregorilla 5y ago
It is far more mind boggling to me that you think that this is an effective way to communicate.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

I mean, if you're the one coming up with the strategy, and someone else says "yeah, that's been tried a few times and never worked", I think it is then on you to explain why This Time Things Will Be Different!

spywaregorilla 5y ago
No, not really. You are presumably on a team together. You should discuss it and share your knowledge and figure it out, together.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Part of that is saying "this has been tried several times and it has failed". As in, you shouldn't try this unless you know why it failed before and why it will be different this time. That isn't on someone else to figure out for you, unless you want to task them with figuring it out for you I guess. Honestly, if I worked for someone who got angry and called someone a moron immediately for questioning their new strategy I'd be looking for another job. Nothing is worth dealing with that kind of person.
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    > Part of that is saying "this has been tried several times and it has failed" Of course > As in, you shouldn't try this unless you know why it failed before and why it will be different this time. Also correct > That isn't on someone else to figure out for you, unless you want to task them with figuring it out for you I guess. No, completely wrong. You're in a meeting. Collaborate. You are nothing but a huge detriment if you just voice your opinion, put your head down, and smugly say "told ya so" if they do it and it doesn't work. It is on the team collectively to solve problems together and you get 0 points for being right in retrospect.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

hinkley 5y ago

While I can appreciate the complaint about 'assigning homework', we do in fact have epicycles of trying old ideas out again. What's important is to look at whether the constraints have changed at all. Certain software architectures excel when the ratio of CPU to memory to network to storage is just so, and those inequalities shift around depending on what the state of the art is in computing at the moment. Some new breakthrough may temporarily put us back into the same situation we were in in 1996 and so all of those ideas get retreaded. What has generally happened is however is that there are stable states that tend to repeat, and so some ideas are a reasonable default, and others are context sensitive and may need to be backed out if for instance the storage people get tired of being shown up by the networking people and introduce something with 1/5th the latency of the previous solution. But too often it's just a pendulum swing between two competing options that are both painful, and familiarity breeds contempt. Those glorious moments at the bottom of the pendulum swing are the only time we have any peace. If 1 of something is awful, 100 of them is probably awful too. 3 might be wonderful, but half the team steamrolls right past it without stopping to look around. Where the technology treadmill concerns new languages and tools, it's in the interest of young people for there to be upheaval because from their perspective, they have a level playing field if we are using a tool that is 2 years old. They also haven't experienced the heartbreak of pouring too much of yourself into a doomed technology and so they are willing to rathole on just about anything. That 'cynicism' they see might just be someone with an advanced case of Same Shit, Different Day. "This didn't work the last three times," is offered on its own merits, but some people put a lot more thought behind it. It could mean "don't try new things just because they're new" or it could mean, "the new thing has not solved any of the problems that killed it the last three times." I think if you mean the latter, it's partly on you that you get lumped in with the former, because you could chose to invest 10% more effort into your reply and sound less like a naysayer. But honestly it's exhausting chasing after kids every time they pick up something new and put it immediately in their proverbial mouth.

spywaregorilla 5y ago
> What's important is to look at whether the constraints have changed at all. Right. Discuss it. That's my whole point. Maybe they haven't changed. Maybe you are correct and you are completely correct to aggressively fight the idea. That's fine. But if you don't engage people on the team you're not a useful team member. Saying I saw this in the 70s and it didn't work is the least impressive argument possible, and frankly is just begging for ageist biases. It looks like you haven't considered that things might have changed. If I tried last week, I would still emphasize the reasons why it didn't work rather than when it didn't work.