5 ms·
I hear you. But the flip side is there is often a tendency to massively over complicate things in a way that bakes in valueless complexity and bloat, which is v
by JCM9 4y ago
I hear you. But the flip side is there is often a tendency to massively over complicate things in a way that bakes in valueless complexity and bloat, which is very much the norm in large government systems. I’m practice this attitude is far more common and destructive long term.
- nonethewiser 4y agoI think it's way worse than adding complexity and bloat. There are processes that specifically prevent anyone from understanding or owning the system. The complexity and bloat is a side product of the fact that the work was siloedd, contracted out, and everyone washed their hands off the result. Which also takes exponentially more time and people. Its optimized for inefficiency.
- gnarbarian 4y agothis is extremely accurate. it's like a giant rube Goldberg machine that takes both good code and garbage as input and produces a tremendous amount of garbage that nobody can understand once it comes out the other end.
- bink 4y agoDo you know that each of these systems actually has a defined "owner"? It's part of the FISMA process and every so often these "owners" have to attest that certain security processes are in place and functioning and that no significant changes have been made without a full review... among many other things. That "owner" is also a federal employee, not a contractor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Information_Security_Management_Act_of_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Information_Security_M...