4 ms·

> the infosec community may be ahead of society at large in understanding change, nuance, and complexity. I think almost everyone outside of tech knows all abo

> the infosec community may be ahead of society at large in understanding change, nuance, and complexity. I think almost everyone outside of tech knows all about change, nuance and complexity. And every time they mention it we tell them they're overestimating the unique complexity of their particular situation. Then we prove it by forcing solutions on them that artificially reduce that complexity. And in the end they accept that reduction as a new reality (with some grumbling). I feel sometimes when tech and humanity converge we end up accepting a lowest common denominator rather than accepting that our stuff isn't very good.

Dalewyn 4y ago
>I feel sometimes when tech and humanity converge we end up accepting a lowest common denominator rather than accepting that our stuff isn't very good. Passwords.
atoav 4y ago
> overestimating the unique complexity of their particular situation. Then we prove it by forcing solutions on them that artificially reduce that complexity. As an electrical engineer I have the habit of asking people to explain to me the function of the part they want to remove. Just because it worked briefly without that part does not mean that part did not serve some vital function. How you can tell experts from beginners is that beginners will be pleased with the thing working. Experts will think about weirder edge conditions, thermal cycles, maintainability, safety, security, testability, sustainability, you name it. Don't get me wrong, I love simple, elegant solutions with little (or no) moving parts — they often win out on all of the above. But sometimes the people with the complexity of the domain in mind are right, when they insist that certain elements of a system are needed.
- maxbond 4y ago
  Chesterton's component
TeMPOraL 4y ago
There's a strong business component here that often seems to be blamed on technologists (at least in discussions in tech and tech-adjacent communities, like here), but really has nothing to do with technology, and is present in every industry. Yes, we like elegant and simple solutions, but "artificially reducing complexity" of the problem to make an elegant and simple solution work is no fun at all. We do it not because it's right or gratifying, but because it's what the business side tells us to, it's what permeates the culture of this and every other industry - of everything in the market economy. We do it because if we don't, our competitors will, and then we'll lose our jobs and won't be able to feed our families anymore. Or, in short: the trend towards "accepting a lowest common denominator rather than accepting that our stuff isn't very good" is caused by market competition itself. After all, the market doesn't know when something is just perfect - there's always a marginal profit to be extracted by repeatedly making it ever so slightly shittier, and competitive pressure ensures you can't move in the opposite direction.

Dalewyn 4y ago

>I feel sometimes when tech and humanity converge we end up accepting a lowest common denominator rather than accepting that our stuff isn't very good. Passwords.

atoav 4y ago

> overestimating the unique complexity of their particular situation. Then we prove it by forcing solutions on them that artificially reduce that complexity. As an electrical engineer I have the habit of asking people to explain to me the function of the part they want to remove. Just because it worked briefly without that part does not mean that part did not serve some vital function. How you can tell experts from beginners is that beginners will be pleased with the thing working. Experts will think about weirder edge conditions, thermal cycles, maintainability, safety, security, testability, sustainability, you name it. Don't get me wrong, I love simple, elegant solutions with little (or no) moving parts — they often win out on all of the above. But sometimes the people with the complexity of the domain in mind are right, when they insist that certain elements of a system are needed.

maxbond 4y ago
Chesterton's component

TeMPOraL 4y ago

There's a strong business component here that often seems to be blamed on technologists (at least in discussions in tech and tech-adjacent communities, like here), but really has nothing to do with technology, and is present in every industry. Yes, we like elegant and simple solutions, but "artificially reducing complexity" of the problem to make an elegant and simple solution work is no fun at all. We do it not because it's right or gratifying, but because it's what the business side tells us to, it's what permeates the culture of this and every other industry - of everything in the market economy. We do it because if we don't, our competitors will, and then we'll lose our jobs and won't be able to feed our families anymore. Or, in short: the trend towards "accepting a lowest common denominator rather than accepting that our stuff isn't very good" is caused by market competition itself. After all, the market doesn't know when something is just perfect - there's always a marginal profit to be extracted by repeatedly making it ever so slightly shittier, and competitive pressure ensures you can't move in the opposite direction.