5 ms·

Professional AAA game programmers write bugs that permanently delete players' save data. Senior engineers at web hosting companies accidentally delete customer'

Professional AAA game programmers write bugs that permanently delete players' save data. Senior engineers at web hosting companies accidentally delete customer's entire servers. Employees at internet backbones accidentally screw up the configuration so bad that huge swaths of the internet go offline. This isn't a UX problem. This isn't a government problem. This is the human experience.

Waterluvian 4y ago
Maybe we can improve the human experience by improving the… user experience.
- karmakaze 4y ago
  Exactly. It doesn't matter if UX was the problem, it can be part of the solution.
- pharrington 4y ago
  You're very right. I may have misspoken a little - I just meant that there will always be high profile mistakes. Bu obviously that's no reason to avoid improving the tools.
- RockRobotRock 4y ago
  In what roadmap did I block the deliverable of my own happiness? https://youtu.be/DYvhC_RdIwQ https://youtu.be/DYvhC_RdIwQ
- Kukumber 4y ago
  you can lock meetings that has started this is not a UX issue, it is people who give no fuck about security of privacy otherwise your government would have voted anti data-spying laws, they haven't therefore they don't care, therefore they didn't think of locking their meeting after it started i can spell the agenda that's cooking https://blog.zoom.us/keep-uninvited-guests-out-of-your-zoom-meeting/ https://blog.zoom.us/keep-uninvited-guests-out-of-your-zoom-... https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201362603-Host-and-Co-Host-Controls-in-a-Meeting https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201362603-Host-and...
mcapodici 4y ago
Human factors
cronix 4y ago
And soon to be the AI experience, trained upon fallible human experiences.
whateveracct 4y ago
It's not that hard to not fuck up that bad. It's hard for PMs to accept the cost of it preemptively though.
gnulinux 4y ago
More like, this is the state of software in 2023. In software industry, there is an extremely vague sense of correctness while software is being developed, if there is any. Product managers have no idea what that is, and there is usually no specification to test or verify software against. Every engineer has their own voodoo ways to test or verify software, and guess what, some teams don't even do either! There are entire companies, philosophies built around how testing and verification being waste of time. On top of this, software depends on gazillions of dependencies whose correctness is similarly untested and unverified. As a corollary, you get software that fails left and right for unexpected reasons.
- whateveracct 4y ago
  Yeah people don't give a shit about correctness. By people I mean PMs. And it seems fine for a long time until things get ruined like any of those examples. "How could this have happened?" said the people who refused to accept that testing can added tens of engineer-days to the estimate.
  - 8n4vidtmkvmk 4y ago
    You can only ask a PM "how would you like the system to behave in this specific scenario" so many times and get non-answers or no answer before you start saying "screw it, I think it should behave like this, ship it" My favorite response is "that feature's deprecated" Yeah....I know...but it still exists in prod and it's going to be affected. "Deprecated" does not mean "obsolete".
- chmod600 4y ago
  And yet, extraordinarily complex systems seem to work somehow, which means each of the zillions of pieces is pretty much doing the right thing.
  - gnulinux 4y ago
    That's your opinion, and it seems to be the opinion of some people, I respect that. However, I strongly disagree. I use software all day every day (like most of us here, if not all) and I can confidently say none of the complex systems I use work at all. All software is buggy, most software is frustratingly buggy, and surprising amount of professional software is imho unusuably buggy. When I interact with a new software, my assumption is that it will not work. Unless proven otherwise, software of no complexity works in practice.
sneak 4y ago
Somehow thousands of passenger flights happen every day and the planes don't fall out of the sky. Perhaps it's possible to do better.
- miguelazo 4y ago
  How old do you suppose that software is?
  - sneak 4y ago
    There are hundreds of different pieces of software used every day to keep planes flying, both on the aircraft and on the ground.
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  Given what it costs to make software for planes, maybe the status quo isn't so bad.
xwdv 4y ago
And yet someday we may look back and see this as the good old days.

Waterluvian 4y ago

Maybe we can improve the human experience by improving the… user experience.

karmakaze 4y ago
Exactly. It doesn't matter if UX was the problem, it can be part of the solution.
pharrington 4y ago
You're very right. I may have misspoken a little - I just meant that there will always be high profile mistakes. Bu obviously that's no reason to avoid improving the tools.
RockRobotRock 4y ago
In what roadmap did I block the deliverable of my own happiness? https://youtu.be/DYvhC_RdIwQ https://youtu.be/DYvhC_RdIwQ
Kukumber 4y ago
you can lock meetings that has started this is not a UX issue, it is people who give no fuck about security of privacy otherwise your government would have voted anti data-spying laws, they haven't therefore they don't care, therefore they didn't think of locking their meeting after it started i can spell the agenda that's cooking https://blog.zoom.us/keep-uninvited-guests-out-of-your-zoom-meeting/ https://blog.zoom.us/keep-uninvited-guests-out-of-your-zoom-... https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201362603-Host-and-Co-Host-Controls-in-a-Meeting https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201362603-Host-and...

mcapodici 4y ago

Human factors

cronix 4y ago

And soon to be the AI experience, trained upon fallible human experiences.

whateveracct 4y ago

It's not that hard to not fuck up that bad. It's hard for PMs to accept the cost of it preemptively though.

gnulinux 4y ago

More like, this is the state of software in 2023. In software industry, there is an extremely vague sense of correctness while software is being developed, if there is any. Product managers have no idea what that is, and there is usually no specification to test or verify software against. Every engineer has their own voodoo ways to test or verify software, and guess what, some teams don't even do either! There are entire companies, philosophies built around how testing and verification being waste of time. On top of this, software depends on gazillions of dependencies whose correctness is similarly untested and unverified. As a corollary, you get software that fails left and right for unexpected reasons.

whateveracct 4y ago
Yeah people don't give a shit about correctness. By people I mean PMs. And it seems fine for a long time until things get ruined like any of those examples. "How could this have happened?" said the people who refused to accept that testing can added tens of engineer-days to the estimate.
- 8n4vidtmkvmk 4y ago
  You can only ask a PM "how would you like the system to behave in this specific scenario" so many times and get non-answers or no answer before you start saying "screw it, I think it should behave like this, ship it" My favorite response is "that feature's deprecated" Yeah....I know...but it still exists in prod and it's going to be affected. "Deprecated" does not mean "obsolete".
chmod600 4y ago
And yet, extraordinarily complex systems seem to work somehow, which means each of the zillions of pieces is pretty much doing the right thing.
- gnulinux 4y ago
  That's your opinion, and it seems to be the opinion of some people, I respect that. However, I strongly disagree. I use software all day every day (like most of us here, if not all) and I can confidently say none of the complex systems I use work at all. All software is buggy, most software is frustratingly buggy, and surprising amount of professional software is imho unusuably buggy. When I interact with a new software, my assumption is that it will not work. Unless proven otherwise, software of no complexity works in practice.

sneak 4y ago

Somehow thousands of passenger flights happen every day and the planes don't fall out of the sky. Perhaps it's possible to do better.

miguelazo 4y ago
How old do you suppose that software is?
- sneak 4y ago
  There are hundreds of different pieces of software used every day to keep planes flying, both on the aircraft and on the ground.
yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
Given what it costs to make software for planes, maybe the status quo isn't so bad.

xwdv 4y ago

And yet someday we may look back and see this as the good old days.