4 ms·

Couldn't agree more. I was mildly engaged before the "If it didn't, I would step down and recruit a replacement," but immediately stopped reading. The statemen

Couldn't agree more. I was mildly engaged before the "If it didn't, I would step down and recruit a replacement," but immediately stopped reading. The statement is wrong-headed in so many ways it invalided anything the author could possibly say after.

volkk 3y ago
> in so many ways it invalided anything the author could possibly say after. that's pretty silly. you can be wrong in some areas while still having good insights in others.
- constantly 3y ago
  Like the thirteenth chime of a clock: not only is it wrong in and of itself, but calls into question everything that came before.
  - volkk 3y ago
    you must be difficult to work with if by one chance a coworker says something that is incorrect, then you never trust them again
paulclinger 3y ago
I don't think it's really that wrong-headed. What are the choices: (1) march ahead trying to salvage the current design with no clear path forward (other than waiting for the SSR solution), (2) quit right now, or (3) quit in 6-8 weeks if the proposed solution doesn't work (or is not delivered fast enough). The last option is not that bad if the author is hoping to figure it out, especially that the timeline is short and with a quick prototype (which the author did) it's going to be clear much sooner if the new approach is workable or not.
dfcowell 3y ago
Author here. It was a gamble, but I was fighting against a very strong sunk cost fallacy in leadership at the company at the time, and there was a general lack of trust in the entire technical team. I *would not* recommend this approach as a typical way of doing business, and maybe I didn’t do a good enough job at communicating that in the post. This is the only time in my career I’ve delivered this kind of ultimatum. Everything about this particular situation was exceptional. I focused on the decision to do a rewrite in the post because I thought it was the more interesting part of the story. In hindsight I might have gotten that wrong.

volkk 3y ago

> in so many ways it invalided anything the author could possibly say after. that's pretty silly. you can be wrong in some areas while still having good insights in others.

constantly 3y ago
Like the thirteenth chime of a clock: not only is it wrong in and of itself, but calls into question everything that came before.
- volkk 3y ago
  you must be difficult to work with if by one chance a coworker says something that is incorrect, then you never trust them again

paulclinger 3y ago

I don't think it's really that wrong-headed. What are the choices: (1) march ahead trying to salvage the current design with no clear path forward (other than waiting for the SSR solution), (2) quit right now, or (3) quit in 6-8 weeks if the proposed solution doesn't work (or is not delivered fast enough). The last option is not that bad if the author is hoping to figure it out, especially that the timeline is short and with a quick prototype (which the author did) it's going to be clear much sooner if the new approach is workable or not.

dfcowell 3y ago

Author here. It was a gamble, but I was fighting against a very strong sunk cost fallacy in leadership at the company at the time, and there was a general lack of trust in the entire technical team. I *would not* recommend this approach as a typical way of doing business, and maybe I didn’t do a good enough job at communicating that in the post. This is the only time in my career I’ve delivered this kind of ultimatum. Everything about this particular situation was exceptional. I focused on the decision to do a rewrite in the post because I thought it was the more interesting part of the story. In hindsight I might have gotten that wrong.