4 ms·

>Unless you have to write a database. But you don't. The quote you quoted says you don't need to write a database, so if you want to agree, you also have to ag

>Unless you have to write a database. But you don't. The quote you quoted says you don't need to write a database, so if you want to agree, you also have to agree that Amazon and Google didn't need to write databases. And learning would seem to be covered by the "want to" or "should"

derefr 3y ago
Again, pedantry: Amazon and Google aren't people; they aren't reading advice on the Internet. So the "you" in this statement will never apply to them. It only applies to individuals reading the statement. And, indeed, "you" do not need to write a database. Some company might very well need to write a database; and therefore coerce one or more of its employees into writing a database. But, like the statement says, the employees should resist. Very likely the company is wrong about needing to write a database, and resistance will help it discover that. However, every once in a while, even after everyone resists for months/years, it will turn out that the company really does need to write a database, and so — still mostly against their will — the individuals employed there will set out to write a database. (And once they've "written a database", and it turned out to actually be the best course of action for the company, then the advice no longer applies — because they're no longer considering "writing a database" at that point, but rather maintaining an existing database, that they happened to be the creators of.) > And learning would seem to be covered by the "want to" or "should" Instrumental vs. terminal goals. If I want to do X, then I need to do Y to achieve X. If I want to learn how databases work, then I need to write a database, because there's no other good way.
- benj111 3y ago
  >If I want to do X, then I need to do Y to achieve X. And you accuse me of pedantry? This then comes under need then?!? >Amazon and Google aren't people No, but the people within them make decisions, ie decisions to write a database. So the 'you' would be directed at the person in the organisation who decided to write the database.
  - derefr 3y ago
    > And you accuse me of pedantry? ...no? I was saying that my own response is pedantry, rather than being an argument that tries to address the spirit of your argument. > This then comes under need then?!? Yes. The definition of "need" is "something that some higher-level goal cannot be achieved without." Ultimately, at the terminal level, everything is a preference; you want to continue living, companies want to not go bankrupt, etc. Everything required to achieve those terminal preferences, are needs. You need to eat if you want to live. A company needs to make money if it wants to avoid bankruptcy. Etc. > No, but the people within them make decisions, ie decisions to write a database. So the 'you' would be directed at the person in the organisation who decided to write the database. In a bigcorp, ultimately, a manager or business analyst decided that someone else should write them a database. Nobody decided to, themselves, write a database.

derefr 3y ago

Again, pedantry: Amazon and Google aren't people; they aren't reading advice on the Internet. So the "you" in this statement will never apply to them. It only applies to individuals reading the statement. And, indeed, "you" do not need to write a database. Some company might very well need to write a database; and therefore coerce one or more of its employees into writing a database. But, like the statement says, the employees should resist. Very likely the company is wrong about needing to write a database, and resistance will help it discover that. However, every once in a while, even after everyone resists for months/years, it will turn out that the company really does need to write a database, and so — still mostly against their will — the individuals employed there will set out to write a database. (And once they've "written a database", and it turned out to actually be the best course of action for the company, then the advice no longer applies — because they're no longer considering "writing a database" at that point, but rather maintaining an existing database, that they happened to be the creators of.) > And learning would seem to be covered by the "want to" or "should" Instrumental vs. terminal goals. If I want to do X, then I need to do Y to achieve X. If I want to learn how databases work, then I need to write a database, because there's no other good way.

benj111 3y ago
>If I want to do X, then I need to do Y to achieve X. And you accuse me of pedantry? This then comes under need then?!? >Amazon and Google aren't people No, but the people within them make decisions, ie decisions to write a database. So the 'you' would be directed at the person in the organisation who decided to write the database.
- derefr 3y ago
  > And you accuse me of pedantry? ...no? I was saying that my own response is pedantry, rather than being an argument that tries to address the spirit of your argument. > This then comes under need then?!? Yes. The definition of "need" is "something that some higher-level goal cannot be achieved without." Ultimately, at the terminal level, everything is a preference; you want to continue living, companies want to not go bankrupt, etc. Everything required to achieve those terminal preferences, are needs. You need to eat if you want to live. A company needs to make money if it wants to avoid bankruptcy. Etc. > No, but the people within them make decisions, ie decisions to write a database. So the 'you' would be directed at the person in the organisation who decided to write the database. In a bigcorp, ultimately, a manager or business analyst decided that someone else should write them a database. Nobody decided to, themselves, write a database.