2 ms·
> If you email 4 software studios for a quote and 3 say “Sure, here’s a quote” but the 4th says “Hm, we certainly could build it but we can’t be sure about cost
by neilv 3y ago
> If you email 4 software studios for a quote and 3 say “Sure, here’s a quote” but the 4th says “Hm, we certainly could build it but we can’t be sure about cost without knowing X and Y, and here are some other concerns we’d have” then the 4th is going to seem like they give a shit.
I usually end up responding like that, having started to think about the problem and approach. But I just know what the takehome message will be for some.
Now it'll be someone's CRM startup feature: responds to RFQs with an LLM prompted to give the appearance of thoughtful consideration of the problem. Because, one time, a blogger said you should ask questions like that, to make a better impression, was the takehome message they got.
Or it'll become a mnemonic for remembering the mix of kinds of questions on an RFQ you should ask, for the sake of appearances, and you'll fail an interview for not hitting each letter of the mnemonic exactly once, and in order. ("Sorry, bro, I was really hoping you'd pass, but you forgot the R in SCROT. You're not Amazoogle caliber yet, but take some more interview prep classes, and you can try again in a year.")
- klabb3 3y agoYes, there’s a constant arms race between the authentic and the impersonators. Happens in every field. Look at how much the “artisanal” and “rustic” aesthetic became completely colonized over the 2010s to the point of being “the new bland” today. That’s also why I liked this article. It doesn’t propose an excessively precise definition of “giving a shit”. It requires paying attention and being vigilant – the impersonators are always around the corner, watching and learning.
- teaearlgraycold 3y agoThis is the same as the old metrics-as-targets failure mode. Or the stock market - as soon as something is public knowledge it’s already priced in.