5 ms·

This just reminds me of my theory of Microsoft's checklist-driven development: Some PM writes down some single-sentence description of a feature (e.g. "Share

This just reminds me of my theory of Microsoft's checklist-driven development: Some PM writes down some single-sentence description of a feature (e.g. "Share Wi-Fi passwords with contacts") and the developers just read the list and find the single least-effort way of implementing it. Once done, they can tick the item off the list and go home having done their job, although often in the most excruciatingly stupid way by damaging their users' experience. I do not see how else could M$ so often add features in a way that actively make their products worse to use.

yason 2y ago
Because this is Microsoft we shall apply Gates' razor and must thus conclude that "never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice".
- lifestyleguru 2y ago
  > Gates' razor and must thus conclude that "never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice I like this term, hopefully it enters dictionary. Stupidity doesn't buy yachts, vile malice does.
- donatj 2y ago
  I believe you mean Hanlon's Razor?
  - gryfft 2y ago
    They've inverted it ironically to attribute malice to Microsoft. (Not undeservedly.)
- munch117 2y ago
  Please refrain from content-free meming on HN.
- rrr_oh_man 2y ago
  Can you elaborate why you would see Gates as a malicious actor?
  - klabb3 2y ago
    Monopolistic actions are malicious, if you believe in free markets. Gates led the war against Netscape, for one. The setback to the industry and consumers was massive. Anti-market behavior is today completely normalized, so Gates is very much not alone. Malice is not an unusual phenomenon.
  - quesera 2y ago
    This is a difficult question to answer without knowing whether your Bill Gates context includes his years at Microsoft, or only as a philanthropist with sketchy friends. If the former, you'll need to present an argument that Microsoft did not hold back the entire industry for 20 years with low quality products, severe user-hostility, and monopolistic practices. If the latter, you should read up about the 1980s and 1990s and early 2000s.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- philipov 2y ago
  What you're thinking of is called Grey's Law: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from Malice"
  - lifestyleguru 2y ago
    > Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from Malice" OP didn't mistake anything, this would be a public office clerk and they don't have private jets nor yachts.
tpoacher 2y ago
I'm stealing the term Checklist-driven development. Combined with Cha Bu Duo it explains so much of what I see on a daily basis...
p_l 2y ago
I do wonder of is partially not caused by the fact that underneath, Outlook and Exchange aren't massively using SMTP or MIME, they use MAPI which is built around X.400 even if it's no longer available to run Exchange work external X.400 connectivity. Take that background, and how MAPI essentially prioritises internal email capabilities, and slowly a perfect storm for creation of such misfeatures emerges. Internally to a corporation, in Outlook/MAPI/Exchange way richer world, implementing such a feature is both simple and possibly easy more useful (less annoying emails to write when you want to just give a short reaction). But then you hit two confounding factors - systems outside of corporate Exchange server - so instead of using a richer messaging feature you make it into extra text message - and systemd outside the corporate, where your message now leaks out. This way you can start with reasonably well thought out user story, and end with crap like the way reactions work - and weird extra headers
- mgkimsal 2y ago
  2001(?) I got an email from a client and it said "Debbie would like to revoke the earlier email". Might not have said 'revoke' but something like that. And there were a lot of extra headers I hadn't seen before. After some questioning, I got that they'd just installed some Exchange server setup (or whatever the direct predecessor was?) and you could undo email. But the 'undo' was to send an email revoking the earlier one. MAPI/internal clients understood it; to external clients like me, it was just another email. I'm not sure they (the client) quite understood that they couldn't 'undo' emails to me, because they could do it just fine to everyone else (inside the company).
mihaaly 2y ago
Lazy technical managers (incomplete specification) combined with lazy developers (does not improve specification) and task completion count based performance evaluation (implies atomic task allocation with strictly < 1w time estimation) is the devil, not Lucifer. And they are everywhere.
farceSpherule 2y ago
This is why PM’s are supposed to work with Business Analysts. Unfortunately, most companies do not have BA’s because, you know, cost. And, most PM’s are not technical and have no engineering background or experience.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

yason 2y ago

Because this is Microsoft we shall apply Gates' razor and must thus conclude that "never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice".

lifestyleguru 2y ago
> Gates' razor and must thus conclude that "never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice I like this term, hopefully it enters dictionary. Stupidity doesn't buy yachts, vile malice does.
donatj 2y ago
I believe you mean Hanlon's Razor?
- gryfft 2y ago
  They've inverted it ironically to attribute malice to Microsoft. (Not undeservedly.)
munch117 2y ago
Please refrain from content-free meming on HN.
rrr_oh_man 2y ago
Can you elaborate why you would see Gates as a malicious actor?
- klabb3 2y ago
  Monopolistic actions are malicious, if you believe in free markets. Gates led the war against Netscape, for one. The setback to the industry and consumers was massive. Anti-market behavior is today completely normalized, so Gates is very much not alone. Malice is not an unusual phenomenon.
- quesera 2y ago
  This is a difficult question to answer without knowing whether your Bill Gates context includes his years at Microsoft, or only as a philanthropist with sketchy friends. If the former, you'll need to present an argument that Microsoft did not hold back the entire industry for 20 years with low quality products, severe user-hostility, and monopolistic practices. If the latter, you should read up about the 1980s and 1990s and early 2000s.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
philipov 2y ago
What you're thinking of is called Grey's Law: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from Malice"
- lifestyleguru 2y ago
  > Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from Malice" OP didn't mistake anything, this would be a public office clerk and they don't have private jets nor yachts.

tpoacher 2y ago

I'm stealing the term Checklist-driven development. Combined with Cha Bu Duo it explains so much of what I see on a daily basis...

p_l 2y ago

I do wonder of is partially not caused by the fact that underneath, Outlook and Exchange aren't massively using SMTP or MIME, they use MAPI which is built around X.400 even if it's no longer available to run Exchange work external X.400 connectivity. Take that background, and how MAPI essentially prioritises internal email capabilities, and slowly a perfect storm for creation of such misfeatures emerges. Internally to a corporation, in Outlook/MAPI/Exchange way richer world, implementing such a feature is both simple and possibly easy more useful (less annoying emails to write when you want to just give a short reaction). But then you hit two confounding factors - systems outside of corporate Exchange server - so instead of using a richer messaging feature you make it into extra text message - and systemd outside the corporate, where your message now leaks out. This way you can start with reasonably well thought out user story, and end with crap like the way reactions work - and weird extra headers

mgkimsal 2y ago
2001(?) I got an email from a client and it said "Debbie would like to revoke the earlier email". Might not have said 'revoke' but something like that. And there were a lot of extra headers I hadn't seen before. After some questioning, I got that they'd just installed some Exchange server setup (or whatever the direct predecessor was?) and you could undo email. But the 'undo' was to send an email revoking the earlier one. MAPI/internal clients understood it; to external clients like me, it was just another email. I'm not sure they (the client) quite understood that they couldn't 'undo' emails to me, because they could do it just fine to everyone else (inside the company).

mihaaly 2y ago

Lazy technical managers (incomplete specification) combined with lazy developers (does not improve specification) and task completion count based performance evaluation (implies atomic task allocation with strictly < 1w time estimation) is the devil, not Lucifer. And they are everywhere.

farceSpherule 2y ago

This is why PM’s are supposed to work with Business Analysts. Unfortunately, most companies do not have BA’s because, you know, cost. And, most PM’s are not technical and have no engineering background or experience.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]