4 ms·

I don't understand what you're getting at, how does that relate to what I said above?

• kreetx 2y ago
  It means that you don't need a technician at all where the problem is completely automatable. In the original blog post, the developer who was automated away was of that type - adding HTTP API endpoints from protobuf definitions if I read correctly.
  • carapace 2y ago
    Oh yeah, that person should have asked to be re-tasked. The point I'm making is that that's not what makes a technician (that's what makes a human robot! Ew!) > It means that you don't need a technician at all where the problem is completely automatable. You can try to make your systems so good that they seldom need technicians but you can't fire them all because Murphy's Law rules real world systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maytag#Ol'_Lonely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maytag#Ol'_Lonely
    • kreetx 2y ago
      That person wasn't actually fired either.
      • carapace 2y ago
        Terrific. Do you have anything to say about the point I'm making about the difference between predictability and novelty?
        • kreetx 2y ago
          It seems that you and the original blog post only disagree about what the word "technician" means (and I think I'm on "your side" with the definition). But the original blog post really talks about automating away developers who do things like writing HTTP API endpoints from protocol buffer definitions - with that I totally agree with.
          • carapace 2y ago
            D'accord.