3 ms·

As a backup strategy, the guy should have made a version of the program that is buggy and only gets 7x the regular production rate of the other workers. Then if

As a backup strategy, the guy should have made a version of the program that is buggy and only gets 7x the regular production rate of the other workers. Then if company wants his code, they get the inefficient program and he gets hired to make it work 100%. He can explain his bonuses as script + great manual work in case they wonder.

tfb 14y ago
I really don't like this idea. While it might have helped ensure the OP's longevity in the company, it's selfish and is really doing more harm then good in the long run. And that doesn't really seem like the OP's style. I hope you and others don't view the world this way. If you do, you're only holding the rest of us back. It reminds me of the other comment here about screwing things up on purpose just to increase budget: Occasionally a politician will sweep through with an attempt to cut costs (they're the only ones who even pretend to care) -- the bureaucracy will respond by firing the most useful and publicly visible of their employees to ensure that service levels drop thus justifying their case for an increased budget later on. - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4167459 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4167459
- micahgoulart 14y ago
  How is that any different than adding a password? He's protecting his own interests so he won't be fired without a chance to come back to his job and finish automating the whole company. He made himself indispensable with the password. This would be another way to do it in case they figure out the password with some other methods, such as a keylogger, before letting him go.
  - rtkwe 14y ago
    There's a difference between protecting a buggy alpha, which he probably didn't realize (or maybe wouldn't be) company property, and intentionally making an artificially weaker program in order to ensure your job security.

tfb 14y ago

I really don't like this idea. While it might have helped ensure the OP's longevity in the company, it's selfish and is really doing more harm then good in the long run. And that doesn't really seem like the OP's style. I hope you and others don't view the world this way. If you do, you're only holding the rest of us back. It reminds me of the other comment here about screwing things up on purpose just to increase budget: Occasionally a politician will sweep through with an attempt to cut costs (they're the only ones who even pretend to care) -- the bureaucracy will respond by firing the most useful and publicly visible of their employees to ensure that service levels drop thus justifying their case for an increased budget later on. - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4167459 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4167459

micahgoulart 14y ago
How is that any different than adding a password? He's protecting his own interests so he won't be fired without a chance to come back to his job and finish automating the whole company. He made himself indispensable with the password. This would be another way to do it in case they figure out the password with some other methods, such as a keylogger, before letting him go.
- rtkwe 14y ago
  There's a difference between protecting a buggy alpha, which he probably didn't realize (or maybe wouldn't be) company property, and intentionally making an artificially weaker program in order to ensure your job security.