3 ms·

Strong engineers have a high degree of plasticity but fail suddenly. Weak engineers can be made strong by arranging them in groups but you need to watch your po

by ggm 2y ago

Strong engineers have a high degree of plasticity but fail suddenly. Weak engineers can be made strong by arranging them in groups but you need to watch your points of tension and compression, using tools like finite element analysis. Testing strong engineers to destruction in a lab should only be carried out by competent materials scientists.

ozim 2y ago
Article mentions not to conflate weak engineers with regular. I think this comment does that. In article weak engineers are ones who cannot deliver anything.
- eszed 2y ago
  I think you just got whooshed. That apart, I think there's something to the "stronger in a group" principle.
  - ozim 2y ago
    0 times X is still 0 - if you get group of weak engineers as per article you still left with 0. - Even as per joke comment. Weak engineers sap energy from other people making excuses and hunting down people who can do work for them - that is the definition from the article.
fire_lake 2y ago
Ever seen a large team of weak engineers build in the wrong direction? You end up with thousands of lines of insecure, buggy code that will most likely be scrapped. The cheapest way to build things is a small team of strong engineers in my experience
- whydoineedthis 2y ago
  Have you ever seen a group of individually strong engineers accomplish nothing because they spent all thier time fighting and/or building technically correct stuff that has no business use case? I sure have. And likewise, I have seen technically weak engineers who are capable of getting along with others deliver great output with high business value. Imho, the fact the author calls some engineers "0's" is the type of egalitarian douchenozzelry that I have seen bring entire teams to a halt, and why I think the author comes off as a blow hard. If you think any person is a zero, the more likely truth is you don't know how to properly asses a person's skills and put them to use where they fit - and that's an eng leadership failure, not an ic failure.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by ggm 2y ago

ozim 2y ago

Article mentions not to conflate weak engineers with regular. I think this comment does that. In article weak engineers are ones who cannot deliver anything.

eszed 2y ago
I think you just got whooshed. That apart, I think there's something to the "stronger in a group" principle.
- ozim 2y ago
  0 times X is still 0 - if you get group of weak engineers as per article you still left with 0. - Even as per joke comment. Weak engineers sap energy from other people making excuses and hunting down people who can do work for them - that is the definition from the article.

fire_lake 2y ago

Ever seen a large team of weak engineers build in the wrong direction? You end up with thousands of lines of insecure, buggy code that will most likely be scrapped. The cheapest way to build things is a small team of strong engineers in my experience

whydoineedthis 2y ago
Have you ever seen a group of individually strong engineers accomplish nothing because they spent all thier time fighting and/or building technically correct stuff that has no business use case? I sure have. And likewise, I have seen technically weak engineers who are capable of getting along with others deliver great output with high business value. Imho, the fact the author calls some engineers "0's" is the type of egalitarian douchenozzelry that I have seen bring entire teams to a halt, and why I think the author comes off as a blow hard. If you think any person is a zero, the more likely truth is you don't know how to properly asses a person's skills and put them to use where they fit - and that's an eng leadership failure, not an ic failure.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]