5 ms·

Of course! If the codebase gets non-performant or hard to maintain, all you have to do is rewrite it to be not-that. Typically makes sense to fire anyone who w

Of course! If the codebase gets non-performant or hard to maintain, all you have to do is rewrite it to be not-that. Typically makes sense to fire anyone who wrote the broken version too, just to get a fresh set of eyes on it. Not sure why there’s any non-performant or unmaintainable code in light of this fact.

psd1 2y ago
Irony noted, but I think it's rare for the horrors of a codebase to be deliberately inflicted for self-enrichment or cruelty.
- mindslight 2y ago
  Isn't that the whole point behind A/B testing? Find the accidental dark patterns that will maximize extraction?
  - psd1 2y ago
    Ah, I see. I was thinking in terms of spaghetti hell. I wrote a big chunk before I recalled that this is just an analogy. We're wandering off topic.
askvictor 2y ago
I appreciate the irony, but it doesn't have to be that drastic. In Australia we have the Law Reform Commission, which looks to gradually make laws better. Is the legal system perfect? Far from it. Does it get political? All the time. Is it getting better? I would argue yes, slowly. To your analogy, it's possible to incrementally improve a code base. It's also possible to stop it getting worse.
- sorcerer-mar 2y ago
  Right, which no one (to my knowledge) is opposed to.
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    Prosecutors have political lobbies. So too do prison guards and their unions. You would be hard pressed to find a union that represents prison guards which has supported ANY kind of political reform to laws. Legalization, even changes to traffic laws, prison guard unions and their members almost exclusively vote against. Just for two examples.
    - sorcerer-mar 2y ago
      No no, the claim was that there are people who are trying to "make laws better." No one disagrees with doing that. They might disagree on what "better" means, and in particular better for whom. But 95%+ of the disagreement on these is not because one side is evil and the other is not.

psd1 2y ago

Irony noted, but I think it's rare for the horrors of a codebase to be deliberately inflicted for self-enrichment or cruelty.

mindslight 2y ago
Isn't that the whole point behind A/B testing? Find the accidental dark patterns that will maximize extraction?
- psd1 2y ago
  Ah, I see. I was thinking in terms of spaghetti hell. I wrote a big chunk before I recalled that this is just an analogy. We're wandering off topic.

askvictor 2y ago

I appreciate the irony, but it doesn't have to be that drastic. In Australia we have the Law Reform Commission, which looks to gradually make laws better. Is the legal system perfect? Far from it. Does it get political? All the time. Is it getting better? I would argue yes, slowly. To your analogy, it's possible to incrementally improve a code base. It's also possible to stop it getting worse.

sorcerer-mar 2y ago
Right, which no one (to my knowledge) is opposed to.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  Prosecutors have political lobbies. So too do prison guards and their unions. You would be hard pressed to find a union that represents prison guards which has supported ANY kind of political reform to laws. Legalization, even changes to traffic laws, prison guard unions and their members almost exclusively vote against. Just for two examples.
  - sorcerer-mar 2y ago
    No no, the claim was that there are people who are trying to "make laws better." No one disagrees with doing that. They might disagree on what "better" means, and in particular better for whom. But 95%+ of the disagreement on these is not because one side is evil and the other is not.