4 ms·
That's not how you do risk analysis. You're proving too much [1]; you're proving that no company should ever change any working system because something could g
by jerf 1y ago
That's not how you do risk analysis. You're proving too much [1]; you're proving that no company should ever change any working system because something could go wrong.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_too_much https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_too_much
- gjsman-1000 1y agoI don’t care if you can justify it in an academic sense; your company’s boardroom is going to say: - Savings $400K - Direct expenditures $100K - Mistake expenditures $700K - Net loss $400K; immediate loss $800K And that’s it. You’re fired, replaced with someone who is better at not fixing things that ain’t broken; who wouldn’t have made this mistake in the first place. And heaven help you if your code is deployed before the Nintendo Switch 2 launch (or another major launch) when you made this mistake; or if you just ruined another company’s launch and your company’s contract with them to support it. Pointing to a Wikipedia article, musing about how risk analysis should be done, isn’t going to save your skin.
- bluGill 1y agoIf mistakes cost that much you need something in place to prevent them anyway. Because I guarantee that eventually you will need some change made (tax laws change?) and you then get that same risk.