4 ms·

Yes, it's crazy. I think a lot of people see it as a question of "how can we give the PSF (or orgs like it) more money" but I see it a bit differently. Basica

Yes, it's crazy. I think a lot of people see it as a question of "how can we give the PSF (or orgs like it) more money" but I see it a bit differently. Basically if something like Python can arise and become so effective and useful in so many ways with so little funding (and even less in earlier stages), it suggests that money isn't really the bottleneck here. What we need are people doing good work with good motives and not chasing dollars. That in turn suggests that a lot of money currently being spent is wasted, or worse, used for ill. We would be better served by taking all the assets of the Fortune 500 and distributing them widely to tons of little groups. Some of those groups may turn out to be the next Python, and for the ones that don't, well, we didn't waste much money on them. Right now what we get instead is hundreds of billions of dollars going to advertising algorithms. The reason it's crazy that the PSF survives on $5 million isn't that $5 million is crazy little, it's that too many other entities are crazy big.

godelski 1y ago
That is another great point. I do see a lot of companies trying to cut corners and make things as cheap as possible but I fundamentally believe that this ends up increasing costs in the long run. Which is a bit weird since I know a lot of business people and most seem to be familiar with Boot Theory[0] and even agree with it. But maybe it is one of those things that is just not realized in practice. Yet I constantly see these sacrifices being made. Profits over product. I don't think that actually leads to more profits. Maybe in the quarter, but not long term. It's a sustainable strategy if you've monopolized the market though... I also notice that when layoffs come around that the people who decide who to lay off tend to not lay off themselves. Great way to become management heavy... When in reality, if you have a lot of "rockstar programmers" they should be able to mostly manage themselves. You want to keep them from going down too many rabbit holes and help them prioritize, but for the most part experts know what is most important in the system they're working in. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
- BrenBarn 1y ago
  > Maybe in the quarter, but not long term. It's a sustainable strategy if you've monopolized the market though... It's also a sustainable strategy if the market has become so distorted that it's difficult for consumers to distinguish the good products from the bad. This is a pervasive problem these days. It may still be the case that a good pair of boots will last you 10 years, but how can you tell which pair is the good one? There are 10,000 brands, all of them have 4.7 star ratings because of bots, most of them have a picture that looks nothing like what you'll receive, and if they wear out in two years you'll have no recourse because the brand was just a facade over a "ghost workshop" that's now producing the same crap under another name. Trying to vote with your dollars is like pushing on a rope. > When in reality, if you have a lot of "rockstar programmers" they should be able to mostly manage themselves. I'm not so sure about this. There are many people who are good at doing things but not at organizing that activity in a coherent way (especially across a team). Also when the people doing the "real work" are also managing, they often have a tendency to give the managing short shrift because they'd rather do the "real work". I agree we could do with a lot fewer managers than we currently have, but I think we do need some. (And this isn't just about software, it's about companies and organizations in general.) But I think we would be better off with more democratized company structures where the managers' power ultimately rests on the consent of the workers, so that when you have these clashes that currently result in "half the staff resigned in protest" they would instead result in "the CEO was fired due to lack of support from the staff".
  - godelski 1y ago
    > if the market has become so distorted that it's difficult for consumers to distinguish the good products from the bad If you didn't know, there's a formal name for this: Lemon Markets[0]. Which yes, I agree. I think it is an accurate description of tech. Even among techies now. Hell, in that other thread[1] we seem to be talking to programmers who think we're omniscient and can generate bug free code (I'm still absolutely baffled by this). So tech literacy seems to be low even among the "techies". > I'm not so sure about this. I actually agree with you. I probably didn't phrase it well enough. That's a bit what I was trying to say when saying you want to prevent them from going down too may rabbit holes. But I did also want to subtly reference to Mervin Kelly, former director of Bell Labs. When asked "how do you manage genius?" his answer was "you don't"[2]. So I do agree that we need managers. Their job is to validate direction, ensure people are able to do their specialized job with minimal interruptions, and all that jazz. I think we often confuse "speed" with "velocity." The experts know the direction things need to go, but a manager's job is to ensure that those vectors are aligned across teams and aligned with the company goal. But we also get confused with thinking the goal is "to make money" and not differentiate it from "to make money by producing a useful product.". It's easy to drop that part off, but doing so shifts your customers from those that purchase your product to "shareholders". Even if shareholder price is based on people buying your product... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45742272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45742272 [2] https://westviewnews.org/2019/11/01/bell-labs-second-best-kept-secret/gcapsis/ https://westviewnews.org/2019/11/01/bell-labs-second-best-ke...

godelski 1y ago

That is another great point. I do see a lot of companies trying to cut corners and make things as cheap as possible but I fundamentally believe that this ends up increasing costs in the long run. Which is a bit weird since I know a lot of business people and most seem to be familiar with Boot Theory[0] and even agree with it. But maybe it is one of those things that is just not realized in practice. Yet I constantly see these sacrifices being made. Profits over product. I don't think that actually leads to more profits. Maybe in the quarter, but not long term. It's a sustainable strategy if you've monopolized the market though... I also notice that when layoffs come around that the people who decide who to lay off tend to not lay off themselves. Great way to become management heavy... When in reality, if you have a lot of "rockstar programmers" they should be able to mostly manage themselves. You want to keep them from going down too many rabbit holes and help them prioritize, but for the most part experts know what is most important in the system they're working in. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory

BrenBarn 1y ago
> Maybe in the quarter, but not long term. It's a sustainable strategy if you've monopolized the market though... It's also a sustainable strategy if the market has become so distorted that it's difficult for consumers to distinguish the good products from the bad. This is a pervasive problem these days. It may still be the case that a good pair of boots will last you 10 years, but how can you tell which pair is the good one? There are 10,000 brands, all of them have 4.7 star ratings because of bots, most of them have a picture that looks nothing like what you'll receive, and if they wear out in two years you'll have no recourse because the brand was just a facade over a "ghost workshop" that's now producing the same crap under another name. Trying to vote with your dollars is like pushing on a rope. > When in reality, if you have a lot of "rockstar programmers" they should be able to mostly manage themselves. I'm not so sure about this. There are many people who are good at doing things but not at organizing that activity in a coherent way (especially across a team). Also when the people doing the "real work" are also managing, they often have a tendency to give the managing short shrift because they'd rather do the "real work". I agree we could do with a lot fewer managers than we currently have, but I think we do need some. (And this isn't just about software, it's about companies and organizations in general.) But I think we would be better off with more democratized company structures where the managers' power ultimately rests on the consent of the workers, so that when you have these clashes that currently result in "half the staff resigned in protest" they would instead result in "the CEO was fired due to lack of support from the staff".
- godelski 1y ago
  > if the market has become so distorted that it's difficult for consumers to distinguish the good products from the bad If you didn't know, there's a formal name for this: Lemon Markets[0]. Which yes, I agree. I think it is an accurate description of tech. Even among techies now. Hell, in that other thread[1] we seem to be talking to programmers who think we're omniscient and can generate bug free code (I'm still absolutely baffled by this). So tech literacy seems to be low even among the "techies". > I'm not so sure about this. I actually agree with you. I probably didn't phrase it well enough. That's a bit what I was trying to say when saying you want to prevent them from going down too may rabbit holes. But I did also want to subtly reference to Mervin Kelly, former director of Bell Labs. When asked "how do you manage genius?" his answer was "you don't"[2]. So I do agree that we need managers. Their job is to validate direction, ensure people are able to do their specialized job with minimal interruptions, and all that jazz. I think we often confuse "speed" with "velocity." The experts know the direction things need to go, but a manager's job is to ensure that those vectors are aligned across teams and aligned with the company goal. But we also get confused with thinking the goal is "to make money" and not differentiate it from "to make money by producing a useful product.". It's easy to drop that part off, but doing so shifts your customers from those that purchase your product to "shareholders". Even if shareholder price is based on people buying your product... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45742272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45742272 [2] https://westviewnews.org/2019/11/01/bell-labs-second-best-kept-secret/gcapsis/ https://westviewnews.org/2019/11/01/bell-labs-second-best-ke...