3 ms·

You don't think that sudden, radical, and politically motivated change in the core leadership of a company doesn't have long-lasting and compounding effects?

ModernMech 1mo ago
I think you should be able to find a better proximal cause. Like being bought by Microsoft, which happened in the intervening period. That would be a better explanation than feminists from a decade+ ago.
- halyconWays 1mo ago
  Company: "We're no longer going to focus on merit as a virtue." Company slowly becomes worse and worse. Me: "That starting gun surely signaled the start of the decline." You: "That was a long time ago. Couldn't have been that." What are second-order consequences?
  - ModernMech 1mo ago
    You're ignoring that the company grew 10x since then and was colonized, the CEO you're angry about was replaced, so insofar you're claiming this culture change happened 10 years ago which precipitated problems until today, you're conveniently ignoring a much larger culture change which more easily explains what's happened. For your explanation to work you'd have to explain how the change survived the Microsoft acquisition and that culture actually persisted.
    - halyconWays 1mo ago
      And yet 2014 was when the company culture completely changed. The co-founder resigned. The company switched to having bosses for everyone (previously they had an informal hierarchy). They moved to having serious HR, PMs, tech leads, 1:1 reporting, etc. They had a brain drain, like firing Zach Holman, a prominent leader. There was that "Dear GitHub" letter about it, when prominent orgs made a public letter about how GitHub was getting shittier. Reliability got worse and worse, steadily. Pre-2014 was called GitHub 1.0. AKA it's institutional rot.
      - ModernMech 1mo ago
        And yet after that incident, and whatever serious brain drain, HR, PMs, tech leads, 1:1 reporting (all symptoms and pains of a growing company); GitHub still remained meritorious enough to merit being bought by one of the biggest companies in the world for billions of dollars, so you have a huge problem with your assessment the company culture changed to one of anti-merit after this incident. What actually changed was they got rid of a rug, a tweet was posted, and some feminists (do you even know if they work there anymore?) were part of the charge and that pissed you off enough you're still talking about it a decade later. And despite this strong conviction you have, you've provided 0 references (you didn't even cite the original incident, I had to figure out what you were talking about) or evidence in several back and forth messages to support up your position, which you're on the hook to prove since you made the claim. To me it sounds like you're talking out of your rear. Feel free to have the last word on this one, but I won't be responding again since I've made my point thoroughly and there hasn't been anything added to the discussion since 3 posts ago, cheers.
        halyconWays 1mo ago
        >GitHub still remained meritorious enough to merit being bought by one of the biggest companies You can't just use the word "merit" and claim the CEO's literal statement about meritocracy no longer being one of their virtues means nothing. "Your honor, my client may have committed grand larceny, but he was certainly GRAND enough to order the GRAND SLAM at Denny's." >do you even know if they work there anymore? Yes >And despite this strong conviction you have, you've provided 0 references (you didn't even cite the original incident, I had to figure out... So you're unfamiliar with the period of GitHub history you're speaking about as if you have knowledge and authority. Why didn't you ask questions and seek to learn? At what point did you disagree with my theory, before or after you did a cursory search on a single facet of my argument? >I won't be responding again since I've made my point thoroughly >Feel free to have the last word >there hasn't been anything added to the discussion since 3 posts ago >cheers. Spoken like a man who feels his argument is defensible and reasoned, clearly, because if this is the manner in which you have debates, you likely always feel that way.
- megagpt2 1mo ago
  Or moving to Azure, a known garbage platform, which happened at exactly the same time the problems began.

ModernMech 1mo ago

I think you should be able to find a better proximal cause. Like being bought by Microsoft, which happened in the intervening period. That would be a better explanation than feminists from a decade+ ago.

halyconWays 1mo ago
Company: "We're no longer going to focus on merit as a virtue." Company slowly becomes worse and worse. Me: "That starting gun surely signaled the start of the decline." You: "That was a long time ago. Couldn't have been that." What are second-order consequences?
- ModernMech 1mo ago
  You're ignoring that the company grew 10x since then and was colonized, the CEO you're angry about was replaced, so insofar you're claiming this culture change happened 10 years ago which precipitated problems until today, you're conveniently ignoring a much larger culture change which more easily explains what's happened. For your explanation to work you'd have to explain how the change survived the Microsoft acquisition and that culture actually persisted.
  - halyconWays 1mo ago
    And yet 2014 was when the company culture completely changed. The co-founder resigned. The company switched to having bosses for everyone (previously they had an informal hierarchy). They moved to having serious HR, PMs, tech leads, 1:1 reporting, etc. They had a brain drain, like firing Zach Holman, a prominent leader. There was that "Dear GitHub" letter about it, when prominent orgs made a public letter about how GitHub was getting shittier. Reliability got worse and worse, steadily. Pre-2014 was called GitHub 1.0. AKA it's institutional rot.
    - ModernMech 1mo ago
      And yet after that incident, and whatever serious brain drain, HR, PMs, tech leads, 1:1 reporting (all symptoms and pains of a growing company); GitHub still remained meritorious enough to merit being bought by one of the biggest companies in the world for billions of dollars, so you have a huge problem with your assessment the company culture changed to one of anti-merit after this incident. What actually changed was they got rid of a rug, a tweet was posted, and some feminists (do you even know if they work there anymore?) were part of the charge and that pissed you off enough you're still talking about it a decade later. And despite this strong conviction you have, you've provided 0 references (you didn't even cite the original incident, I had to figure out what you were talking about) or evidence in several back and forth messages to support up your position, which you're on the hook to prove since you made the claim. To me it sounds like you're talking out of your rear. Feel free to have the last word on this one, but I won't be responding again since I've made my point thoroughly and there hasn't been anything added to the discussion since 3 posts ago, cheers.
      - halyconWays 1mo ago
        >GitHub still remained meritorious enough to merit being bought by one of the biggest companies You can't just use the word "merit" and claim the CEO's literal statement about meritocracy no longer being one of their virtues means nothing. "Your honor, my client may have committed grand larceny, but he was certainly GRAND enough to order the GRAND SLAM at Denny's." >do you even know if they work there anymore? Yes >And despite this strong conviction you have, you've provided 0 references (you didn't even cite the original incident, I had to figure out... So you're unfamiliar with the period of GitHub history you're speaking about as if you have knowledge and authority. Why didn't you ask questions and seek to learn? At what point did you disagree with my theory, before or after you did a cursory search on a single facet of my argument? >I won't be responding again since I've made my point thoroughly >Feel free to have the last word >there hasn't been anything added to the discussion since 3 posts ago >cheers. Spoken like a man who feels his argument is defensible and reasoned, clearly, because if this is the manner in which you have debates, you likely always feel that way.
megagpt2 1mo ago
Or moving to Azure, a known garbage platform, which happened at exactly the same time the problems began.