3 ms·

Good heavens. Reading the NYT comments I'm surprised at how many people take issue with the choice of words- "maker" and "manager," or assume that pg was someh

by jwecker 17y ago

Good heavens. Reading the NYT comments I'm surprised at how many people take issue with the choice of words- "maker" and "manager," or assume that pg was somehow trying to degrade one or the other. Sometimes I wonder if there's a secret contest going on somewhere on the web or something where the goal is to get offended (on record, with full name) at the most innocuous thing possible. I suppose it means that the main points of the essay are holding up quite nicely, on the other hand.

netsp 17y ago
People fill in blanks. It's silly and often wrong. But it can be right too. Contrasting makers & managers in that context with the other little clues hint at the pre agreed up division lines in a pre existing debate. You could stir up the other side just as easily. Hint at a 'then find someone to make it for you' step in a process. Allude to engineers being replaceable or product ideas coming from marketing. Religious people can get very offended if you call a miracle supernatural. It's easy to get people going when it's part of an existing debate.
chrismear 17y ago
I've encountered more than a few people who take issue with the "us programmers are special flowers, we need weird working hours and no interruptions" line (as they see it). Everyone else gets their job done under normal conditions; why can't the programmers? This may just be more of that.
- wynand 17y ago
  I know that kind of person. I think every programmer does. I don't know at which point one's value as an employee started being measured by one's tolerance for a distracting workplace. I always thought that the idea was to create conditions that allow for people to get as much done as possible. Though it might not be possible to give people the schedules and conditions that they need all time, it is possible to improve matters a lot in most workplaces.

by jwecker 17y ago

netsp 17y ago

People fill in blanks. It's silly and often wrong. But it can be right too. Contrasting makers & managers in that context with the other little clues hint at the pre agreed up division lines in a pre existing debate. You could stir up the other side just as easily. Hint at a 'then find someone to make it for you' step in a process. Allude to engineers being replaceable or product ideas coming from marketing. Religious people can get very offended if you call a miracle supernatural. It's easy to get people going when it's part of an existing debate.

chrismear 17y ago

I've encountered more than a few people who take issue with the "us programmers are special flowers, we need weird working hours and no interruptions" line (as they see it). Everyone else gets their job done under normal conditions; why can't the programmers? This may just be more of that.

wynand 17y ago
I know that kind of person. I think every programmer does. I don't know at which point one's value as an employee started being measured by one's tolerance for a distracting workplace. I always thought that the idea was to create conditions that allow for people to get as much done as possible. Though it might not be possible to give people the schedules and conditions that they need all time, it is possible to improve matters a lot in most workplaces.