Hacker News Reader

Comment by SapphireSun | Hacker News Reader

This is petty and shallow, but I'm annoyed with programmer culture in the sense that people always phrase this sort of question in terms of "what if the person that gave us so much kicked off" rather than "what if they were unavailable or retire"? It's morbid and sort of implies that the only way that person would ever stop is if they died.

It leaves me feeling slimy. It's intended to say this person is so dedicated they would never ever abandon a software project of their own free will. In the case of free (as in beer) software projects, the author is often not even compensated. It really makes it seem like the people that are helping you are entirely subservient to the machines and the wanton desires of others. It also appeals to the serious business person that lives in the hearts of so many developers where only the harshest framing can be considered as dealing with the world in real terms.

Anyway, carry on. I just wanted to say my piece.

View on HN

I guess the underlying assumption is the person in charge would retire or become unavailable with some deliberation and planning. Somebody gone due to accident is entirely different thing.

"Hit by a bus" also means no possibility of asking for his advice or making a better offer (if he changed jobs).

I partly agree with you, but I think people are also interested in how a sudden and unexpected departure would play out. If Linus Torvalds wanted to retire and spend the rest of his life diving rather than maintaining the kernel, I expect there would be a planned transition.

You're reading too much into the statement in my opinion. "What if XYZ got run over by a bus," is a colloquialism that simply takes the farthest position in order to talk about the worst case. It just means, "what would be the fall back position if everything broke and vapor came out"?

You're right of course, but there is a reason the colloquialism takes this form as opposed to another. Colloquialisms, the intelligible ones at least, sublimate some underlying element of culture in order to communicate sensibly and easily.

This very idea of stretching logic to extremes without consideration for real world effects is very much a foundational element in programmer culture. It's born out of rationalism and certain elements of enlightenment thinking. However, this pure (im)practical reason is often applied in all circumstances irrespective of the context. After all, it's possible to reason about a person's absence without also implying the worst, and this kindness is valuable. If SV could somehow change its foundational thinking from reason + corrosive business practices to reason + kindness we'd all be better off.

> If SV could somehow change its foundational thinking from reason + corrosive business practices to reason + kindness we'd all be better off.

+1 ;)

When talking about backups, DR, and institutional knowledge, I always use death in the example for the simple reason that it is final and there is absolutely no way to recover the lost individual. If they retire or otherwise move on, you can go visit and ask questions, pay them, or even threaten them for what you need, but death prevents that and is also much less predictable.

That's because retirement or going to a different job means you can slowly take over and ask questions or even prevent it.

The difference here is a planned departure with a takeover versus a sudden disappearance without notice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com