Hacker News Reader

Comment by matte_black | Hacker News Reader

I don’t like when people use “wins the lottery” because it leads to distracting tangents. A person that wins a lottery could do anything. How much did they win? Maybe they’ll still keep working? Maybe they’ll go off to start their own company and take a bunch of key employees with them? Maybe they’ll be broke in a year and come back to their job? Maybe they don’t leave right away? These are just distractions you don’t need when illustrating a point.

By contrast, a person being struck by a bus and killed has a definite finality to it. There is no going back. There is no hope of extracting knowledge from the once living individual. There is not even time to prepare. Their existence and their output has ceased and everyone alive must now live in this new reality.

View on HN

I think it's pretty clear what's meant by it, and "hit by a bus" has very similar problems if taken too seriously. Were they hurt? Are they out for a few days, just shaken, decide to change their approach to life etc.

> How much did they win? Maybe they’ll still keep working? Maybe they’ll go off to start their own company and take a bunch of key employees with them? Maybe they’ll be broke in a year and come back to their job? Maybe they don’t leave right away?

Well exactly. You don't know, and now you've given yourself four scenarios to think through:

1. Employee remains.

2. Employee leaves forever, maybe with others.

3. Employee leaves for a while but would come back.

4. Employee leaves, but with some time to plan.

1 should not be a difficult thing to plan for, and 2-4 all ask the same major question of "what if they leave". There's perhaps a slight benefit of not having to say "well assuming you are dead..." - I know I've had some time this year where I was trying not to focus on a death.

The key point is the risk. If your answer to "what if X wins the lottery" is "well as long as they don't want to leave..." then you're already setting yourself up to answer the question it's intended to propose - what if they are no longer working for the company?

I agree, and the "don't want to talk about morbid stuff" shows an overall immaturity in thinking about risk and controls. People die, people get sick, people leave for other jobs or roles, people steal. The institution has to be able to survive.

That's not to say folks should be callous about it. But failing to think about things like this is also unfair and stressful to employees who are not dead.

Hm. I guess if you read it as a euphemism for getting a better job offer elsewhere, winning a medium-sized lottery prize is more accurate: you can, in theory, contact a former employee, buy them drinks in exchange for getting their advice on a thorny problem, counteroffer them either now or in a year, etc. (And with a larger prize it's not impossible they'll use the winnings to start their own company or maybe even split the winnings with a coworker they're friends with.

Winning a lottery prize large enough to never talk to anyone again, and getting hit by a vehicle, are both very low-probability events. Employees (especially good employees, and perhaps in groups) leaving is a much more pressing risk.

The great thing about hypotheticals is you can just say "wins the lottery, leaves the job, and never comes back" and it's implied in the scenario that you shouldn't read too much into it.

A lot wordier than "hit by a bus" though.

Some people wouldn't dare speak to their former employers, let alone help them, if they won the lottery. Death or not, winning the lottery can be just as effective in getting rid of someone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com