PainfullyNormal

Am I the only one that sees this when I go to imgur lately?

    {"data":{"error":"Imgur is temporarily over capacity. Please try again later."},"success":false,"status":403}

You could say it’s just not being done right, but at some point, if so many people keep trying it and it still doesn’t work, maybe the problem is the approach itself.

Have you ever heard of shape-up? https://basecamp.com/shapeup

One of the issues I have with how agile is all things to all people is that nobody's trying new things. They're trying to fit what they're already doing inside the definition of agile instead.

Why? Agile has been the favored approach to software development among the startup crowd for over a decade now. I don't think I've had a job since 2008 that didn't use it in some fashion.

You almost have to admire it from a rhetorical perspective. Kent Beck created a manifesto so vague and flexible that it can literally be anything to anyone.

> Make changes if it isn't working.

If measuring performance is so difficult, then how do you know if it's working or not?

I couldn't agree more. There is zero incentive to excel in any way. Solve something really cool? No one cares. Take the next task in the sprint. Spot a problem? Add it to the backlog (to be ignored) and do what you’re tol... I mean, take the next task in the sprint. Spot a problem, put together a solution, save or make a bunch of money for the company? Who told you to do that? That wasn’t the next task in the sprint.

It's been 10 years since Zed Shaw suggested a <markdown/> tag.

clean speech warning: swearing. https://youtu.be/_CEBG_s92P8?t=398

> It's even weirder in Canada, where "toot" means "fart" but also "toke" as in inhaling cannabis smoke from a joint / pipe / bong.

No, that makes it sound just about right.

> What's more, for a programmer who doesn't get the value of types, the major downsides are already apparent, at least at a basic level.

How could the downsides possibly be apparent if the upsides are so mysterious they need an article to spell them out?

> It's an article design to help certain programmers learn a particular thing

Have they actually learned that particular thing if they don't know the tradeoffs they're making? I would argue they haven't. You need to know what you're getting and what you're giving up before you can decide whether something is worth using at all. There are too many articles hyping the upsides of technology X, but nobody asking what the downsides are.

Articles like this bug me. You've given me a list of why types are awesome. Great. Now, tell me what the tradeoff is. Nothing is free in engineering. To get something, you have to give up something else. Even grug[0] understands this.

[0]: https://grugbrain.dev/#grug-on-type-systems

Haha, can you tell I'm trying to quit coffee this week? An entire article and half the comments in and I never noticed we're talking about a refrigerator and not a freezer. My bad!

> and you have to take everything out to access the bottom most area.

And an ice pick, if you live anywhere even slightly humid.

Thanks! I appreciate it.

From the HN guidelines: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

> "misinformation" (in contrast to "disinformation") does not say anything about intent, so you're wrong to quote that part.

Misinformation. Noun. False or inaccurate information, especially that which is *deliberately intended to deceive*.

I stand by my statement.

> I went on public record saying why I left. And there was an entire discussion about it. There was never any confusion about why I left.

Which he clearly hasn't read. Not everybody lives online and not everybody is personally familiar with you and your situation. It certainly doesn't explain why you're inappropriately assuming malicious intent.

> If you're still going to say things that are untrue to push your own narrative

Where is he trying to push a narrative? I looked at his post history here and on Lobsters before posting. This is the first time he's ever mentioned it or brought it up.

> And if my behavior is what speaks out to you as bad

Yes. Even moreso now that you've explained. You could have corrected his statement without acting like the world's out to get you or that he intended you personal harm.

SEEKING WORK | REMOTE | EST

Fullstack engineer and web developer with 9 years of experience as a one stop shop for MVP and prototype development. I do rough UI and UX design, small scale frontend, backend, and data infrastructure, API design, and devops. I do whatever it takes to take your idea from the drawing board to a functioning prototype.

15 mins Chat: https://calendly.com/painfullynormal

Fees: $7,999 per week. 1/3rd up front, 1/3rd on delivery, 1/3rd on acceptance of work. IP transfers on full payment. Discounts available for longer projects.

> This is misinformation.

> I don't understand why people lie so blatantly like this.

Why assume malicious intent? Couldn't he just be wrong?

The biggest problem I have with twitter as a platform and as a concept is that individual tweets lack any and all context. "Threading" together tweets doesn't make them linear. If you want to restrict post size, then you have to make threads linear or you wind up losing any and all context farther down the thread. There winds up being a large group of people who try to argue things that have already been said further up the thread or you have people arguing over a misunderstanding because they missed the first 10 tweets because somebody they know retweeted the 11th because it had a snarky soundbite.

Twitter right now is all noise and no signal. It's a bunch of people running through a crowded train station where everybody's shouting but nobody can hear more than a few words of what any single person is saying. How can that ever be a useful platform for civil discussion? It does make for a great broadcast platform. "The train from Chicago is leaving in half an hour. Mick wishes his mother a happy birthday."

> There are lots of good reasons for a company to be really choosy in who they hire, primarily because a bad hire can be hugely damaging to a company.

I think this is overstated. The only engineering positions that can really do any reasonable amount of damage to a company are people who set policy for the whole company (CTO, CEO, VPs). Everybody else is designed to be replaced. Any changes they make can be reversed. The worst you've lost is a little time and money.

> If you're not having much luck

I utilized /r/EngineeringResumes/ and rewrote my resume last month in an X, Y, Z format. I haven't had any problem getting interviews since then. But, I apply directly through the company website. I haven't had a single response on hired or linkedin, but I've had about 20 interviews in the past two weeks at companies I applied to directly. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I also use gruvbox dark with hard contrast. I completely forgot I was using it and had to look at my vimrc. That's how good it is: I set it a number of years ago and haven't had to touch it since.

Here's how every contact I have with a recruiter on LinkedIn goes:

- 5 minute phone call to explain the position, get my resume and say they'll send it to their client

- silence

Maybe I'm just getting hit up by resume farmers pretending to be recruiters?

It's a bit worse than that. What we call "technical debt" is roughly the equivalent of building a skyscraper with inferior steel and saying we're going to go back and fix it later.

The skyscraper is also a flawed analogy because it doesn't cover the fact that this will somehow magically slow down the work on the rest of the building until it is fixed. The molasses metaphor is good for that one, but I don't see how I can mix the two.

There is such a thing as a bad tool. In most industries, they simply refuse to use the tool anymore. Not so much in software development, for some reason.

Your post reminds me of this scene from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGTEXqudVJM

Part of writing it "the right way" is to make it easy to change. This is why I've come to dislike OOP. The rules are too rigid and result in exactly what you describe.

Maintstream journalists write what the owners of their publications tell them to write, especially when it comes to politics. The idea that a change in ownership of a relatively small social media company is going to have a "profound impact on democracy" is stupid. Especially since nobody seems to have a similar problem when a major media conglomerate changes ownership.

> but it's influence on politics is very real.

> Personally I don't think this acquisition is healthy for a democracy

Fewer than a quarter of Americans use Twitter. Empty rhetoric is empty.

It's not based on a grudge. It's based on previous conversations with Agrawal and him coming to the conclusion (along with Jack Dorsey) that Agrawal won't work with him to make the changes he wants to see.

https://twitter.com/TechEmails/status/1575598387335901190

I've heard technical people use those terms when they're talking down (or up, depending on your perspective) to management.

I'll try again using shorter words.

> You don't care whether you have almost no effective chance to actually get a job?

Grug care. Grug can't pass live coding interview. Grug freeze. Grug ask for take home test instead. Grug not care about "perverse incentive." Grug want job.