2,724 karma · joined April 17, 2012
For the most part, I like to live in a world where the default position is that we're mostly well-intentioned, rising apes rather than fallen angels (RIP, Sir Terry Pratchett). This is clearly not always the case, and it's important to accept that, but it shouldn't stop me from still aspiring to be as kind as possible in my own life.
> Gordon Bell (after lunch, it's wonderful having God and Marshall McHulan here to correct one's self) emailed:
> I did build/invent the first UART in '61, made the Ethernet deal with Intel and Xerox to have LANs, and DECnet was the first commercial implementation or ARPAnet, so I have had a long term interest in communcations.
> Every notice that the bell rings when you push ctrl g on the old teletypes?
> Also, built first commercial timesharing system.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33483165 (2022)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26387179 (2021)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10734815 (2015)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7516671 (2014)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4040082 (2012)
I've always felt that the magpie syndrome you describe is because of the desire to build new things, rather than maintain what's there.
I watched a repair show recently where a craftsman repaired an old 70s bedside clock. The pride, time and patience he took in repairing the clock was wonderful to see, actively avoiding rebuilding parts if he could reuse what was there, even if there was a crack or blemish.
I've always respected engineers that maintained and fixed software well, and also knew when to reach for the right tool in the toolbox. Better yet, those that knew when not to build something new. Perhaps that's something you learn through experience and doing, but I wonder if it's actively taught, encouraged, or rewarded in the workplace. It really should help get you your next job.
Two bugs are detailed here: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/09/how-the-post...
> One, named the “Dalmellington Bug”, after the village in Scotland where a post office operator first fell prey to it, would see the screen freeze as the user was attempting to confirm receipt of cash. Each time the user pressed “enter” on the frozen screen, it would silently update the record. In Dalmellington, that bug created a £24,000 discrepancy, which the Post Office tried to hold the post office operator responsible for.
> Another bug, called the Callendar Square bug – again named after the first branch found to have been affected by it – created duplicate transactions due to an error in the database underpinning the system: despite being clear duplicates, the post office operator was again held responsible for the errors.
There weren't just bugs, either Fujitsu had the ability of modifying or adding transactional records remotely, but always denied they had the ability to do so, as did the Post Office.
Private Eye were one of the few people reporting on this regularly. I've been reading about it in there for close on ten years, and am still astonished that it's taken this long to really hit home what happened to these individuals. Bravo to the makers of the recent show that's brought it back into the spotlight. It's truly shocking what the Post Office and Fujitsu did, and one can only hope prosecutions arise from this.
For anyone working in IT, there are lessons to be learned here about what impact software can have on individuals' lives, and bravo to any whistleblower that came forward to speak out.
However, after the script was reworked, and Dick read it, he said "you read the screenplay and then you go to the novel, and it’s like they’re two halves to one meta-artwork, one meta-artifact."
This makes for some great reading delving into what Dick thought of the film. https://soothfairy.com/2022/09/16/what-did-philip-k-dick-thi...
I especially like Special Effects Chief David Dryer's recollection of what Dick said after watching the first reels:
> Dick looks me straight in the eye and says, ‘How is this possible? How can this be? Those are not the exact images, but the texture and tone of the images I saw in my head when I was writing the original book! The environment is exactly as how I’d imagined it! How’d you guys do that? How did you know what I was feeling and thinking?’
> “Let me tell you, that was one of the most successful moments of my career,” Dryer concludes. “Dick went away dazed.”
I also particularly liked Dick's comments about what the film meant to him:
> I can only say that I did not know that a work of mine or a set of ideas of mine could be escalated into such stunning dimensions. My life and creative work are justified and completed by Blade Runer. Thank you … It will prove invincible.
EDIT: Just to add, carrots are good for your eyes, but they don't help you see in the dark, which is what the specific propaganda campaign was about. However, one of the main focuses of the campaign was to increase consumption of carrots in the population to alleviate food supply shortages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capablanca_chess
He wasn't the first to propose these sorts of changes (see the Wikipedia article).
In 1925, his comments on why he proposed these things is as follows:
"I spoke with Dr Tartakower, a great master and also a friend of mine, and he published, in very condensed form, my ideas on certain reforms that I believed it would be appropriate to make in chess. I told him that previously in various newspapers and magazines things had been attributed to me which I had never said, and this seemed to me a good opportunity to clarify the facts and to expound the only modifications that I really considered appropriate, while at the same time clarifying that it was untrue that I had ever declared that chess had reached its limit and that to draw was easy. It is of course easy to understand how much has been written and said on this matter. In reality, what I have heard and read on it demonstrates that I have not been understood."
"...In reality, today there exists, as it were, a separate form of chess, which is understood only by the most select of the great masters, and which very often relies on a highly-developed technique which already today threatens to make talent equal to genius; that would make chess rather similar to what the game of draughts is today. Thus despite the old history of chess and the thousands of books written on chess played on a 64-square board, it is necessary to avoid what would undoubtedly be a disaster. In order to prevent, for a few centuries at least, technique from again becoming such a dominant factor, I have suggested increasing the field of operations."
https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/2xxl2p/what_do_you_t...
This reminded me of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's quote that "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
[Edit: I googled around, and this was an interesting article from Rod Crawford, the curator of arachnid collections at the Burke Museum of Natural History & Culture, Seattle talking about house spiders being traced back to Roman times. https://www.burkemuseum.org/collections-and-research/biology... ]
> It is your life. You own it. You run it. You create it.
> Many developers we talk to are frustrated. Their concerns are varied. [...] And the answer we give is always the same.
> "Why can't you change it?"
> But, for some reason, developers seem to resist change. They hunker down, and hope things will get better.
> [...]
> So here's the most important tip in the book.
> Tip 3: You Have Agency
> Does your environment suck? Is your job boring? Try to fix it. But don't try forever. As Martin Fowler says, "You can change your organization, or you can change your organization."
When I read the situation you describe, the best thing would be to acknowledge where the tech lead is emotionally, and sympathize, because it sounds like they simply wanted to sound off about it, not actually change it at all. It's always easy to say no to why something won't work, and it sounds like a classic drama triangle situation, with someone coming in as a persecutor, you stepped in as a potential rescuer, then you became a victim because obviously your suggestions won't work.
You, however, don't need to accept the situation, and you can try to change it if you wish. Too many people (including myself, hence why I always re-read those few lines) fall into the trap of thinking that someone else should make this or that change, make a decision, or that you require approval or authority. This is far less true than people believe.
As someone who has stepped into a software manager role for the first time from being a software engineer for most of my career, my view is that I'm not always there to solve the problem, but to give space for people to solve the problems themselves. It helps if I know what's going on, or understand the issues, but I trust my team, and those I work with, and would rather get them together with the right people to discuss it through, and work out a way forward.
I appreciate I don't know the situation at your organization, the battles you fought, the things that have been said. Change is never easy, and there's always resistance, but you do have agency, as does your tech lead. Never forget it. Good luck.
We did a write-up on our blog if you're interested: https://purplelabs.eagleeye.com/blog/the-hackathon-capture-t...
We ran it as an exercise at work to learn about security vulnerabilities, and it was great fun and highly educational. Really recommend it.
As someone who likes to write fiction myself, the idea of publishing in-progress feels incredibly alien. Typically, if I finish writing something, it's a first draft that I would revisit a few months later and rework. How are authors handling this aspect of wanting to re-edit if they're publishing chapters on the go? I seem to recall Stephen King describing locking his manuscripts away for six months before revisiting them. The in-progress model seems to work against this type of workflow, or are there ways of dealing with that?