Discovering the hypocrisy gap in reliability the hard way | Hacker News Reader

Discovering the hypocrisy gap in reliability the hard way

rachelbythebay.com

32 pointspraseodym8 comments

This resonates so much. One way to gauge the gap is to look for redefined reliability terms:

- Do they call it continuous deployment when it's really continuous integration? CD is when the build pipeline goes all the way to production without any human interaction (except possibly a review step).

- Do they call it continuous integration when it's really nightly builds, manual builds, local builds, or per-feature rather than per-change?

- When HTTP doesn't redirect to HTTPS, when common credentials aren't rotated whenever anyone who knows them leave, when full-disk encryption is optional, when someone can walk in from the street and look at or change anything, when not using common password storage protections or anything like that, even an amateur knows it's not "excellent" security.

The note about opening the door resonates with me. On two different occasions I've come across IT people scratching their heads about how to get into the server closet. On the first occasion the guy with the key was at a BBQ and in no shape to drive. I opened it with a library card. On the second, the Kisi server controlling the door had crashed (guess where the server was). I opened it with a butter knife. On both occasions I opened the door quicker than my wife can find her keys in her purse. Lesson 1) Secure your server room against physical attacks Lesson 2) As you secure your server room make sure you make an emergency plan for how to get in to your newly secured server room.

I enjoy a lot of the writing on Rachel’s site, but the bitterness is too much for me sometimes.

I find this "bitterness" an eye-opener, especially when I see how true it is.

When taken with a right skepticism, then yeah, it is. But especially junior folks should be careful taking stories like that at face value.

Being senior engineer is about much, much, more than just technical chops. I've worked with many people like that - they were extremely good technically, but their attitude alienated them and made it harder (and over time - often impossible) for them to do their jobs. If you think that you need total immunity and authority by reporting to the CEO, then you most likely doesn't understand how your organization operates. Being able to navigate an org and get stuff done, like it or not, is critical skill to being a successful senior engineer at any bigger modern tech company.

> Being able to navigate an org > is critical skill to being a successful senior engineer at any bigger modern tech company.

Yeah, this is why after almost half a decade of working remote, I refuse to entertain the song and dance for working for the giants. Plenty of other places pay enough, with less stress, less koolaid drinking and less rear orifice licking for those that prefer it.

Yeah working at smaller shops has an advantage of less overhead and you can focus more on the pure technical stuff. It can be very rewarding.

But aligning and navigating how to work through the org doesn’t have to be rear licking (although, it often is). Any big org requires you to figure out how to navigate it, even if it’s meritocracy.

Understanding what your business needs and figuring out right solutions for it, that are realistic and can be delivered, is a very valid engineering work.

Is it bitterness or cynicism? Cynical people would call it realism.

Anyway, it comes from experience. Less experienced folks can benefit a lot from reading it. Naiveté and idealism are fun until you get taken advantage of. The only way to avoid that is to develop a realistic/cynical view of organizations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com