Hacker News Reader

Comment by aeoleonn | Hacker News Reader

Another "The future of <thing> is what <some person> says it is" without much more than a few paragraphs of explanation.

No diagrams. I don't see much of a comparison between costs/benefits of alternatives.

Nice hypothetical. I didn't read it, because I've seen the format before and I'm getting a bit bored of it.

Whereas if it cited some other engineers/technologists, some studies, some academics, etc., then perhaps I'd be more inclined to read this.

But one person's opinion? Nah. I need an aggregate of opinions to be persuaded to read another "The future of thing..." article.

View on HN

The guy I learned about 'mis en place' from had coined a term, "retro-grouch" for people who loudly insist on a nostalgia for old technology.

When the Trough of Disillusionment hits, us old farts pop out of the woodwork to say "see, told you so" whether we were right or wrong.

Did you learn mis en place in a kitchen, or does it have a meaning in technology circles that I'm unaware of?

I work in an org where it is used to refer to the prep for a release, but with sort of a wink and a nod.

Turns out if you do skilled manual labor, the concepts translates. Bob was a bike mechanic. I don't know if he used the words, but he kept harping on us for not having our shit or tools together for a task ahead of time. When you're covered in grease is not a time to be digging for a wrench.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mise_en_place

I think it also relates to operational professionalism and having your tools and toolbox in order ala Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman from Mythbusters. They both had very interesting relationships with order, process and tooling.

I think structuring dev teams around a professional kitchen is really powerful model. All roles are critical, the sous chef, the busser, the prep cook, the dishwasher, everything.

You can't scale without delegating. And in a crunch is not the time to work out procedures. You do that between. Yeah, it's not a bad model, and you can stretch it pretty far until it breaks.

I think the closest other team arrangements to watch for modeling software around would be theatrical performance and to a lesser extent bands.

Though kitchens are especially interesting as they have pipelines, surges, lots of tasks that can be broken down into a series of steps.

Mythbusters has another interesting aspect in that they came from movie production background, so wall time was really critical, you can't hold up a shooting day to get a better glue formulation for simulated flesh falling off bone.

Part a thing is its structure, but the other part is how it evolves over time and its reaction rates to stimulus.

Agree on the beers.

Well, it is an opinion piece

Clearly I arrive at this piece without the expectation of it defining the future-- I know better than to expect a pop tech piece to deliver to me a view of the future.

format: blatantly unoriginal

content: not persuasive, underdeveloped

effort: very low

value: very low

"The future of" is a very bold statement. The more cliche it becomes, the more I expect an author to actually outline, in a bold, cohesive, relatively comprehensive way, their theory.

Otherwise stop trying to tell people what the future will be-- it's a waste of time & attention.

Sure, the headline is catchy. The rest seems like the author was simply trying to reach a certain word count and claim their cheque.

--> "Future of" articles should read like a graduate academic paper-- give the future of technology the proper respect it deserves.

--> Or, they should be a policy paper.

Not a pop tech piece. Pop writers-- stop with the silliness-- stop appointing yourselves as definers of the future unless you expect folks like myself to come along and bring you back to reality.

____

Take this linked citation for example:

"Fast-forward to 2020 and the web isn’t getting any faster"

It's linked to an article by an individual who has an undergrad degree in psychology, a grad degree in IT, and is a design/UX-related employee. That's not the person I would go to for a technical, knowledgeable analysis of internet speed evolution.

But he could be right

Why does it annoy you so much?

I'm just sick of low effort articles where the author appoints themselves oracle/definer of the future.

It results in devolution of knowledge and a disrespect of the attention of intelligent people.

"he could be right" -- what a waste of a statement unless it is followed up by any premise. He could right... Ok, that's a claim. But based on what?

But you’re the one whose decided to dedicate so much attention to it. If it’s a prediction you don’t agree on just ignore it

The fact that it’s touched a nerve is more interesting to me

Wait a sec-- So someone can write an opinion, and that's ok-- but hey: no one critique it, ok?

But if I write an opinion-- that's not ok. But you-- you're allowed to critique my opinion.

_______

Let's apply your logic to your replies:

Well, jack_riminton, It seems like I've touched a nerve.

Why did you feel compelled to comment on my commentary, when you could have just ignored it?

Why are you critiquing my opinion if you're making the case that opinions should not be critiqued (and should simply be ignored if a person is in disagreement)?

______

Ohh.... Now I see. You're the one who posted the article.

Well, everything is very clear now: Simple bias.

______

Note: You never followed up when I questioned the premise of your claim "he could be right." It seems you're not interested in analyzing whether or not he is right. So what's the point of even posting this article?

Yet the purpose of my entire thread is to draw attention to the fact that him being right will not result from conclusions of a poorly contrived, low effort, pop-tech article.

Seems more like your nerve was touched. If you can't handle critique and do not want attention why are you posting your article here?

Firstly it’s not my article

Secondly I don’t even agree with it

It’s an interesting (and apparently provocative) prediction. I’ve enjoyed reading the responses

In college, when you write only "2" for an answer, the teacher doesn't say "hmmmm, he might be right", instead you get an F for not showing your work.

Really? Requiring you to "show your work" was rare in college for me, though typical in K-12. But not showing your work, if you're wrong, means no potential for partial credit in college (for instance, correct process but a lost sign might get you half credit versus no credit).

Unless of course, showing the work was the task (such as writing out a proof) versus a straight computation.

It’s not college though is it?

The failure with "he could be right" is here:

He could be right because... (these are just generic examples)

- He mentions renowned research by XYZ who has through years of painstaking research concluded (as cited in XYZ peer reviewed journal) that the basis of his argument is sound

- He's an expert in XYZ field, having worked at XYZ company which clearly demonstrates proficiency in XYZ subject material

- He clearly elucidates, citing several researchers and with clear, understandable diagrams how the phenomenon XYZ works

... Yet you make no effort to construct a premise to base your claim upon. Because no real premise exists: the article's author makes no effort to support his own claim about the future.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com