A decent example. The phrasing at the end as if the author is some kind of clever hacker who “broke the system” was kind of odd.
Huh. That's not what I meant. What I meant was that the process was intended to flow through a particular sequence, and that I made it flow through a different and unintended sequence. In a sense I stopped it from working as it was intended, so in a sense I "broke" it.
I don't know how else to say that, and certainly I didn't intend to imply what you seem to have inferred.
Language is weird.
<fx: shrug />
That was never the intent. Seriously, I'm honestly find it hard (for which read impossible) to read it that way.
I'll re-think it.
I'm genuinely baffled, but if that's what you feel, I'm there will be others who that way too, so I'll see if I can express what I mean more clearly.
Edit: I've changed it somewhat, so the comments here are not necessarily relevant any more. Maybe it's no better ... don't know.
> It was apparent on the faces of the staff that this was most unexpected ... members of the public weren't supposed to know how the system worked ... how could I possibly have known ?!?
Implies that you know more (about the system) than the public. The problem is you are assuming you know why the waiters were shocked. You also don't need the last sentence, it's implied by the first two. Here's an alternative version:
> it seemed like the waiters were shocked. I'd wager that the general public wasn't supposed to know how the system worked
At least leave the original in place but struck out.
For reference, at the end the original read:
It was apparent on the faces of the staff that this was most unexpected ... members of the public weren't supposed to know how the system worked ... how could I possibly have known ?!?
But it was a real-life example of a finite-state machine, beautifully designed, and extremely effective.
Until I did something unexpected, of course. But they didn't seem to mind too much.
================
Edit: I wish people didn't down-vote you, I think your comment is perfectly reasonable.
How did you "stop it from working"? You even admit "they didn't mind".
If anything, what you really showed is that your analogy, while interesting and amusing, has limited accuracy. The concept of a state machines is precisely that, about machines. Not humans. The human staff took notice of the unexpected flow, externally manifest their on-the-fly adaptive mental processing of it on their faces, and then adapted. The restaurant didn't devolve into chaos.
The staff didn't freeze and lie down on the floor like driverless cars are doing on the streets[2]. The fact that automation of anything complex and unpredictable as driving isn't built on anything even vaguely akin to a state machine is telling. That would lead to disaster.
In other words, you didn't break anything at all. It was your analogy that got broken.
---
[1]: You display this smugness even in your reply, "Language is weird. <fx: shrug />". Just sayin. As an writer who posted his work on HN himself looking for feedback should humbly listen to negative reactions as much as if not more so than seek to bask in admiration and success.
[2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/28/technology/driverless-car...
I read it as an expression of a sense of wonder.