Hacker News Reader

Comment by SirHumphrey | Hacker News Reader

A bit ironic though because the CEO of Boing during their best years was William McPherson Allen, a lawyer.

> A bit ironic though because the CEO of Boing during their best years was William McPherson Allen, a lawyer.

Just as there are good engineers, there are also bad ones. Same for every profession.

I guess the question is: can Boeing really design a new plane where cost cutting, regulation interpretation and skirting, and greed are _not_ the driving factors?

It feels like what Boeing is saving from all the nickel-and-dime it does on everything it ends up paying lawyers, fines and damages. I wonder how they manage to see this as good business. Or maybe they hope that "the next" time they'll score big without any penalties?

One of the most exceptional CEOs I've worked with was a lawyer. I still think the proverb is largely correct, along with the other proverb about the exception proving the rule.

Well, the proverb doesn't necessarily attribute the death of the company to the lawyer.

If a company is dying (aka winding down), you most likely do in fact want a lawyer in charge, whatever their job title may be. For instance why would you put a scientist or engineer in charge of negotiating your acquisition?

It's a great proverb and in particular the "accountants in charge to extract maximum value after maturity, lawyers in charge at the end to wind it down or sell it off" part is accurate of many businesses in general. No company gets to live in the startup and growth stages forever. At a certain point shareholders decide to get everything they can out of their investment and move on.

That's not what "the exception proves the rule" means.

It means, when you see a sign that says an exception, "no parking Wednesdays between 8 and 12", it proves the rule that parking is allowed otherwise.

I have heard that phrase a million times and never understood it until your example. Thank you

GP's use is listed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule... under "Proving the validity of a rule of thumb"

It's listed there as a way that people use it and then calls that usage objectionable and a misunderstanding.

I don't dispute that people use it that way but it's objectively a misuse. The phrase's misuse implies that evidence against a statement supports the statement.

> In many uses of the phrase, however, the existence of an exception is taken to more definitively 'prove' a rule to which the exception does not fit.

> In what Fowler describes as the "most objectionable" variation of the phrase,[1] this sort of use comes closest to meaning "there is an exception to every rule", or even that the presence of an exception makes a rule more true; these uses Fowler attributes to misunderstanding.

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

Try to understand that there is no individual ownership over turns of phrase, and that they tend to shift around over time. Bugs Bunny turned Nimrod from a byword for a competent hunter into an insult.

This is natural and all of your favorite words have or will be subject to it as long as there are humans to communicate with them.

Ooooh that's why nimrod is an insult! Now it makes sense! Thank you!

Btw, let me add my personal pet peeve: "egregiously" somehow went from meaning "very good" to mean "very bad" in American English.

In my native language "egregiamente" still has the original meaning so I was confused for a long time.

Dictionaries - at least the ones I checked - mark the "very good" meaning of "egregious" as archaic. I'm only aware of the "very bad" meaning (in UK English), and was quite surprised, when studying maths, to learn of Gauss's "Theorema Egregium", and that the word could have positive connations.

I'm still momentarily paused when kids today say 'shit' to mean 'good' etc. Yeah some words shift in meaning and other words swap in meaning.

Shit (meaning “how true”), shit is veritably the aladeen of words. It can basically mean anything depending on usage, context, attitude, or tone of voice.

> The phrase's misuse implies that evidence against a statement supports the statement.

The original meaning of 'prove' was more like 'test'. The original sense was therefore opposite to this.

A phrase does not mean anything by itself. People mean something when they use it. You could argue that expressions carry some meaning, by virtue of shared use. But your definition does not align with the meaning most people make of this specific expression as you can witness above.

People misuse expressions. A common one is the customer is always right. The actual wording is the customer is always right in matters of taste but people cut off the ending which changes it from a sensible and useful proverb to a bunch of nonsense. Of course the customer isn't always right. They're always right in terms of what they want to buy, not in all other terms.

Similarly an exception like a lawyer being a good ceo does not prove a rule like lawyers are bad CEOs. It's nonsense. People who don't understand the proverb took it and misused it and then others took after them and here we are, I've been wondering about that proverb my entire life and I never understood how it makes any sense. Now I finally do, and I'm glad the other commenter clarified it

On top of what j5r5myk mentioned, there is a fairly good record of the origin on “the customer is always right,” (described on Wikipedia) because it was something like a moderately well known person’s catchphrase, in an era when newspapers and marketing existed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_customer_is_always_right

There’s some quibbling to be had about the meaning, but it puts it closer to “assume good faith” or something like that, rather than reducing it to just preferences.

> The earliest known printed mention of the phrase is a September 1905 article in the Boston Globe about Field, which describes him as "broadly speaking" adhering to the theory that "the customer is always right".

> However, John William Tebbel was of the opinion that Field never himself actually said such a thing, because he was "no master of idiom". Tebbel rather believed it probable that what Field would have actually said was "Assume the customer is right until it is plain beyond all question that he is not."

There is a common phenomenon where people claim proverbial quotes were originally longer. One I often hear is “Jack of all trades master of none” originally including the follow up “often better than a master of none.”

If you research this, as well as the customer as always right as you claim, you will find no evidence of their longer ‘original’ forms [1].

[1] https://www.snopes.com/articles/468815/customer-is-always-ri...

A lot of people say a lot of stupid things, it does not make them less stupid and incorrect. Unless a million flies can't be wrong!

But the intended insight isn't stupid, and "the exception proves the rule" is a natural, easily-inferred contraction of "the rarity of finding an exception proves the general validity of the rule".

The way most people use it is wrong though and not in the normal "language evolves" way.

The exception of a lawyer being a good CEO does not, in any way, prove that lawyers are not good CEOs .

The phrase "most people mean the wrong thing by this phrase" makes no sense. A phrase means what most people mean by saying it, or understand by hearing it. So, "the exception that proves the rule" is, as its main modern meaning, a joking way of admitting that a rule (especially one that the speaker had argued for) is not actually a universal rule, while maintaining that it generally holds true.

The examples of legal signs and so on are a more specific, technical, meaning that is only used in certain contexts, such as actual legal proceedings or at least informal discussions about laws or contract terms.

When /u/flkiwi above said this phrase, they obviously meant it in the joking sense I gave, and which they had actually explained above. They agree that, in general, lawyers make bad CEOs, but they also personally know of exceptions. This is not "wrong usage", as proven by the fact that everyone who read the comment understood exactly what they meant.

This whole thing reminds me of the people who complain about the use of literally as an amplifier instead of for its primary meaning as "wrong", with seemingly no understanding of how flourishes and rhetoric work (nor even of the history of words like "very", which used to be quite similar to "literally" a long time ago).

Words are just noises. Think of them as pointers. They point to a concept in the brain. What concept that may be differs from person to person. But as long as the words point to something, they aren't used wrongly.

The idea that there was some point in history were the pointer target was officially designated to be x is just false. That point in time never existed.

My point isn't that the use of the phrase is wrong, the point is that the colloquial understanding of the phrase is a bad concept.

[All] lawyers are bad CEOs is a statement that was made. Evidence to the contrary was presented. "The exception proves the rule" was used to dismiss that evidence.

It's used in a similar way as "God works in mysterious ways".

Your use of the phrase makes no sense. It's the "no parking" that proofs the rule and not the exception.

that's actually the correct use of the phrase "the exception proves the rule"

the rule is that the parking is allowed; the exception is that it's not allowed on Wednesdays; they didn't bother spelling out "parking is allowed at all other times except"

"No parking on Wednesday between 9-12pm"

Imagine you got a parking ticket on Tuesday. What would your defense in court be?

Yes, but in common usage it has come to also mean "the [rarity of finding an] exception proves the [general validity of] the rule", and it was clear from context which one the parent meant.

God Internet pendants are exhausting. I KNOW, but it's a harmless rhetorical device. This begs the question of why you care. There you go, that's a good one to get fired up about.

> I KNOW, but it's a harmless rhetorical device.

I don't really care but but when I found out the actual meaning of the phrase (the usage of which never really made sense to me), it made a lot more sense to me. I thought it was interesting.

I'd also argue that "it's harmless" is not always accurate. It's usage dismisses counter-evidence to a statement. Depending on the case, it may or may not be harmless.

There’s no need to be so literal. We’re discussing here, not formulating mathematical statements.

Read for what was intended by the author and you’ll learn more.

> Lawyers are bad CEOs

> That's weird because this one was good

> Ah an exception to the rule. That proves it, lawyers are bad CEOs!

Is that not what was intended by the author?

Attributed to Cicero, who was basically a lawyer.

That's a logical fallacy.

But parking signs are not proofs.

That doesn't absolve you from being at least logically correct.

I think denying the antecedent (that’s what this is, right?) is a well known fallacy precisely because it is often the intended implication in typical speech.

There are always people who work out despite common sense saying they shouldn't that doesn't mean common sense is wrong, it just means we don't understand what the real factors are.

Or we don't care because it's a rule of thumb not a law of physics.

He initially turned down the job because he felt that a lawyer wasn't the right person to run an engineering company, and from reports of people who worked with him he knew his knowledge limits and listened to the engineers. He took serious risks with the 707 and 747 projects because he trusted the people who understood the technology.

MBAs and final-gasp lawyers concentrate on making the reported number go up in the short term, they won't take a hit now for a payoff in ten years.

Fun fact the 707 had the first implementation of “MCAS” because the plane had a tendency to pitch up in a certain flaps configuration. They added a stick nudger which applied light pressure in said config. Not a stick pusher, as it did not alert the pilots, it simply applied an extra input independent of the pilots. However this was made aware to all pilots of the plane and likely contributed to its certification.

Also the 707 tail was extended by 40ft to give it better minimum ground speed control, this was retroactively applied to already built planes. Very interesting to see how this was applied in the past with a lawyer at the helm vs the current ceo during the launch of the 737Max

I think there might be some confusion here. The vertical stabiliser (not the tail) was extended by 40 inches [0] to combat concerns about poor yaw control.

Although the Wikipedia article cites the UK ARB as the influence, it was also in response to the 1959 crash [1] of a 707 being used for training, in which Dutch roll was induced and later became so violent it ripped 3 engines off the wings.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707#707-420

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_Washington_Boeing_707_cra...

Assume 40 inches rather than 40ft

Adding 12 meters to an aircraft is quite a big change.

Mistake on my part they extended the tail to 40ft from 32ft

Hmm, you now highlighted an interesting thing - every company (I've seen) being run to the ground by MBAs and Lawyers was done so because they outright refused to trust their employees. The usual playbook is severance of any transparency and communication and implementation of more and more paperwork and oversight over their employees with no nuance. In other words - complete lack of trust into employed specialists being able to do their work.

yep, that's the most important thing about his operation of Boeing.

Both the 707 and 747 were "bet the company" projects, in particular the 747 pushed Boeing to the brink of bankruptcy. However both were major successes because they took a gamble on the future of the aviation industry.

In these days of "fiduciary responsibility" it's difficult to imagine any public company taking that kind of risk. Risk is what should make returns.

He was talking about stereotypes ...

And yes professions have stereotypical personalities. Like the used car salesman.

I’d wager he wasn’t just a lawyer.

Exactly, mostly likely he would have made a great engineer if that were his line of expertise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com