NAHWheatCracker

It doesn't matter if it's easier or harder to understand when the point is they are doing different things.

The Go code is enforcing some sort of primitive schema, which is why you have the struct definition and the error handling.

The ampersand is moving allocation up the stack and making a pointer to the local object. Pointers can complicate things from the perspective of a higher-level language, but I think that's more of a matter of experience.

I agree that the `json:` choice is something that puts me off Go a bit, but the alternative in other languages usually delve into hard to understand magic with decorators and reflection, so it makes sense from a simplicity standpoint.

Lastly, who ever said Go is simpler than Python? I'd say Go is more like a simpler C. It makes lower level programming more palatable.

I love Poetry. It's better than pipenv. Both are better UX than manually creating virtual environments. It's also more than just a dependency management system. It does packaging and publishing. It's better than setup.py and twine and such at that.

I'm always baffled when people say the opposite. There's the matter of pure personal preference, which I accept. The bigger issue I have is with people who have been doing it their own way and will find any number of little reasons to reject anything new.

This guy finds three bugs when he first used it, but all of them look like minor things to me. Complaining about 50 dependencies in 2022 seems silly. Caret versioning as default is personal preference and not an unreasonable choice.

His argument about the 5% chance of failure is the only thing that I find as a strong point. I don't agree with the developer's decision, but it's a deprecated way to install poetry, so I understand.

At the level you're talking about, it sounds like you should use similar metrics those managers use. Revenue/expense of the systems they oversee or business value of initiatives under your purview.

Not that that would be useful for anyone. Managers will get away with saying they "grew revenue by $10 million per year" or "reduced expenses by 20%" despite that being mostly BS unconnected with their actions or choices. I don't see why you couldn't get the same level of credit.

Forgive me if I misunderstand, but the carbon is in the 100 year old tree and when it's cut down and turned into something it's still there. So that carbon is sitting the walls of a house, furniture, or sheafs of paper, isn't it?

Disregarding cutting the tree down to just burn it for heat, obviously.

Not in big tech, but most of the senior engineers I've worked with were hired to the position.

I agree with your assessment for the ones who were promoted to it.

At my employer it extends to staff/principal engineers.

They do the same low-level code work, but I'll hand it to them that they are some of the best engineers at the company.

The difference is that principals left the company for a couple years to come back for the higher pay. Staffs were promoted while staying at the company.

I agree with you, but I'll also put in that some people want to slack off because of their managers' discourage them. That's my situation, at least.

My manager has ~14 reports. We're all on different projects every quarter and my manager knows nearly nothing about any individual project.

I see arguments for essentially the same problems from the article:

- Managers aren't reliant on the feedback or success of individual reports. >80% of people will always give positive feedback. - Managers don't give feedback or help resolve problems. It's effort on their part with no upside. - We're all still isolated because there is no consistent team. - No one has context. Managers can't understand 10+ projects.

There's no market for Glassdoor competitors because the only people with money to throw at the market is employers who want to protect their brand.

I would love for a trustworthy Glassdoor-like source, but I think there isn't a business plan that justifies the cost of building the network that doesn't also have the end goal being selling out to the employers.

I can't believe anyone would say that Teams is better than Slack.

Almost everything about Slack is better. It's easier to manage conversations/channels. It's easier to read. It's easier to write. It's easier to customize.

The only thing I've heard is that Slack is unstable for some people. I haven't experienced any stability issues in 3+ years using the MacOS app. I've heard that the Slack web interface may be the cause of stability issues.

We have Slack in my organization, but corporate has started using Teams for the past year. I think the writing is on the wall, and I'm dreading it.

People do try to come up with new terms. I've seen such suggestions blog posts and comment boards.

The issue is getting everyone to agree with your new word or to even recognize the problems of semantics.

Many people also deliberately misuse the existing terms to get advantages. For example, DevOps in your title gives you a higher pay despite often being materially the same as a pure operations role or sys admin.

I switched to NameCheap a couple years ago. I don't have anything to complain about.

These were my thoughts as well. The article has nothing to say about being engaged at work. It's all non-work suggestions.

The best interpretation I could infer was that if you are engaged outside work, you'll be able to be more engaged at work?

My feelings about cause-and-effect are the opposite. When I'm disengaged at work, I'm less engaged outside of work. I'll try to do hobbies and stuff outside of work but it makes the contrast more drastic, which makes work less bearable.

Oh come on, you don't know what Rockefeller or Gates would have done if VCs were in vogue at the time of founding their companies. It's entirely possible they would have taken VC money. The advantage of getting a huge boon of cash to grow the company may have seemed worth it for the reduction in risk.

Times have changed from when Rockefeller or Gates founded their companies. It's far riskier and harder today to build successful companies. Competition is fierce due to globalization. Increased standards means a longer road before people will pay you. The population has the same distribution of "entrepreneurial arrogance" by nature, but there's less viable options to exercise it.

Instead, people turn to VCs for a multitude of practical reasons:

  - Capital to get the idea off the ground
  - Networking
  - Guidance of experienced people

Someone who is absolutely sure their jump to conclusions mat company is going to be a hit isn't arrogant, they're just stupid. On the other hand, an arrogant but smart person with an idea on how to design a better wind turbine recognizes the practical problems that building wind turbines is expensive.

That's shocking?

It seems incredibly ironic that one would be shocked by this.

I usually give a range of estimation.

The issue I've had is that most "stakeholders" just want it boiled down to one number and don't care about any nuance. If I say it will take 2-4 weeks, they will assume 2 weeks if it's convenient. If there's a list of tasks, they will add up the lower bound of each task and discard anything they don't deem necessary.

It seems to me that any estimation tactic works well if you assume fair intent.

This is precisely the issue from my perspective as well.

Most project managers I've worked with either have a desired estimate already in mind or they don't care about any of the extenuating circumstances.

On one hand, the desired estimate is often based on the knowledge that projects estimated to take more than a quarter aren't going to get a green light.

On the other hand, it's ridiculous how many projects blow through estimates when external dependencies are ignored, newly-hired engineers create a burden on the project, and de-scoped work turns out to be necessary.

Those project managers also pursue the same estimation agenda even after several projects turn out the same way.

It's too bad they have !r go the the Reddit search page, which is famously bad.

I didn't know about !searchr, wish it was shorter. At least it's better than what I've been doing which is typing out site:reddit.com.

I'd assume good intent from people working at a company and greedy intent when working with "a company".

People are generally trying to be helpful and doing things that make things better. People can be embittered if they aren't treated with respect.

The faceless abstraction of a company is almost always set up to extract money from you. It's often set up to also provide something useful, since that's one of the most sustainable ways to get people to hand over money. Companies can't become embittered.

Assuming greedy intent is a way to be wise about making sure you get a fair trade for your money.

I spent 6 months on a private health insurance plan 4 years ago. It was about $200 per month with a very high deductible.

This is in a state that is favorable for ACA. I just hopped on the state website now and I can get a similar plan with a premium of $250 per month. There are a lot of options with better deductibles and higher premiums.

It's a burden for those who want to go without external employment, but I found it reasonable. It's less than my monthly budget for food.

I like it.

I got most everything right until it asked about the moon compared to some huge number of elephants and again with tyranosaurus rexes. I picked moon both times and was wrong. I felt like those are mathematics questions that don't test your sense of scale as much as the rest because there's just no real-life experience.

It doesn't say the age of the gorilla!

This is an interesting take to me, because it seems to be how many of my coworkers work. It's not how I think about things.

I enjoy technology, but it's hard for me to just focus on tech without a purpose for using it. All of the projects I'm proud of aren't because of the tools I used. Instead, I'm proud that I delivered something useful.

Yet, I still completely agree with your statements about "MBA puff". I've been on projects where they extol how valuable a project is going to be and it doesn't stand up to a minute of scrutiny. Other projects would be valuable, but never get into the hands of real users.

On the projects I'm proud of, I was directly working with someone who actually would benefit from the project. There wasn't a question of whether it was worth it. The users weren't puffing up the project to be more than it was. They have a job to do and I'm helping them do it better. Interestingly, this also meant that they didn't care how I approached the problem.

The real sweet spot for projects is where working on interesting tech goes hand-in-hand with delivering something useful.

Not acknowledging a death is wild, but a lot of organizations normalize only discussing positive project-related accomplishments.

When the day-to-day doesn't address the simple human aspects of work, it becomes even harder to address the difficult aspects.

I bought hue bulbs last year everything in my apartment slowly turns up to full brightness over ~30 minutes around the time that my alarm goes off.

I also have the light switch through two phases of red at night which signals to me to do things in the evening and prep for sleep.

I don't know if that will help you personally, but I can recommend it.

Well the compensation there is fine. It's not really correlated with results in my opinion, but that's typical in massive organizations.

It probably sounds worse on paper and due to my phrasing. I'd say he was stating the reality and being a doofus (he's the excitable and friendly type). It wasn't so sinister.

Exactly, at least it was easy to just not share with that team.

A couple years later an engineering manager at the same level gave another presentation about how innovation and ideas have been lacking. He placed the blame on software engineers not trying hard enough.

I think there's a certain type of person who thinks that the only type of success is one where all of the profit/credit goes to them. Sadly, they seem to be the leaders of many organizations.

That reminds me of a few years ago when a director gave a presentation to the whole organization about innovation. Near the end of the presentation, he summarized that everyone needed to share ideas. Then he anticipated a few questions.

If we a good idea, would we be able to work on it? Probably not, the "innovation team", which was his team, would be the ones to build the prototype.

If we had a successful good idea, would we receive any compensation? No, and that's very selfish. He insinuated that we should rethink priorities or place of work if compensation was important.

He also talked about how he only wanted ideas that had the potential to make billions.

I'd love to be on a team that's reading 10TB per hour and has to explain that huge bill to executives!

Once a month, and he often reschedules or cancels it the day before. They are scheduled for 30 minutes.

A couple years ago, I asked him to meet weekly and he obliged. It felt like he wasn't willing to actually engage in the discussion. I walked back that request to two weeks and then monthly.

I've been trying to talk less as well, since I realize that it's a one-sided conversation. It's difficult for me though, since I feel like we should be talking more.