[HN Gopher] Embrace the Grind ___________________________________________________________________ Embrace the Grind Author : karl42 Score : 348 points Date : 2021-04-09 06:29 UTC (16 hours ago) (HTM) web link (jacobian.org) (TXT) w3m dump (jacobian.org) | annoyingnoob wrote: | I have to wonder what magicians think of the 80/20 rule. The | trick probably needs all 100% and the grind it takes to get | there. | 5cott0 wrote: | Everybody's other favorite German word: "sitzfleisch". | didibus wrote: | Maybe this is a naive question, but why couldn't you just pick a | bug at random, fix it, and move to the next? You said eventually | you worked through all issues in about a year of time. How did | having the issues prioritized from the get go really mattered, if | you ended up closing them all anyways? | | If I had to guess, the magic trick was simply investing in | tackling all the bugs one after another for a year until they're | all closed out. Maybe you needed to triage them all to convince | people to invest in doing this? | marcosdumay wrote: | My guess is that the noise of new bug reports was | incapacitating the team. You can't fix anything if each few | minutes somebody comes to complain about a new problem. | | But with the bugs organized he could filter the repeated | reports and let people work. As a bonus, he could direct people | into solving the largest troublemakers first too, so things get | quieter faster. | paxys wrote: | The effort to impact ratio is wildly different among bugs in a | large backlog. Sometimes a 10-minute single line change will | produce a massive benefit for all users. Other times a | developer can slog on a bug for weeks only to realize that no | one cares about the fix anymore. You want to start tackling the | ones in the first category before spending time on the second. | andrewstuart wrote: | It's a good question. i.e. if it takes a year to fix all bugs | then why does order matter? | | The factor he did not mention is that there are unnamed people | who see certain bugs and when they see those bugs, they judge | the quality of the software to be poor. | | Thus, for human reasons you must fix certain bugs first because | it makes certain people feel that the software quality is not | poor. | | OR because certain bugs prevent the system actually doing what | it is meant to do .... thus the bugs that result in the system | failing to serve its purpose must be done first. | lostcolony wrote: | Partly, yeah. | | If priority isn't clear, you spend hours on a bug, realize it's | minor, realize the fix is difficult...and extrapolate that to | the remainder of them. Morale sucks. | | If someone can stomach sorting through them, then at least you | know you're working on the most important bug at any given | time. | thrower123 wrote: | Quite often what happens in these cases is that people get | paralyzed looking at the list of open things, and rather than | just digging in and doing something to chip away at the pile, | there are meetings and discussions and noise which generates a | lot of heat and sound and stress, but doesn't actually make any | positive progress towards resolving the issues. | | An meanwhile things keep getting thrown on the pile. | mumblemumble wrote: | It might be investing in tackling it, but I would guess that, | more than that, it's that _one person_ was tasked with doing | it. | | The problem with tedious grind work is, if it's a communal | responsibility, then everyone will just sit around waiting for | someone else to take care of it. | barbiturique wrote: | That's my tactic to blend-in in a engineering team and gain some | respect / credibility. I try to find the most boring, utterly | broken part, that nobody wants to touch... and I sink time into | it. | | Once I made it somewhat usable, I document it. | hinkley wrote: | I think in some ways this strategy, which I also employ, is | rejecting the grind, rather than embracing it. | | Generally I have coworkers who embrace the grind - One group | happily show up to do some mind numbingly manual and error | prone process, even going beyond apologizing into _protecting_ | it. That 's one form of job security, but it leeches talent | from the company. The other group abhors it and will try to do | literally anything else to avoid going through it, including | making all new things that turn out to be almost as bad (and | never quite managing to get rid of the original). | | Going through the grind a couple times and making sure that | nobody else has to go through it ever again is acknowledging | the grind, and then doing something about it. | dopidopHN wrote: | Important distinction you're making. | | For me the litmus test is documentation. | | Make a active effort to at least explain in plain English was | the grind is and what it's is purpose, then having a stab at | documenting the steps. | | It's never a one time thing. Most likely you need to do it a | few time manually. You won't get all the steps right, and | automating it will likely be a tall order; otherwise it would | be done already. | | But like you said I encounter groups of engineers that | transform the grind into a cottage industry. They don't | publish their knowledge, they are the expert on it and one of | the few group that can execute on those story. It's | depressing. | | And you demasked me: by making it better and more documented | I want to kill the grind. Or at least offload it to another | group. ( BA, users, OPS running grind.sh ) | mdpye wrote: | I hadn't realised it til now, but I do the same. It's a really | great way to get started, because it tends to coincide with not | having yet gained a broad range of responsibilities pulling you | in different directions. You become a domain expert in | something (which was probably lacking across the team) and | peers appreciate it. | | After they've seen that, you organically start getting invited | to all kinds of more interesting projects and discussions. | hinkley wrote: | One of my 'secrets of my success' moments was realizing that | one of the grind areas I reject has to do with the all of the | processes of building the application. You stare at that | stuff long enough and you might not know how the application | does what it does, but you have a pretty good idea of _where_ | it does them. | | And inasmuch as you've also improved the testing situation, | you've also created a system that allows you to iterate | faster, which you are intimately familiar with, allowing you | to poke at the system in a way that provides you feedback on | your hypotheses. Meaning you can learn about the rest of the | system on your own schedule instead of being hand-fed bits of | tribal knowledge (which often turns out to no longer be | entirely correct anyway). | piva00 wrote: | I don't like to chime in with "seconding" on HN but I had the | same eureka moment about it. I have definitely always behaved | like that and it was just a natural and organic way to start | in any team or job. | | I got a bit shocked because I realised this behaviour | repeated this past year when I changed jobs. I became a | domain expert in an obscure part of the codebase and have | been documenting it and sharing the knowledge for a while | now. | BossingAround wrote: | Same here. I like doing things nobody wants to do, especially | when I'm new in the team. | | The problem I've identified is that you're then the go-to | person for the task you did in the beginning. | | Example: You need to figure out how to deploy X. This is poorly | documented and nobody knows how to do it. | | Action: You read the code, understand what needs to be done, | deploy it. Then, you document it. Finally, you create fairly | basic but working automation for future deployment. | | Result: Every time there's a need for redeploy, even when the | code/procedure hasn't changed, you're the person the team | immediately asks to do it. After all, you've automated it, | shouldn't take too long, right? | mdpye wrote: | It happens at first. But point to the docs you wrote. | Politely, but firmly, every time. People actually prefer | being empowered to do it themselves, so they will pick it up, | it just not our default when we're unsure. | kache_ wrote: | Pair with someone else and have them do it, and be explicit | about your intention to share the knowledge. | pilchard123 wrote: | Never become the guy who can fix the printer. | trentnix wrote: | Good stuff. | | I've found that, as a manager, forcing the grind is also a | useful tactic to get a new team member involved. Assign a | challenging task that addresses a shared pain point and that | requires some measure of tedium and lots of effort. | | Not only will the completed work result in a new team member | being accepted and respected (as you've experienced), the new | team member will also develop a sense of value and ownership in | the project. The faster new team members get through that | period where they feel like an outsider to where they feel like | they are contributing value, the better. | chrchang523 wrote: | Alternate framing: be prepared to "Do Things that Don't Scale" | (http://paulgraham.com/ds.html ) when your organization is small. | gkop wrote: | Not a fan of pg, but his schlep essay is a better alternate | framing of this article (if my reading comprehension is | accurate...): http://www.paulgraham.com/schlep.html | chrchang523 wrote: | I had forgotten that the schlep essay was distinct. | Interesting that they don't refer to each other. | WindyLakeReturn wrote: | Unlike many comments here, this doesn't resonate with me. Grinds | have always had some part that benefits from automation. Rarely | can the whole thing be automated in any reasonable timeframe, but | individuals parts can easily be. Often the magic is that those | around me don't even realize that you can partially automate it | so they end up thinking I did it all by hand. | | There is a trap in over thinking the automation. Sometimes the | partially manual solution takes an hour full while automation | takes 8. But I'm failing to think of a time in my career where a | grind was repetitive and fully manual but not improved by some | trick of automation. Notepad++, regex, and your language of | choice builds a very powerful set of automation for virtual | problems. For the enhanced suite, toss in a library to get data | to and from excel and access and another to navigate and scrape | HTML pages. | tarunkotia wrote: | Few months ago I posted on HN asking the same thing. The author | addresses it pretty well with a good example. | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25010373 | longformworks wrote: | That was an enjoyable read and a gentle reminder to avoid the | shiny tools and just get to work. Thanks for sharing. | courtf wrote: | The real magic behind that bug triage anecdote isn't the tedious | work it took to get there, it's that a year later anyone noticed, | gave a shit, or gave credit where it was due. In 9/10 | organizations, such outcomes never materialize because no one is | working for the common good, nor cares about silly little things | like old bugs. Often there simply isn't time. You are instead | being yanked from meeting to meeting, thrashing from one poorly | defined management prerogative to another, because no one outside | the code base has any understanding of what it actually takes to | build a stable product nor do they really care. | MacroChip wrote: | Every time I hear about the "Three virtues", I always think | "Well, there's 'laziness' and there's _laziness_ ". I know when I | or someone else is being 'lazy' or _lazy_. Same thing for the | other virtues. This is why we appreciate those who embrace the | grind. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | When I joined a mentoring program targeted at recent college | grads, I expected to be teaching things like interview prep, | resume writing, negotiation skills, communication skills, and how | to deliver results in a workplace. | | For about half of the mentees, that's roughly true. However, for | the other half much of my mentoring ends up being about time | management, following through on commitments, and putting in the | effort required to get a job done. A surprising number of young | people are graduating college without ever having had to _work_ | any job. It 's particularly difficult for talented coders who | breezed through easy CS programs until they land in a work | environment where tasks are challenging, expectations are high, | and the only way to get things done is to sit down and put in the | effort. | | One of the best skills anyone can learn is how to sit down, | focus, and get work done. In my experience, it's increasing | challenging to convince young people that this is an acquired | skill that they can practice and develop. There's a growing | perception that traits like work ethic, focus, and motivation are | fixed attributes that one is born with (or without) rather than | abilities that are developed over time. It's frustrating to watch | some mentees map out meticulous diet and exercise programs to | improve their physical strength, but then turn around and tell me | that they're only capable of coding for 2 hours per day as a sort | of fixed upper limit. Like everything, the ability to work and | focus can be developed over time with practice and dedication. | It's worth it. | ReactiveJelly wrote: | I'm not gonna disagree but I want to add a couple things. | | 1. Kids with ADHD probably can't develop executive function as | fast or as far as other kids. I'm pretty sure I have it, it | explains the repeated performance reports of "You're good when | you apply yourself and useless when you don't." Unfortunately I | struggle to _choose_ to apply myself. | | Willpower doesn't seem to come naturally to me, even after 10 | years as a professional programmer. Adderall didn't help - I | had to take it in the morning, after breakfast. So I was still | late for work, because eating breakfast is not something I'm | good at, and I couldn't start my day until I had finished | breakfast. Then after work the stimulants wore off and I felt | like shit and reverted to my normal do-what-i-want executive | function. But it made me feel normal without caffeine. | | So I quit the Adderall and just cutting caffeinated soda with | non-caff every morning, as though I was lowering my dose on a | prescription. So far it's working. I still never clean my room, | which is status quo for the last 20 years, and work is still | pretty easy. The phrase "idiot savant" comes to mind. All I | want is for people to stop thinking that I'm doing this on | purpose. I don't enjoy constantly feeling like a moron and | being behind on simple household chores despite making decent | money at a job that is considered (by other people) to be | difficult. | | And that might even be the case for the kids with detailed | exercise programs. I don't exercise at all because it's not my | interest. I program, because it is my interest. Kinda like how | autistic people can't choose their special interests. I pity | the kids whose interest is exercise but are trying to force | themselves through a CS program into a career track they can't | possibly do. | | Dr. Russell Barkely goes into some detail in a 3-hour talk | about ADHD here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSfCdBBqNXY If | anyone thinks I don't have ADHD because I sat through a 3-hour | talk about psychology, maybe they need to watch it, too. | | "There's a growing perception that traits like work ethic, | focus, and motivation are fixed attributes that one is born | with (or without) rather than abilities that are developed over | time." | | What if they are, though? What if it's like height, where | genetics sets a range and environment picks a point in that | range? If I had starved as a child, I would be shorter than I | am now. But if I had eaten more, I would not be taller. I'm | about the same height as my parents are. | | There's a hypothesis that the current age of mass distraction | (TV, phones, Internet, etc.) doesn't _cause_ ADHD, but it does | _aggravate_ it. I don't know if the studies bear it out, but I | really want this to be true. What if it's something that's | latent in the human genome, and the fact that we can profit off | of exploiting it nowadays just brought it to the surface? In | early centuries, if I had nothing to do but my work, maybe I | would find it easy to just "accept boredom" and do my work | anyway. | | 2. I'm not sure how many employers would have hired me in | college. I get the sense that unskilled labor just isn't worth | much anymore, and pushing kids to get more education is kicking | the can down the road since, as you pointed out, nobody wants | to hire an adult with zero work experience whether they're 18, | 22, or even 30. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | ADHD is a difficult topic to discuss on HN. I'll preface this | by saying that I'm not doubting your situation, or any other | commenter's particular situation. This [section of my] | comment is meant to be general: | | In the context of this mentoring group, we go through phases | where almost _everyone_ suspects they have ADHD for various | reasons. This is usually triggered by one of two things: | Either someone shares an online "Do you have ADHD quiz?" | that is sponsored by Takeda or another ADHD medication | manufacturer, or a front-page Reddit infographic | misrepresents ADHD as something like "Do you some times | forget people's names? Maybe you have ADHD!" | | The reality is that ADHD is very challenging for those that | have it, but the pop-culture definition of ADHD has become so | vague that people who _don 't_ have ADHD are increasingly | convinced that common life experiences are symptoms of ADHD. | | Focusing is hard. Studying is hard. The Grind is hard. It's | normal to struggle to focus, but it's even more of a struggle | for those with ADHD. However, having to work to focus for | extended periods of time, in and of itself, is not an ADHD | symptom, it's just life. ADHD is a much more severe | impediment. | | (Again, not referring to the parent comment): Anyone curious | should avoid self-diagnosis and seek a trusted professional. | Ideally not a family doctor who simply writes prescriptions | on request, but someone who can recommend self-guided therapy | programs and combination treatment. Adderall isn't all it's | made out to be, especially after the initial motivating | effects wear off and you're left with the realities of long- | term stimulant use, which are nowhere near as exciting as the | first few doses. | | > What if they are, though? What if it's like height, where | genetics sets a range and environment picks a point in that | range? If I had starved as a child, I would be shorter than I | am now. But if I had eaten more, I would not be taller. I'm | about the same height as my parents are. | | Genetics and upbringing may set a baseline for focus and | motivation, but those traits are demonstrably not set in | stone. Contrary to your example, diet _does_ have a | significant influence on height, but it 's not the sole | determinant. | | Height isn't a good example, though. Consider something like | running capacity. Some people are naturally more athletic | than others, but barring severe disorders, everyone can | develop more running capacity through training. Someone who | gives up and never tries to increase their capacity may not | believe this, but it's true. An average person can't simply | work their way up to competing with Olympic sprinters blessed | with perfect genetics, but they can significantly increase | their running capacity from baseline by putting in the work. | | Likewise, attention is a learned skill. Some have more | baseline attention span than others, but it _can_ be | increased through training and practice. ADHD modulates this, | but it doesn 't prevent practice from helping. If anything, | people with ADHD need to invest more effort into training | their attention spans than those without. | | > Willpower doesn't seem to come naturally to me, even after | 10 years as a professional programmer. Adderall didn't help | | Adderall and other stimulants don't provide willpower, | contrary to popular belief. Only people without tolerance | will experience a temporary motivation boost from stimulants. | This effect diminishes as tolerance sets in, which is one of | several reasons why drugs like Adderall aren't successful for | treating disorders like depression. | | Willpower is another learned skill. Expecting it to come | naturally won't work forever. You have to learn to embrace | the grind, do the work, and power through the urges to give | up and do something easier if you want to get anywhere. | | > I don't exercise at all because it's not my interest. | | The reality is that the things we need to do aren't always | going to line up with the things we like to do. You're lucky | that you have a natural interest in programming, but you | can't expect every necessary activity to have a natural | interest behind it. Some amount of physical activity is | essentially required for a healthy existence. You may not be | interested in it, but that doesn't exempt you from requiring | it and it certainly doesn't mean you won't benefit from it. | | Some times the things we have to do in life aren't | immediately enjoyable. It's on us to find ways to make them | more enjoyable (e.g. find a sport you like, or take up | walking), and some times we just have to do the unenjoyable | thing for the sake of progress. | whimsicalism wrote: | IMO any chance of there being a constrained and clearcut | definition of ADHD went out the window in affluent | communities as soon as they started giving people test | extensions if they were diagnosed with it. | | I say that as someone who definitely has something | neurodivergent going on, as I do not know other people who | get excited and have to pace around the house flapping | their hands. | fartcannon wrote: | Your comment makes me think of when they first designed jet | cockpits for pilots. It was expensive to modify the planes, | so they designed it to the 'average' person. | | The result is that no one fit in it. | | Expectations that other people can perform like you do if | they just put their mind to it is so blind to the reality | of human experience that it's hard to respond. | | https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us- | air-... | beaconstudios wrote: | It's also a mistake to think that people are static. We | can improve ourselves through the expenditure of effort. | The reality is like the parent said: there are limits to | everybody's abilities, but you'll probably have to work | hard as hell to reach yours (not targeting you | personally, the general case "you"). If you believe that | your present abilities are all you'll ever have then | you're wasting what could be tremendous potential out of | false self imposed limitations. | fartcannon wrote: | Who said anything about not improving, the parent comment | believes the ADHD sufferer is simply not working hard | enough. | | He's trying to show him where his bootstraps are. | beaconstudios wrote: | People who are currently struggling can fall into a self | limiting mindset. I can attest to that from personal | experience. I don't have ADHD, but I can imagine that | having it might make you believe that you couldn't | improve your attention at all. The reality is that you | might just be able to, even though it would probably much | harder than for the general population - in the same way | that an underweight person would find it harder to build | muscle than someone of average build. | | From my perspective it's a positive message, not finger | wagging at the impaired. | travisjungroth wrote: | You said "This comment is meant to be general." and then | quoted and replied to things the commenter shared about | themselves. | ZephyrBlu wrote: | I think being able to sit down and do work is more about | removing distractions than improving focus. | | Also, I'm curious about these statements: | | > _There 's a growing perception that traits like work ethic, | focus, and motivation are fixed attributes that one is born | with (or without) rather than abilities that are developed over | time_ | | Really? Who believes this and why? | | > _but then turn around and tell me that they 're only capable | of coding for 2 hours per day as a sort of fixed upper limit_ | | Do they give you a reason? This seems pretty odd. | narshian wrote: | No it's not. Speaking as someone who specifically has this | problem: even eliminating all possible distractions does not | do the trick. | titzer wrote: | This is such a great article. It's the same reason I wrote an | assembler, from scratch, by hand, and now I'm writing a fast | interpreter in it. Nobody thinks this is a particularly fun | thing. :) | legerdemain wrote: | OK, so you spend hours and days sealing threes of clubs into tea | packets. But how do you make the volunteer pick the three of | clubs during the show? | cercatrova wrote: | The article links to this Wikipedia page, looks like you can | "force" the user to pick a specific card. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forcing_(magic) | legerdemain wrote: | That's just trading one word for another! OK, how do you | _force_ the audience member to pick a specific card from a | deck? | travisjungroth wrote: | That's an entire family of tricks called card forces. I used to | have a whole routine based on them. Here's a blog post with | three of them: https://conjuror.community/best-card-forces/ | | I had about a 50% hit rate on the natural force. You just fan | through the cards and time it so they pick the one you want. | Wouldn't work for the tea trick, but works fine if you have a | fallback. | legerdemain wrote: | Thanks for the link. Of the three techniques mentioned, one | (the entire deck is all the same card) obviously doesn't | withstand any scrutiny; one (riffle through a deck and skip | to your chosen card when they say stop) feels like it'd be | too risky for a trick that took days to set up; and one (the | "natural" force) says "please pay us to learn the secret." | | I don't think the trick that's the show pony of this blog | post has been revealed to us. | wott wrote: | He has put in his article a link to the Wikipedia definition of | 'Forcing' (and once there, there is a link to a book describing | techniques). | | edit: sorry, I hadn't refreshed and seen the other 2 replies | before I replied myself. | legerdemain wrote: | I don't understand what you comment contributes to my | knowledge. The author says that he will explain a magic | trick. He says that step one is to XYZ. He does not say how | to XYZ. He instead links to a Wikipedia page that says what | XYZ is, but doesn't describe how to XYZ in a way that would | work in the magic trick. Instead, it links to a book that | _might_ say more about XYZ. I am not about to buy that book. | | Do you consider that trick to be sufficiently explained? | draw_down wrote: | The big question is, what's the reward? Magicians need to do | tricks to eat. But what's the incentive to pulling off the | impossible, as opposed to being a workaday employee, at the | employer where the impossible was pulled off? | | I don't mean to imply there is no incentive, I'm saying - what is | it? If it's there and it justifies the effort, great. If not, you | might as well be doing magic tricks at a party. | | Now, some people like to be the fun guy at a party who can pull a | quarter from behind your ear. If that's a fitting reward for you, | then great! For me, that, or being able to write a blog post such | as this one, would be a bit thin to justify it. | macando wrote: | _The only "trick" is that this preparation seems so boring, so | impossibly tedious, that when we see the effect we can't imagine | that anyone would do something so tedious just for this simple | effect_. | | Even magicians who know many tricks will still enjoy the show and | appreciate the effort. | | _Prestige_ is a great movie about this very topic. | godot wrote: | I can really relate to this. Countless times I've run into tasks | that are even only minor grinds (some tedious work that maybe | takes 30 minutes to an hour to do), and countless engineers I've | worked with will just complain, avoid, or just plain be unwilling | to do them. They'll indulge in discussing why things are wrong | this way, what architecture should be like etc. And countless | times, I'll just get through the minor grind and do the thing. | Many of these engineers are smarter and more knowledgeable than I | am, but when the time comes for performance reviews, promotions, | these grinds really count. It's exactly as the author describe | it, these grinds look like magic to the audience (management); | because they are impactful to the business. Having said that, of | course it's no excuse to create or perpetuate poor engineering or | architecture by grinding. It's a balance. | 123pie123 wrote: | Thanks, I enjoyed that. | | I'd like to think this applies to a lot of professionals work, | putting crazy amounts of effort in for a simple outcome, that | just works. | | except the outcome is not as exciting as watching loads of | cockroaches | BossingAround wrote: | > putting crazy amounts of effort in for a simple outcome, that | just works | | There's a fine line though. You want to put in the effort into | a task where it makes sense, like in the article. | | Personally, I see a lot of effort put into tasks where the | person is comfortable with the effort, because they know they | can do the task manually, the old way, and "don't have time for | anything else". | empiko wrote: | Something similar can be said of writing survey paper in | academia. Nobody wants to go through 150 papers about some | godforsaken topic, but the one guy that goes through it is | immediately considered to be a top notch expert. | dceddia wrote: | This quote stuck out to me: | | > More trouble than the trick was worth? To you, probably. But | not to magicians. | | It makes me realize how fundamentally different the values are | between some fields. The amount of time magicians put into the | craft is mind-boggling. | | I see it also with how movies are made -- to think that sometimes | they're spending days or months and tens of thousands of dollars, | building sets, waiting for the right weather or lighting, braving | subzero temperatures, or whatever it might be, just to get a | single shot that might be on screen for a few seconds. | | Maybe a similar sort of thing with software would be spending | time on animations -- the result is a cool flourish, but it lasts | 0.15 seconds and it took 3 days to get it just right, and it's | impossible to _quantify_ how worthwhile it was beyond a gut | feeling. Even still, that 's not even in the same ballpark in | terms of time or effort. | munchbunny wrote: | I don't think it's that software engineers don't value it. I | think we all understand, to some degree, that building | resilient, simple software that solves the problem thoroughly | requires incredible investment into carefully thinking through | the problem and constant upkeep. It's just that we don't want | to believe it because getting from 80% to 100% requires boring | grind that we'd rather spend building something new and | exciting, or because getting from 80% to 100% requires time we | could spend building 80% of something else we want to sell. | chrisco255 wrote: | By the time you grind to get that 100% perfect solution, the | number of requirements the business has put on you in your | backlog has extended well beyond what you can keep up with. | It's not like software engineers are the only actors in a | software system. They are reactive to the needs of product | development who are reactive to the needs of customers. You | have to balance your limited development resources against a | constantly changing set of requirements. | | So you make trade-offs. | bentcorner wrote: | Personally I don't like facing the work to take something | from 80-100% - I envision the potential work and I can see it | laid before me, extending beyond the horizon. And sometimes | that work doesn't even lead to a certain success. | | I realize that more often than not it would likely lead to | improvements and a better state of the world. But it can feel | overwhelming at times. Whereas working on a shinier smaller | thing brings feelings of gratification that much easier and | faster. | 0xFACEFEED wrote: | For me it's that 1) most people won't even care and 2) | someone is going to ruin it anyway, eventually. | | I've observed a cognitive dissonance that I can't quite put | my finger on. You'll work with (and for) people who have an | extreme admiration for Apple products because of the | attention to detail and quality. And yet they are perfectly | fine churning out terrible technology products in order to | make a buck. Often times just little attention to detail can | make a huge difference; you don't need to be a zealot about | it. | | Loosely related: I've found that I've made the most money | while working with bad teams on terrible technology products. | And I've made the least money working with great teams on | great products. I really hate that. | mathgladiator wrote: | The key word is marginal. Sadly, software tends to align | against art as pushing boundaries is marginal for the return of | investment. | | I can provide an example. I'm writing a programming language, | database, and platform to power board games. http://www.adama- | lang.org/ | | Most of my personal investments are marginal to most businesses | (or deeply incompatible). If was going to run this as an | enterprise, then this would be a death sentence. However, my | hope is that when I get this thing moving, then I can ship | games quickly with exceptional and redefining reliability. | | The only reason I can pursue this as an art is that I'm close | to retirement. | akiselev wrote: | _> Maybe a similar sort of thing with software would be | spending time on animations -- the result is a cool flourish, | but it lasts 0.15 seconds and it took 3 days to get it just | right, and it 's impossible to quantify how worthwhile it was | beyond a gut feeling. Even still, that's not even in the same | ballpark in terms of time or effort._ | | The difference is that movies are all or nothing productions in | an industry set up for a waterfall process with directors who | exert creative control. Everything from dealflow to billing to | the unions are set up to support the industry's unique | requirements. They do the same kind of budget triage as | software companies do, but they emphasize the creative aspect | far more relative to tech since they're competing over form not | function. | | The nearest creative equivalent would probably be Jobs-era | Apple but I think the best analog would be NASA, whose missions | are dictated by scientific and exploratory goals outside of | their control. Except instead of an artistic direction, they | have to contend with physics that dictates they spend extreme | resources on seemingly trivial details like what tape or | writing implement works best in zero-g. | olivertaylor wrote: | > they emphasize the creative aspect far more relative to | tech since they're competing over form not function | | Yes and no. There are a lot of "make it fit in the box" | requirements when making a movie. The unions mandate a | certain make up of the crew, and a certain size, the stage | rental costs are a certain amount, there are various laws and | corporate budgets to take into account; all that adds up to a | certain number of shots you can do in a day, which adds up to | a dollar amount, and ALL THOSE THINGS cascade down to | enabling only certain creative things. The difference between | a brilliant director and a ok one is not the beauty of their | art, it's their ability to pull-off something incredible in | the middle of all that machinery. In a way, it's WORKING that | machinery in your favor. | | So while, yes, the industry is set up to support a creative | endeavor, that industry runs on a template that makes certain | things possible and certain things very difficult. But | brilliant producers and directors find ways around it. | akiselev wrote: | >* So while, yes, the industry is set up to support a | creative endeavor, that industry runs on a template that | makes certain things possible and certain things very | difficult. But brilliant producers and directors find ways | around it.* | | Totally agree, and IME that's par for the course for any | creative endeavor that becomes profitable but | unpredictable, whether its cinema, music, or software | engineering. I meant more that the final product is judged | on aesthetic qualities more so than in software, so the | industry naturally allows for more creative expression at | the highest levels of decision making. | rcurry wrote: | I wanted to be a professional magician when I was younger, and | there's a single-handed cut that I learned from Daryl Easton | (at a seminar he gave at some Holiday Inn). It took me a month | or two of solid practice to get it down, but over thirty years | later I can just pick up a deck of cards and flip that cut out | like it was nothing. I was saddened to learn that he had | committed suicide a while back. Every time I do that flourish | playing cards with people or whatever I just remember that time | when one of the world's best magicians hung out with me for a | few minutes after his seminar just to make sure I had it down. | mensetmanusman wrote: | The movie thing is a good example. I remind my kids that some | of these movies cost $1,000,000/minute to make. That might be | what they make in their lifetime, so it is about that many | hours of work per minute (a life's work). | mwcampbell wrote: | When you put it that way, that's obscenely expensive. Maybe | we should be steering kids toward entertainment that we can | create as well as consume because it's not absurdly | expensive. | david422 wrote: | One of my favorite magicians: Derren Brown | | He does a coin flip trick where he flips a fair coin 10 times | in a row and gets heads every time. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzYLHOX50Bc | | The amount of time and effort he puts into this and other | illusions is very large. | phpnode wrote: | I used to be a big fan of Derren Brown when I was younger, | and I do still like a lot of his work, but he readily admits | to deceiving the audience, and the deception includes the | explanations he gives for his techniques. The video you | linked to was part of a longer show (The System) which gives | an explanation for how this trick was done - he says they | kept filming take after take, for 9hrs, until they finally | got ten heads in a row. | | I think that kind of brute force approach would have been | excessively boring to him, and it's much more likely that he | switched to a gimmicked coin to get the ten heads in a row, | then filmed a few shots of throwing tails for the | "explanation". | IncRnd wrote: | > It makes me realize how fundamentally different the values | are between some fields. The amount of time magicians put into | the craft is mind-boggling. | | Larry Wall was quoted in the article, regarding laziness. | | Bill Gates has a famous quote, "I choose a lazy person to do a | hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do | it." | | Neither of those people can be accused of laziness, yet they | both embrace it. Laziness in the context of productivity is | often misunderstood as not doing things, but it is more aptly | the stopping of doing in order to observe, think, and let the | answer come to you. Work diligently, but think and simplify | first. It seems to me that is also what the magicians do. | bluquark wrote: | My secret weapon for bug diagnosis is that when a regression is | reported on a system without an automatic bisect tool, while | everyone else is trying to reason about the problem with | guesswork and code inspection, I sit down and spend 2 hours just | bisecting manually (full sync, rebuild and install of old | versions of the software). This provides a guaranteed culprit CL, | often one that no one guessed, and also a potential bug assignee | who's an expert on the problem in question (the author of that | patch). | | It's "one weird trick" to get bugs stuck in limbo for weeks | suddenly making fast progress towards a fix, and all it takes is | a willingness to do something so tedious and mindless that no | other engineer volunteers to do it. | ip26 wrote: | However, every time I reason about the problem & debug it, I | gain a little knowledge and do it a little faster next time. | Bisecting never really gets faster, aside from maybe writing a | script. | aidos wrote: | That approach works well for regressions. I've used it myself | to track down a bug in chrome and, as you say, having no idea | how to fix it, I could direct it to the author via the bug | tracker. In my case it was fixed within a couple of days. And | obviously bisecting chrome is a slow process, but it only took | a couple of hours. | | I find that most bugs don't fall into that class, and for the | most part, just sitting and picturing the paths back from the | bug is enough to work out what's going on. If you're less | familiar with the code you'll want it in front of you to trace | your way back. In general you can narrow the search space | pretty quickly. | munchbunny wrote: | Definitely agree with that. | | My own personal experience with difficult bugs is that there is | no substitute for taking the time to understand the problem | domain, the systems involved, and the code itself. Getting to | that point takes significant investment though, and I tend to | trust engineers who are willing to do that much more than | engineers who don't. | TameAntelope wrote: | Heh, my answer is that I just refuse to build or work on | systems where bugs aren't always super obvious. If the system | gets too complex, I bisect the system. | | I think I've infuriated many colleagues with this attitude, and | I'm sure there's at least half of the people here who would | similarly be angry working with someone like that. | | Honestly, I'm not very good at writing software, I just tend to | be similar to the author -- I grind more than I out-think most | of my problems, and it results in a deliverable that solves it, | usually, which ends up being enough to move on with. | arpyzo wrote: | It's interesting that while this often produces stunning results, | it usually doesn't lead to pay increases and promotions. | kache_ wrote: | Doing a good job is important. Pay increases and promotions are | obtained through way of leverage, but doing a good job and | building a strong reputation pays dividends in the future. | ptudan wrote: | Yep, learning to optimize for visibility is one of the things | every corporate worker should do. | | It's unfortunate, but the main way to actually see your | compensation and respect increase. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | > it usually doesn't lead to pay increases and promotions | | Individual companies may or may not reward the grind over the | course of a few years. Companies that don't tend to bleed | employees. | | These things do pay off over the course of a career, though. | The Grind builds skills, builds reputation, and builds an | ability to get work done when it matters. The company may not | recognize the value of this, but your peers will. Your peers | will form your future network as everyone diffuses into | different companies. | | It's a mistake when someone scales back their own effort and | learning simply because they don't expect an immediate monetary | reward. We're all building careers and networks over the course | of decades. Don't let a lack of pay increases at a single | company alter hamper the trajectory of your entire career. | | And if you find yourself stuck at a company that isn't | rewarding these things, move on. Some other company will gladly | reward you for the accumulated experience. It only goes to | waste if you stay put at companies that don't reciprocate. | jldugger wrote: | > For example, I once joined a team maintaining a system that was | drowning in bugs. There were something like two thousand open bug | reports. Nothing was tagged, categorized, or prioritized. The | team couldn't agree on which issues to tackle > I spent almost | three weeks in that room, and emerged with every bug report | reviewed, tagged, categorized, and prioritized. | | Honestly, this is one of those traps a team can fall into, where | nobody feels empowered to ignore the rest of the business for 3 | weeks to put the bell on the cat. The only person without | deliverables and due dates is the new hire. And it takes a | special kind of new hire to have the expertise to parachute in, | recognize that work needs to be done, and then do it with little | supervision. | | But he's right in general, that you can get some surprising | things done by just putting in the time and focus. Which is why | it's so utterly toxic that corporate America runs on an interrupt | driven system, with meetings sprinkled carelessly across engineer | calendars. | habitue wrote: | One of the most important things I think Kanban[1] emphasizes | is that once you eliminate unnecessary bottlenecks, you're left | with unavoidable bottlenecks, and this naturally means there | will be slack. Explicitly expecting slack time is super useful | to allow developers at all levels of seniority to do surprising | and necessary things like this that would otherwise never be | scheduled. | | [1] not the project board shape, but the original process it's | named after where you set a hard cap on work in progress in | each stage to find out where bottlenecks are. | pbourke wrote: | > Which is why it's so utterly toxic that corporate America | runs on an interrupt driven system, with meetings sprinkled | carelessly across engineer calendars. | | I agree with this statement and your other points. I've noticed | a more insidious variant of this behavior: the expectation of | interruptions. Some groups have such frequent priority shifts | and/or a culture of fire fighting or door knocking such that | even with a relatively open schedule, one is dissuaded from | engaging in longer stretches of work for fear of having it all | go to waste when the next meteor strike arrives. | hyperpape wrote: | Interruptions are definitely harmful, but if you look at what | he did, he could have done it in spite of meetings. What would | be bad would be starting it and being told (implicitly or | explicitly) not to finish it. | | Better to have meetings than to have what you're doing | cancelled several weeks in. | aspaceman wrote: | > And it takes a special kind of new hire to have the expertise | to parachute in, recognize that work needs to be done, and then | do it with little supervision. | | About 6 months into a job I realized this was what I needed to | do and totally cracked. Didn't know the questions to ask or the | way to learn what I needed to so I burnt out quick and quit. My | fault for sure, but there was a ton of pressure to identify | issues and fix them because senior people were "just too busy". | rufius wrote: | Honestly, I'd have approached it differently. | | Close everything older than 2 weeks. If it's | important/relevant, it will crop back up. If it's not, then it | stays unfixed. | | This can be really uncomfortable to do. But it's how I've | rescued a couple of teams that I've led as either an EM or Tech | Lead. | | Put another way - if everything is important or "must fix", | nothing is. | | So to the author: that seemed like a waste of time. I would not | have done it because I'm not convinced the outcome would have | been meaningfully different from my tactic. | fossuser wrote: | The author's tactic gives them a good sense of the project, | common requests, and bugs over a long time period. | | This context is really valuable when reasoning about the | product or determining what's important to prioritize. | | The issue with the "declare bankruptcy and important stuff | will come back" is that you don't actually solve the | underlying ruthless prioritization issue and very quickly end | up in the exact same position. | | You also irritate people that spent time writing up product | issues for potentially important bugs by auto closing them | (so many important things may not come back), but the bigger | loss is that going through all of them gives you solid | product historical context. | | For what it's worth, the best PMs I know go through the | backlog and understand what they're killing when they | approach a project that's currently fucked. I think it has a | positive side effect of giving them a lot of credibility too | (as well as helping them ramp up). | awillen wrote: | Really well written and so true... I think that far too often, | people get intimidated by the size/scope/hairiness of a problem | and try to reduce their intimidation by breaking it down. | | Particularly if it's a one-off problem, you're often far better | just doing something. Anything. Whatever comes to mind first. | Just take some sort of step. | | You may find that the problem isn't as hairy as you thought, and | in fact just by continuing to do stuff, you solve it pretty | quickly. When that's not the case, doing stuff often leads you to | the kind of understanding that allows you to put in place a good | plan, where just starting with planning forces you to make a | bunch of incorrect assumptions that you then have to fix when | actually implementing the plan you worked so hard on. | beders wrote: | This is so true for every bug tracking system I ever encountered | in any company. | | We called it the P3 graveyard. | | And there's always that lingering feeling that there are few | nuggets hidden in there that would resolve the majority of them. | louwrentius wrote: | This article may be the most important article on Hacker News you | may read this year. | | The message of this story is obviously beyond just our IT related | professions. | | I really wonder if people do understand what needs to be done but | won't. Or that they really don't see a way out of a mess. | | Are people really wilfully blind to 'obvious' solutions that are | boring, labor intensive and terrible to implement? Don't they see | the even worse alternative? | | This is in the end probably not about smarts or insight. | | This is about something more fundamental: values. | maverickJ wrote: | What a fascinating story. | | I think of success as having infinite patience for doing a few | boring things repeatedly. | | Some other parts are having a higher mission to embrace the | grind;Some call this purpose. | | Something else I have observed by studying other engineers is the | theme of not depending on your technical skills alone. One needs | to market/show their work to the right audience, own equity in | businesses/business. | | "As a technical person in your career, you must not rely on your | technical brilliance or rest on your laurels. You must acquire | some financial education. There is a tendency for technical | people to think that they are the best; That they will always be | on top; That will be always be creative; That their inventions | won't be usurped quickly by newer inventions. However, history | says otherwise. Life was quite unpleasant to Tesla; He died alone | and poor depending on handouts from former associates. A tragic | end for one the most creative minds of the early twentieth | century." | | https://leveragethoughts.substack.com/p/dont-hinge-your-care... ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-04-09 23:00 UTC)