[HN Gopher] My First BillG Review (2006) ___________________________________________________________________ My First BillG Review (2006) Author : mtmail Score : 184 points Date : 2022-09-14 13:55 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.joelonsoftware.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.joelonsoftware.com) | geoelkh wrote: | Like a good movie, every time I ready this, I enjoy reading it :) | [deleted] | ThePadawan wrote: | Reminds me of one of the best technical interviews I had. | | This was for a C# position, and my future boss did this top-down | approach with questions about Entity Framework. | | How do you write a query? What happens when you run that code | (lazily vs. eagerly)? Why is the return type Like That? What are | the advantages and disadvantages of that approach? | | Until we got into quite obscure questions about how the framework | would interact with different database runtimes. | | (That interview was the most fun I had in that position) | Selfcommit wrote: | I had my "first Joel review" while applying to work at Stack. | Joel still did the final interviews for all applicants back then. | After 4-5 back to back on site interviews, I was spent. Somehow | we ended up talking about old AutoIT scripts I'd written - many | of which include apologies to future readers in the comments. | | Joel was a great interviewer... that conversation turned into a | game as Joel picked apart various ways he over compromise the | script and asked how I'd respond in the next iteration. | tzs wrote: | Speaking of excel, for casual Excel users, the video "You Suck at | Excel with Joel Spolsky" [1] is worth a watch. My casual Excel | use probably got an order of magnitude easier from it. | | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nbkaYsR94c | nerdponx wrote: | I love this. Is there something like this for Word? And/or for | the LibreOffice equivalents, which in many cases are a better | user experience than the MS originals. | dan-robertson wrote: | Excel is, in some sense, a programming language for (mostly) | purely functional incremental computations with built in | debugger that shows you most intermediate values. Word is not | very much like that so the contents of such a thing would | surely be different. I think the first tip is probably | something like 'create named styles instead of mutating the | formatting of regions ad-hoc'. | jonathanoliver wrote: | My favorite quote from the article: | | > Watching non-programmers trying to run software companies is | like watching someone who doesn't know how to surf trying to | surf. | commandlinefan wrote: | > non-programmers trying to run software companies | | You mean everybody who runs software companies then? | gjm11 wrote: | Bill Gates was a programmer and used to run Microsoft. Mark | Zuckerberg was a programmer and still runs Meta/Facebook. | Larry Ellison was a programmer and still runs Oracle. | | Maybe you're just pointing out that if you're running a | company (beyond a certain size) you are probably spending all | your time running the company and therefore aren't really a | programmer any more. But isn't it obvious that Spolsky | doesn't mean "person whose main activity is writing software" | but "person who knows how to write software and has done a | substantial amount of that"? Gates, Zuckerberg and Ellison | are all programmers in that sense. | areyousure wrote: | Is Google/Alphabet a software company? Sundar does not know | how to program. | myle wrote: | I don't understand this criticism. Sundar has technical | background and great product vision. How many other | people have been involved in so successful projects that | define the industry like Chrome and Android? | | Indeed, Google has hired a lot of people with business | background lately to operate large parts of it's | business. We should, though, acknowledge that Google | operates in many now mature markets where innovation | plays secondary role to focusing on existing customer | needs. | VirusNewbie wrote: | He seems lost as well though. | gadders wrote: | >> Over the years, Microsoft got big, Bill got overextended, and | some shady ethical decisions.. | | Those innocent times when we thought the worst ethical decisions | that Bill G would make was bundling Internet Explorer with | Windows. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/business/jeffrey- | epstein-... | gjm11 wrote: | What that article says about Bill Gates is that on multiple | occasions he had meetings with Jeffrey Epstein. | | Do you in fact think that that is ethically worse than using a | huge company's monopoly power to stifle competition? It seems | to me that the latter harmed a lot more people than the former, | and in more concrete ways. | | For the avoidance of doubt: _Jeffrey Epstein_ harmed some | people very severely. But It looks to me as if he would have | done pretty much the exact same harms if he had never met Bill | Gates at all, and I don 't see that Gates is significantly | culpable for the harm that Epstein did. | | I think there is something badly wrong with any conception of | morality according to which it is more important to cut off all | contact with certain kinds of Bad People than it is not to do | things that do actual substantial harm. | marcodiego wrote: | > What that article says about Bill Gates is that on multiple | occasions he had meetings with Jeffrey Epstein. | | Interestingly, RMS relation with Epstein is AFAIK zero. He | once considered an old friend was involved in a situation | where such friend could be doing something illegal without | even knowing and the backlash was much stronger. | | Of course, RMS has his problems; that comment was the straw | that broke the camel's back. | evouga wrote: | I don't see the connection between RMS and Bill Gates? | | In any case, the backlash against RMS was due to his | defense of Minsky, characterization of Epstein's crimes | using extremely tone-deaf language (referring to his | victims as "entirely willing" members of his "harem," | e.g.), musings about the shaky ethical foundation of age of | consent laws, etc. | | Whether you believe the backlash deserved or not, RMS is on | the record making controversial statements about Epstein. | The only (currently-known) link between Gates and Epstein | is that Gates took Epstein's meetings. | georgemcbay wrote: | According to Melinda Gates, Bill Gates' relationship with | Jeffrey Epstein was a significant factor in their divorce. | | Would Jeffrey Epstein and the bad he did in the world exist | without Bill Gates (ignoring 'butterfly effect' like | questions that we can't answer)? Yes. | | Did Bill Gates' relationship with Jeffrey Epstein represent | an incredibly poor ethical decision? I can't say personally, | I don't know the extent of it and who knew what when, but the | fact that it was a significant factor in ending a 3-decade | long relationship looks pretty damning IMO. | gadders wrote: | I think the implication is that Jeffrey Epstein made | available to his "friends" the services of under-age girls | that were sex-trafficed. Is there concrete evidence that Bill | Gates had relations with these girls? No. | | However, if he did then I would say that is worse than | bundling two bits of software together, yes. | | If he didn't then, your view could be correct however I note | that it is unlikely he was completely unaware of what was | happening. | gjm11 wrote: | From "Bill Gates had some meetings with Jeffrey Epstein" to | "Bill Gates had sex with underage girls trafficked by | Jeffrey Epstein" is ... quite a leap, no? I mean, enough of | a leap that I don't see why anyone would make it. | | (In the absence of further evidence, that is. E.g., someone | mentioned that allegedly Gates's acquaintanceship with | Epstein was one reason for his divorce. Maybe that's nudge- | nudge-wink-wink for "his wife divorced him because he was | having sex with underage girls", since otherwise it seems | like insufficient grounds for wanting a divorce. But this | is all speculation founded on hearsay, and in any case the | thing you originally linked to says no more than that Gates | met with Epstein a few times.) | tomrod wrote: | Interesting read. | | One point that sticks out: if you are an executive over a | function, you need to have enough depth in the function to know | when you're being fed a line versus receiving competency from | your reports. | | One concept that can be a two-edged sword here is being "managed | up" -- which many treat as an adversarial/cloak-and-dagger | relationship with execs with a positive spin. In my thought, | keeping this under control requires domain competency. | VyseofArcadia wrote: | I have been in a couple of orgs now where this was, in my view, | a big problem because of ripple effects. | | Let's say you're on Team A. You're making a thing. You do a | little research, and your thing has this gigantic dependency | that you hadn't initially considered, but it's work that for | whatever reason Team A can't do. You don't have the resources | or there's politics or something. But you're in luck! You | manager asked around, and it turns out Team B made a thing that | solves that gigantic dependency. Yay! | | So you have a meeting with Team B, and they are weirdly evasive | about their thing. Whatever, they gave you what you needed, and | you spend a sprint or two integrating their thing with your | thing. Except it's just not working as advertised. It just | isn't. So you grab some time with a Team B engineer, just the | two of you, and they admit that their thing was never really | finished. The deadline from upper management was unreasonable, | so they got it good enough to be demoable, and then called it | quits because the next unreasonable feature demand was already | on deck. This of course enabled by the fact that none of the | managers had enough depth to know what was bullshit. (Or maybe | they had a vested interest to their managers to sell it anyway, | and so on until at some point the management chain loses the | ability to smell bullshit.) | | Well, shit. At this point you're up the creek because your | manager already made an unreasonable commitment based on the | advertised capabilities of Team B's thing. What do you do? | Well, you sort of half-implement what you can, make it | demoable, let your boss sell it up. Just like Team B did when | they discovered Team C's thing was half-implemented. | | If you are thinking about a big software company that keeps | putting out shit products, now you know why. | jacobr1 wrote: | It doesn't even need to "not work." You can ship a | V1/prototype/MVP product that does work with a small, focused | team. But extending that product to support all the | additional use cases, resolve feedback, address tech- | debt/scale/performance, etc ... requires investment ... more | investment probably than the initial version. But the version | version is "done" - why invest more? | VyseofArcadia wrote: | That is a perfectly reasonable and understandable situation | that I am not talking about. If Team B came to us and said, | "here's what it does right now, we were only able to ship | the MVP before we needed to prioritize other work", that's | fine. That's wonderful. That is the kind of open and honest | communication about platform capabilities that is necessary | to do quality work. | | What I am talking about is when Team B says, "it slices! It | dices! It removes tough stains, washes and dries your | cloths, hell, it'll fold them!" Then when you start working | with their amazing miracle product you find that it merely | slices, well, no, actually, it really needs more of a | sawing motion because they initially misunderstood the | requirements and built it serrated and didn't have time to | go back and fix it. | endtime wrote: | I don't think this is why Google puts out mediocre products, | FWIW. I think it's more that when something turns out after 6 | months to be a bad idea, everyone's incentives are to | spending another 12-18 months launching (or "landing") it so | they can get promoted (and then change teams). Failing | responsibly after 6 months isn't rewarded. (From what I'm | told, Meta is better about this.) | endtime wrote: | I'm surprised this comment for downvoted. I'd love to | understand what about it people didn't like, if anyone | feels like replying. | VyseofArcadia wrote: | I freely admit Google was not the big company I was | thinking of when I wrote my comment. I would be shocked, | however, if all of the MANGA companies didn't at least to | some degree suffer from what I described. I think to any | company that organizes work around services is going to | have problems with APIs that overpromise and underdeliver. | dh2022 wrote: | I wonder at what point this becomes full circle. I.e. team C | depends on feature from team A which is half baked because of | the initial dependency :) | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | This was a big reason for me continuing to do open-source work, | while I managed my development team. | | My managers actually deliberately tried to interfere with my | technical competence. I'm an ornery cusshound, though, so it | didn't work. | lazide wrote: | It is essentially impossible to manage something if the person | doesn't understand the thing being managed - and by understand, | I mean 'knows how it works to to the point they can know when | it's bullshit, and when it's real'. | | It doesn't require being GOOD at the thing they are managing | (anymore than it requires being a fast linebacker to be able to | make someone fast and teach them how to be a good linebacker), | but being decent sure helps. | | Sometimes being really good at the thing can make it nearly | impossible to be a manager of others doing it, because while | they're good at the skill they don't actually _understand it_. | It comes naturally to them, so they never had to figure it out. | | Just like someone who is a fast linebacker may just _be_ and is | unable to explain to anyone how they do it. | | A VP/Executive is a level above managing it, as they need to be | managing managers, ensuring decision making and prioritization | is occurring in a way that produces the desired results, and | setting the overall culture within an organization. | | Many times where problems occur is when someone gets promoted | to a level where they are now over people who are doing things | they don't understand, or when skill sets and day to day work | shifts out from under them and they lose that competency. | | 'Managing up' can be a cynical ploy for a middle manager to get | what they want while not actually doing what the execs want. | | It can also be the process of ensuring the important details | the executive needs are there, and they aren't having their | time wasted if a bunch of fluff that doesn't matter to them. | | Which one it is depends a lot on the culture and how good the | executive/VP and middle manager are. | snowwrestler wrote: | This is a popular idea among many people with domain | expertise (in this case, developers), but it doesn't hold up | to scrutiny. | | By this standard, a CEO would need decent expertise in every | aspect of running their business, which as a business scales | becomes impossible. | | Businesses are collections of people and need to succeed as | such. The whole point of hiring people is to grow the skills | available to the business. If you know enough to micro-manage | all your staff, you're either not very senior or you hired | poorly (or both). | | Management is more complicated than just fact-checking and | BS-detection. In fact if you're significantly worried about | detecting BS by your staff, you already have a management | problem. | lazide wrote: | It _is_ a requirement for every CEO that I've seen that | they understand all core business functions, to the degree | I'm stating. | | A CEO that can't understand how the companies finances are | structured and how it makes it's money is going to be blind | to the core machinery of the business. | | A CEO that doesn't understand how the companies operations | work is going to make bad optimizations that will hurt it's | ability to serve customers with it's core products. | | A CEO that doesn't understand how the companies customer | support and public facing relations work is likely to tank | the companies public image. | | A CEO that doesn't understand how the companies Sales work | is going to be scammed by them or destroy the companies | revenue producing channels accidentally. | | I can point you to dozens of high profile examples of this. | | None of this is micro management level. It's 'are the books | making sense and congruent with the actual day to day | operating status of the business'. It's 'are we competent | and effective at producing our core products'. It's 'when | someone needs help, they get it effectively and at a cost | to us that makes sense'. | | To judge those requires knowledge and understanding of | those areas. | | The reality is that no one individual knows all these | things well enough to run a large corporation well, which | is why the board of directors in a properly managed company | will be performing oversight on many of these functions. | | Especially financial, as that's the most tempting target if | someone gets desperate. | | And you're right - a good manager or leader isn't worried | about BS (for long), but I never said they would be - I | said they _could tell the difference_. Good fences make | good neighbors, after all, and if folks know you can tell, | there is no point trying. | | None of that is micromanaging. | | If you get a reputation as someone who can't tell the | difference and/or doesn't care, a lot of people you | wouldn't expect will try. That's what causes problems. | phkahler wrote: | >> By this standard, a CEO would need decent expertise in | every aspect of running their business, which as a business | scales becomes impossible. | | The solution is to have people under them to oversee the | other areas that are not the CEO's expertise. Now how do | you achieve that? I don't know. When one of those people | moves on how do you replace them? I don't know, but promote | from within would seem to be wise, since this hypothetical | organization has a low tolerance for BS. | pnutjam wrote: | CEO is not a standard manager. They are running a company, | which can do many things. The managers should have an | expertise in what the company is doing. Too many places | just assume the company is doing "marketing" or "sales" and | the people running it need to be experts in that. | drc500free wrote: | My personal experience (as assistant to a CEO) was that | between him and the CFO they could have run every aspect of | the business competently. He had very consciously found | another executive who complemented his talents so that | there was full coverage. | | The breadth and depth of knowledge was intimidating and | very impressive, and they could drill down to the necessary | level to uncover bullshit anywhere. They rarely did, but | knowing that they could prevented a lot of nonsense. | mgkimsal wrote: | > By this standard, a CEO would need decent expertise in | every aspect of running their business, which as a business | scales becomes impossible. | | I didn't read that at all.. | | "A VP/Executive is a level above managing it, as they need | to be managing managers..." | | The 'higher ups' don't need to know how to do development, | but they do need to know how to manager development | managers - set priorities, provide assistance/blocking, | etc. And the CEO would need to be someone who can manage | those executives. | | The 'domain expertise' is (mostly) expertise/experience in | managing people managing other people/processes. | | At least, that's what I got from the GP comment. | snowwrestler wrote: | The GP edited their comment after I posted my reply. | mgkimsal wrote: | AHA... That helps clarify a bit. Thanks. | charles_f wrote: | The CEO is a bit of an exception in that they're where ends | meet, through an organization it's the one place where | radically different functions report to the same person. | And those functions are not _that_ different in that they | 're usually CxO, whom job is running the function under | them. | | With that said, I would persist that a CEO should be a SME | in the value creation function of their company. | | > Management is more complicated than just fact-checking | and BS-detection. In fact if you're significantly worried | about detecting BS by your staff, you already have a | management problem. | | It is, but similarly it's also hard to figure a strategy | that works if you can't empathize with your customers, and | as CEO that's your job. | | I've been working on a "platform" that was led by a VP who | didn't have dev experience. The only priority was | increasing the feature set, with only consideration given | to the "end user". Developer experience left as an | afterthought and never raised to the level of a goal, | resulting in cumbersome programming paradygms, and low | adoption. | | > if you're significantly worried about detecting BS by | your staff, you already have a management problem. | | Couldn't agree more | spoonjim wrote: | In many family-owned businesses the heir apparent (normally | the eldest son of the owner) is prepared for the job by | working as many of the low-level jobs as possible when a | teenager. They clean the trash, lubricate the machines, | etc. Two benefits: they know about how the business works | so they can't be BSed later on, and they have the | credibility with the line-level employees. | TheRealDunkirk wrote: | > The cult of the MBA likes to believe that you can run | organizations that do things that you don't understand. | | This has been the bane of my corporate life for almost 30 years | now. The ED's just don't feel they have to understand the | technical details of what's happening underneath them, which | leads to the pervasive culture in all Fortune 1000's: the middle | managers run around creating little fiefdoms, and fighting over | their share of the department's budget. | | In my current company's onboard training, I counted 5 dimensions | of cross-functional reporting. Also, there are at least 4 major | IT departments. Who's responsible for what? Who knows! It's | impossible to know! But they're fighting about it, and every | group has a new policy or layer to add, every couple of months, | to justify their existence. Meanwhile, people are just trying to | do their jobs in the face of impossible deadlines due to workflow | congestion caused by 40-year-old mainframe constraints. | hintymad wrote: | > which leads to the pervasive culture in all Fortune 1000's: | | I feel this is the same problem as an online community faces: | the density of talent gets diluted over time as the community | grows larger. When you only 1000 members in Quora, you get | detailed and nuanced answers that open your eyes and expand | your mind. When you have 100M users in quora, most of the | answers are meh. Similarly, when a company grows rapidly with | only few hundreds of people, you get amazing talent as | described in the book Show Stopper. When the company grows to | north of $1T with hundreds of thousands of people, well, you | get current-day Microsoft and eventually IBM | mhh__ wrote: | Social media is now littered with lifestyle-consultants who | sell this grand idea of becoming an "analyst" or consultant of | some kind, raking in loads of money while going to the onsite | gym and eating smoothie bowls. | | No knowledge of the domain, or statical training required. | | Good for them, but if you hire these kinds of people in your | business you deserve to go bankrupt. | int0x2e wrote: | I suspect it will never happen, but I would love to work at a | company that has front-line managers and recognized "thought | leaders", and nothing else at all, most of all - no middle | managers, little to no concept of "promo work", etc. | | Once you remove the incentive for managers to grow their org | (because there's a point where managing more people directly | becomes infeasible, or at the very least - painful), you'll | have little to no politics, no more constant re-orgs, etc. | | Wishful thinking, I know... | segfaultbuserr wrote: | > _In the olden days, Excel had a very awkward programming | language without a name. "Excel Macros," we called it. It was a | severely dysfunctional programming language without variables | (you had to store values in cells on a worksheet), without | locals, without subroutine calls: in short it was almost | completely unmaintainable. It had advanced features like "Goto" | but the labels were actually physically invisible. [...] I was | supposed to come up with a solution to this problem. The | implication was that the solution would have something to do with | the Basic programming language. Basic? Yech!_ | | Take a look at this 4-minute video: _Excel Magic_. This engineer | demonstrated the implementation of many sophisticated | simulations, entirely in Excel, including flight simulators, | orbital mechanics, digital signal processing, ray-tracing, heat | transfer, chemical reaction dynamics, and more. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9PLmtQZwmY | | I don't know what to say... On one hand, I clearly understand | that, due to the programmability with macros and VBA, the express | power of Excel is as powerful as any "real" programming language, | and in fact, a lot of real-world engineering calculations are | indeed performed in Excel, the prevalence of Excel in engineering | is almost terrifying. Imagine solving differential equations | numerically using 10,000 cells in Excel, yes, it has been done! I | respect their skills and achievements. | | On the other hand, it just looks painful to me, and feels like | constructing a skyscraper using a toothpick. | amalcon wrote: | Excel macros were/are _bad_ as a programming environment, for | the reasons Joel says. The thing is, that 's because it grew | out of the deficiencies of formulae. If you can't do a thing | with formulae, the next logical step was a macro. Since Excel | was such widely distributed software back then, and it took | actual effort to get decent tools for programming, macros were | a _lot_ of folks ' first exposure to programming. | | In turn, that means there are people who can perform what I'd | consider pure wizardry with them. My hat is off to those | people, though I still am happier that I got my hands on Turbo | Pascal at the right age. | Tangurena2 wrote: | Many times "it" started as one worker in the office who | needed to get something done. And they figured out that Excel | (or Access) could do "that thing". So they used Excel to | automate it. Then "that thing" ended up doing more, and | getting more complicated, until one day people realize that | the company depends on this (now) business critical process. | | Excel was more likely because it came in almost every version | of Microsoft Office. Access tended to come in only the more | expensive suites. | | That's why I call Excel & Access "gateway drugs" - they're | the tool that got a lot of people into programming. They | didn't wake up one morning and say "hey, I want to be a | programmer!". Instead they figured out how to do their work | with the tools they had, and then one day woke up and | realized "OMG! I've become a programmer without noticing." | filoleg wrote: | Oh hey, another turbo pascal starter. If you don't mind, can | you elaborate on why you feel that way about it? | | In retrospective, I am happy about starting with it, and | remember it fondly. But I cannot really make any good point | for why, and I definitely remember cursing it out very hard | at the time. | amalcon wrote: | Basically two things: | | 1. It was better than the other stuff I had access to at | the time. This is due more to the poor quality of the other | stuff I had access to at the time than any benefit of Turbo | Pascal, but it still mattered. | | 2. There are pointers in it, but you aren't forced to use | them for simple programs. Having encountered pointers early | is a _huge_ leg up when it comes time to work with | something like C or assembler. Being forced to use them (as | in C) makes the learning curve really steep. Something like | Pascal, where you _have_ pointers but you aren 't forced to | use them for the sorts of program a beginner will tend to | write, seems to give both benefits. | unwind wrote: | I learned C after years of first Basic, then MC68k | assembler (Amiga 4ever etc). Pointers never seemed hard | or confusing at all. :) #lifehack | buescher wrote: | > Imagine solving differential equations numerically using | 10,000 cells in Excel, yes, it has been done! | | There's a nice treatment of how to do this for simple heat | transfer problems in Tony Kordyban's _Hot Air Rises and Heat | Sinks_. You will amaze and frustrate your co-workers. | | Excel is 100% the poor man's simulation package. I like Matlab | and Simulink a lot better, and if I were 25 again I'd be a fool | for Julia, but nothing beats it for sharing a simulation or | other analysis with someone that doesn't have the same software | you do on his or her computer. | segfaultbuserr wrote: | > Tony Kordyban's _Hot Air Rises and Heat Sinks_ | | It was a fun book, I don't remember the Excel modeling part | though... I do remember seeing something similar on | Microwaves101.com by The Unknown Editor... | | > _The spreadsheet has 96 distance steps and 2000 time steps, | or almost 100,000 cells. In the old days it would bring a | computer to its knees when you changed a variable. Now it 's | almost instantaneous, however, it still measures 10MB. We | will offer a zipped version of it in the download area, | soon._ | | https://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/fourier-s-law | buescher wrote: | Chapter 25, "Even A Watched Pot Boils Eventually". If you | want a whole lot of that, appendix D of Holman's Heat | Transfer, which is referenced in Kordyban's book. | marcodiego wrote: | > Then I sat down to write the Excel Basic spec, a huge document | that grew to hundreds of pages. I think it was 500 pages by the | time it was done. | | > we only got him the spec about 24 hours earlier | | > THERE WERE NOTES IN ALL THE MARGINS. ON EVERY PAGE OF THE SPEC. | HE HAD READ THE WHOLE GODDAMNED THING AND WRITTEN NOTES IN THE | MARGINS. | | Even considering my historic dislike for microsoft, I must admit | how a dedicated person Bill Gates was. The fact that even after | being highly successful he was still apt and willing to review | projects, maybe even code, to this level of detail is impressive | and not a thing I've seen much. | | It is hard to say he didn't earn it. | helsinkiandrew wrote: | Not to downplay Bill Gates dedication, but given how important | basic was to Microsoft's initial success and how much of his | own coding went into it, he was perhaps likely to take more | technical interest in it than other products. | spaetzleesser wrote: | I used to know guys from Microsoft Germany. One day they were | debugging some obscure issue in the memory management of | Windows 2000. Gates came into their office and asked what they | were doing. They explained the situation and they were | surprised that Gates had a solid understanding of the issue and | could discuss it on a deep technical level. They also said that | Gates (and Ballmer too) has an incredible memory. He supposedly | can recall who attended meetings years ago and what was said. | | His brain seems to operate on a much higher level from most | other people. | com2kid wrote: | I've been witness to something similar. tl;dr Team member goes | to present optical HR tech to BillG. He read up the academic | and research literature and after seeing our demo, says we are | obviously BSing him[1] and that the tech was barely ready for | prime time[2]. | | Completely outside his normal area of expertise, he had | obviously researched and become, if not an expert, really | knowledgeable in the space. | | Unrelated, he also heavily advocated for Tablets back in the | early 2000s. | | Indeed, IMHO BillG's problem is that he is often _too early_ on | seeing technology advances. Microsoft tried to make Smart TVs | back before broadband internet had a large penetration! Smart | infotainment in cars way before anyone else! Being too ahead of | the curve can be a disadvantage. | | [1] Not a direct quote, but he was right. Optical HR wearables | use some trickery to make the numbers look good, basically | unfiltered, swinging your arm around will make the numbers jump | up suddenly due to how the tech works, so you have to basically | detect this and cover it up, accelerometers help here. There | are plenty of other problems with optical HR that get paved | over through clever presentation to the user. | | [2] It is better now, but circa 2014 optical HR sucks, and | wrist based still sucks for a lot of types of motion, but they | great for running and biking. Anything with regular motions it | is great for. HIIT strength training workouts where you are | frequently switching exercises? No, just no. Though again now | days the tech has advanced to the point it is kind of accurate, | but someone who knows the industry can still purposefully | confuse most sensors. | buescher wrote: | They bought webtv, didn't they? Similarly, Microsoft was not | only too early on tablet computing, but also never quite got | it right. | com2kid wrote: | > They bought webtv, didn't they? Similarly, Microsoft was | not only too early on tablet computing, but also never | quite got it right. | | They bought Webtv and also made Windows XP Home Theater | Edition. Lots of technologies get purchased then improved | upon by large tech companies, including OS X and Android! | | Regarding tablets, one can argue that IPad Pro is slowly | becoming what Tablet PC was back in 2003. | | IMHO my 2003 Tablet PC experience was _amazing_. Everyone | back then thought I was insane for having a laptop with | "only" a 13" screen (17 and even 21 inch laptops were | popular back then), but my laptop had an "incredible" 3-4 | hour battery life! Heck my tablet had directional mics, I | could specify from what direction I wanted audio recording | focus on, it was amazing for recording lectures. I haven't | seen that tech in a consumer product since. :( | | Microsoft not being able to realize they could ship more | than one successful OS has hurt them many times. Windows | has to be everywhere. Apple got it right by forking the OS | and realizing if people wanted to give them money for iOS | based devices, let the cash roll in. | | MS is better about accepting people's money now days. :) | See Azure and Linux hosting. | zamfi wrote: | Heart rate detection? | int0x2e wrote: | Lots of great insight. Thank you for sharing! | | Your comment about being too early is on point, though I'm | not entirely sure it's a bad thing. If you're a big company | with scale and cash to support it, exploring new frontiers is | probably worth it - you either stumble upon the next big | thing, or you at least get to stake your flag through some | patents, and in the process - make it so if this things does | grow - you already have some kernel you can build upon to | start that up without having to pay up for an acquisition... | | It's not perfect, but from a risk / reward perspective - I | can see how this strategy could serve a large tech company | well over decades... | com2kid wrote: | After a decade at MS I have come to believe that there is | such a thing as a first mover disadvantage. Being too early | to market is just as bad as being late. Basically a new | venture at a high tech company gets a lot of enthusiasm and | funding, but it if doesn't succeed within some time frame, | not only does it get abandoned, but the company in general | won't try again for quite some time. Something else that | can happen is the early v1 product gets a bad reputation, | making it hard for a better v2 to gain traction. | | This actually hurt Windows Phone sales. Windows Mobile 5/6 | (and Pocket PC before) were miserable consumer products[1]. | Sales agents in cellphone stores learned not to sell phones | from Microsoft, because their device sales bonus would get | clawed back when the device was returned. (Manufacturers | give $$ to sales staff for each phone sold from that | manufacturer, or at least that is how the market worked | back when I was last in it, info is circa 2010! | | When Windows Phone came out, 2 bad things happened. | | 1. Sales staff wasn't being offered bonuses for selling | Windows Phones 2. When everyone realized how big of a | disaster that move was, bonuses started being offered, but | staff had been burned by 7-8 years of horrible return rates | on prior Microsoft smart phones, everyone knew iPhones | didn't get returned, so sales staff pushed iPhones. | | oops! | | Microsoft Sync is another one. Microsoft tried to make | Android Auto back in 2007! Holy shit. Just think about | that. In 2007 MP3 playback was still an extra add on in | many models. AUX ports were an add on! No one had smart | phones! It was crazy ahead of its time. And cars just | weren't designed to be "smart" yet. Heck I am pretty sure | in 2007 you could still find a few cars that didn't have | power windows. | | Oh I also used something that looked a lot like docker | containers back at Microsoft. It was chained and nested VHD | partitions that you could update the OS and Apps separately | by just dropping in and relinking the VHDs, so the apps and | dependencies were one self contained virtual hard drive | image, to upgrade the apps just run some magic commands and | the existing OS image had a new app image attached to it. | | Microsoft had a working, reportedly playable at reasonable | speed (never saw it myself) XBox 360 emulator for PC | around, I think maybe 2008 or 2009? | | To be clear, that is an insane technological | accomplishment, to have it running at playable speeds on | PCs of the time. | | I got despondent working at Microsoft because I saw so much | cool technology just fall by the wayside, or get | mismanaged, or get a v1 launched early and then have no one | believe in the v2. | | Amazon Astro, their semi-autonomous robot, yeah MS tried to | do that in 2012 or so. Failed because the tech wasn't ready | yet (and for many other reasons!) | | Microsoft tried to do eBooks back in 2000. Oops, way too | early. | | [1] Windows Mobile pre WP 7 was never meant to be a | consumer product. Working on it I was told very bluntly | that the target audience was corporate, and specifically | corporate IT departments who were doing the purchasing. | Pre-iPhone Microsoft even had a nice little report from | some research firm saying consumers would never pay for a | cellphone, they would only, en mass, get cell phones for | free from their provider in return for the 2 year contract | lock in. This was myopic as fuck. As a new college hire I | felt like banging my head against the wall every single day | for the horrible business decisions that I saw being made, | and this was before the iPhone was announced! | | An example of this closed mindset: When I first started at | work I got my company Windows Mobile device, and shortly | thereafter I went out shopping for a new TV. I was at the | store wondering which one to get when I realized I could | pull out my phone and do research right there. I literally | stopped in my tracks and realized that having the internet | in my pocket was going to be a huge societal shift. When I | told my coworkers what had happened, even the next youngest | member on the team dismissed what I said as being | inconsequential. | | Year later, same co-worker was proudly showing off the | barcode scanning app on his iPhone that let him comparison | shop in stores... | richardw wrote: | Apple's done extremely well by timing it perfectly, not by | being too early. Never mind early or spot on, it's been | pretty late for a lot of stuff, compared to Android. | | I still remember my only windows phone. Horrible thing. Had | a Start menu and a stylus FFS. | [deleted] | [deleted] | hintymad wrote: | Equally impressive was that Joel was hired as a product manager | (I believe the official title was Program Manager, but writing | product spec nowadays is done by eng or by product managers) | fresh out of school, yet he was able to come up with detailed | and highly technical product spec - a trait that many product | managers do not have, especially in a big company. | | It also shows the talent density of the young Microsoft, just | like in the young Google, or the young Facebook. | | Edit: s/Project Manager/Program Manager/ | [deleted] | dan-robertson wrote: | The title was 'program manager' which may have implied | different things. He was just out of school but also older | than a typical graduate so perhaps a little more wise to the | world? | hintymad wrote: | Thanks! Oh yeah, program manager. I got it messed up. | phillipcarter wrote: | There's a lot of places within Microsoft that operate with an | extremely high degree of attention to detail, completeness, and | utter mastery over a topic. It's amazing. | | For example, the C# language design committee will, almost to a | fault, consider every single little micro-scenario for a | proposal and weight them all together to figure out if it's | going to be feasible to implement, able to accomplish the goals | that the proposal sets out, and if it fits in with the "spirit" | of the rest of the language. I think it's a rarity in software | to have such care put into the design and implementation | process and it's amazing that these things are alive and well | within Microsoft. | alexklarjr wrote: | Considering C# is copycat from Java and Delphi with every | c00l sugar can be possible extracted from all other c00l | languages for last 20 years it must win award for most random | set of features and duplicated approaches in its "design". | Typical Microsoft product, like Office. | phillipcarter wrote: | I was going to have a thoughtful reply, but I looked at | your comment history and it seems like you have absolutely | zero nuance or objectivity in your evaluation of Microsoft | software. | paxys wrote: | As a developer, having a product manager and executive leadership | with this level of technical depth is a dream. | endtime wrote: | I recently joined Roblox, and the CEO will occasionally send | emails with questions about caching strategy or API design or | whatever. | | I found it a bit odd, coming from a much bigger company, but if | that's what sounds good to you, we're hiring. :) | white_dragon88 wrote: | That thumbnail made me snort coffee through my nose. Looks like | the kind of photo an actor would have on their CV | malthaus wrote: | My take-away is that any of the other 4 hierarchy levels between | joel and bill should have challenged & asked those questions | already. | | When you already have 6 levels of hierarchy, is it really the job | of the CEO to dig that deep on technical issues? | nearbuy wrote: | Spot checking for important projects is a good way of making | sure those other 4 hierarchy levels are doing their job well. | Tangurena2 wrote: | In far too many organizations, there is something called "the | thermocline of truth". | | > _A thermocline is a distinct temperature barrier between a | surface layer of warmer water and the colder, deeper water | underneath. It can exist in both lakes and oceans. A | thermocline can prevent dissolved oxygen from getting to the | lower layer and vital nutrients from getting to the upper | layer._ | | > _In many large or even medium-sized IT projects, there exists | a thermocline of truth, a line drawn across the organizational | chart that represents a barrier to accurate information | regarding the project's progress. Those below this level tend | to know how well the project is actually going; those above it | tend to have a more optimistic (if unrealistic) view._ | | In the more Machiavellian companies that I have worked for, | this would be a layer on the org chart where truth stops | flowing upwards. It may also affect downwards flow of | information as well. The brass at the top don't know what is | going on because they can't depend on the layers of management | between the CxO tier and where work actually gets done. | | > _is it really the job of the CEO to dig that deep on | technical issues_ | | No. You - as CEO - _should_ be able to trust the people in | those layers. Maybe BillG didn 't trust them. Or he didn't know | how to. He was technically excellent enough to be able to do | this sort of sanity check for himself. Perhaps, as CEO, you | only need to do this sort of "quality control" check | occasionally. | | Any organization that has been parasitized by narcissists is | guaranteed to have at least one, and more likely several, | layer(s) where truth _must_ stop flowing in order to (1) | protect the narcissists ' egos and (2) to protect the | organization from their anger & retaliation. | | [0] - https://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/15/the-wetware-crisis- | the-... | fasteo wrote: | >>> is it really the job of the CEO to dig that deep on | technical issues? | | From the post: | | >>> Later I had it explained to me. "Bill doesn't really want | to review your spec, he just wants to make sure you've got it | under control ... | justsomehnguy wrote: | > other 4 hierarchy levels between joel and bill should have | challenged & asked those questions already. | | Congratulations, you invented bureucracy. Because those 4 | levels wouldn't (and most of the time - couldn't) answer those | questions, so what they would do? Demand the lower level to | answer it. | localhost wrote: | I had my first and only BillG review a few years ago. It was | about a technology that I and everyone else _assumed_ that Bill | had a lot of familiarity with. It is a technology that I'm sure | is being used at his foundation. It is a technology that other | CVPs at the company had presented to Bill in the past. And during | the review, it was pretty clear that at least at that moment, | this was the first time that he thought he had seen this | technology. | | This taught me an important lesson. Our leaders, despite the | legendary status that is sometimes bestowed upon them, are human. | And fallable. They selectively remember things, and if you want | them to remember certain things you'll need to tell them over and | over and over again. | simonebrunozzi wrote: | > (how many billions of dollars has Microsoft lost, in R&D, legal | fees, and damage to reputation, because they decided that not | only do they have to make a web browser, but they have to give it | away free?) | | Joel is super smart, and I loved this particular story. | | However, I'm surprised he underestimates how crucial was to give | away IE to kill Netscape, and keep dominating the desktop market. | | See this exhibit [0]. It's a rare gem of a find, I believe. Try | to guess from this [1] when was IE introduced as free and | default. | | (I'm pretty sure I am right on dates - please correct me for | inaccuracies) | | [0]: | https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2006/... | | [1]: | https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2006/... | civilized wrote: | Why was it important for Microsoft to kill Netscape? What did | this have to do with continuing to dominate the desktop market? | | Bill should have thought harder about these questions before | going after Netscape by giving away IE for free - the most | transparent act of monopolistic predatory pricing we've seen | since Benjamin Harrison signed the Sherman Antitrust Act into | US law. | kragen wrote: | Now the most important platform is not Windows but Chrome | (and, secondarily, Mobile Safari). That's why my technophobic | mother is using Linux now, on a Chromebook. | | When people at Microsoft saw Netscape and Java, they | understood that this would happen. | | But Microsoft was able to delay their irrelevance for about | 15 years by sucking off Netscape's oxygen, getting the W3C to | rubber-stamp IE's implementation bugs and shitty API designs | as official web standards, sidetracking the W3C for years on | the make-work of XML and things like RDF schemas, introducing | platform-specific extensions in Visual J++, splitting the | Java developer base into Java and .NET, mugging Fortune 1000 | CTOs behind closed doors with patent lawsuit threats for | using Linux, and shipping a really shitty broken browser for | 20 years. That was long enough to kill Sun too. | | And now they own GitHub, which controls the namespace of most | of the world's free software. | jonny_eh wrote: | It delayed by a decade (or two) browser innovation. This | meant that desktop apps weren't replaced with cross-platform | web apps over that period. Note how now we no longer need | Windows for most professional desktop applications. As much | as we like to complain about JavaScript and Electron, they're | largely the reason that we no longer depends on Windows for | productivity. | mananaysiempre wrote: | From contemporary technical documentation, it doesn't | really look like Microsoft had exactly planned to just sit | on IE once it had won. | | That first Web push gave us XMLHttpRequest, it gave us | IDispatchEx and Windows Scripting (where JScript stagnated | only after the Sun settlement, enough for a next-generation | version in the form of JScript.NET to get developed and | consequently[1]), it gave us HTAs ("Electron as a Windows | platform feature"), DHTML (a non-standard abomination, yes, | but so was <IMG>) not only implemented in IE but supported | in FrontPage and Word, Active Desktop with its channels | (OK, one might argue those count as a negative amount of | features, but they _were_ serious about it), the Web | Publishing Wizard and the Personal Web Server (bundled with | an _end-user_ product!). | | This does not look like the work of people who were | planning to do just enough to win and then stop--it looks | like they were really into it (and they were really into a | lot of things at the time simultaneously), then came the | "oh shit" realization that helping the Web eat the platform | lunch is maybe not exactly in your interest[2] when that | lunch is firmly yours at the moment. | | ( _Java's_ attempt at same they were very consciously | thwarting--can't find that Gates memo now--but then Java | was pretty explicit and deliberate about that attempt, | while the Web just kind of happened to be the only leak | when a lot of people started feeling around the dam for a | lot of different reasons.) | | [1] https://ericlippert.com/2003/10/14/designing-jscript- | net/ | | [2] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how- | microsoft-lost... | lukasb wrote: | _"Bill doesn't really want to review your spec, he just wants to | make sure you've got it under control. His standard M.O. is to | ask harder and harder questions until you admit that you don't | know, and then he can yell at you for being unprepared. Nobody | was really sure what happens if you answer the hardest question | he can come up with because it's never happened before. "_ | | It depresses me that the people considered the best in our | industry are such assholes. Bill just wanted to yell at | _everyone_ because it was the only way he knew how to motivate? | myle wrote: | As a teenager that grew up hating Bill Gates, because I liked | Linux, I want to agree with you. As an adult, I believe we | should be able to see past the surface of behavior that other | people exhibit and understand their motives. | | It is nowadays in fashion to cancel someone based on today's | norms, but if we want to be fair, we should put things in | context that we don't have. If Bill Gates was so toxic that was | unbearable, Microsoft would have failed. | tricky777 wrote: | not necesarily. Slave using countries survived for centuries. | (business can be successful even if it makes people | miserable) | lukasb wrote: | Criticizing is not cancelling. | jononomo wrote: | I honestly miss the old days when smart people would just yell | at you. It's frankly more efficient and the people who can't | handle it just aren't smart themselves. I'm not talking about | unwarranted abuse, but I did like the confidence that top notch | programmers felt free to express back in the 90s. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | > the people who can't handle it just aren't smart | themselves. | | Don't dismiss everyone who won't put up with that kind of | environment as "just not smart". It's a completely | unwarranted assumption. | | Just a hypothetical: Being verbally abused as a child might | make that impossible to take as an adult. That doesn't make | you any less smart. | | But it doesn't even have to be abuse. There are people who | are plenty smart, whose reaction to being yelled at by their | boss would be "why should I put up with this?" In fact being | smarter might even make that response _more_ likely. | jononomo wrote: | You yell back and explain why you're right. Or, if you're | not right, you go fix the problem. | logifail wrote: | > It depresses me that the people considered the best in our | industry are such assholes. Bill just wanted to yell at | everyone because it was the only way he knew how to motivate? | | A professor at my university took exactly this approach to | interviewing prospective undergraduates (EDIT: minus the | yelling!) He would ask a question, and if the unfortunate | candidate started to give the right answer, he would (politely) | cut them off, and ask a different/harder question. | | He was interested in how candidates answered questions they | hadn't already got the answers for. | | At the time I regarded this as pure brutality, but looking back | on it with a few decades of experience, I can see why he | thought his approach was valid. We often think the edge cases | are where the interesting stuff is. | | Q: Given a (fairly short) time to interview someone, how would | _you_ attempt to find the boundaries of their knowledge, and | how they handle stuff at the boundaries? | lukasb wrote: | I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with | yelling at people as your primary method of motivating them. | Which, according to Joel's story, was Bill's default method | in every review. | jononomo wrote: | Just bring your blankie to work, maybe? | LanceH wrote: | If you ask a question, you shouldn't be cutting someone off | as they answer it (unless they are rambling). The interviewer | should have the courtesy to at least listen to the answer to | the question they asked. | | If limited time is a problem, schedule more time. | | During my interviews, if someone answers the question and | keeps going, I'll tell them, "I was only looking for xyz, and | you got it." | logifail wrote: | > If limited time is a problem, schedule more time. | | I'm not sure how realistic that suggestion is. The pool of | university applicants is large, the academics' time is | short. If you're going to have multiple interviews over | multiple days that just throws up even more barriers to | entry to those whose parents can't afford travel and | accomodation for that. | | At a broader level, if one can't distinguish between "good" | and "not good" in one interview, perhaps one isn't asking | the right questions? | makr17 wrote: | I used to know a HS Maths teacher whose approach to testing | was similarly brutal. Essentially, in his view, if a student | is able to answer every question on an exam correctly, then | we haven't fully assessed the depths of their understanding. | So every exam was crafted with the express aim of 100% being | infeasible. | logifail wrote: | > So every exam was crafted with the express aim of 100% | being infeasible | | Isn't the goal of any (every?) exam to attempt to | distinguish between how good the candidates are? | candiodari wrote: | Not really. The goal of most exams is to have a | predetermined number of people pass. For example, | entrance exams. There is a, known beforehand, number of | spots to hand out. The goal of the exam is to be exactly | difficult enough to get all the spots filled but no more. | This even applies to medical doctor residences. | | Only artificial, meaningless exams like olympiads are | really meant to asses how good someone is. | | https://www.imo-official.org/ | | Of course the easy and common way to do it is to make the | exam _way_ too hard to realistically fill up the spots, | and then cheat. In the best case, this is done by having | a "translation table". Usually, we're talking a | combination of nepotism/racism/... You _can_ pass fairly. | It 's just that if you aren't part of the right group you | need to score something like 20-40% better. And before | you say this is unfair, I like the alternative even less: | way too easy exams where making 1 spelling error in an IT | exam will effectively disqualify you (like the EU | commission exams). There _are_ limited number of spots in | that exam too, and you have zero chance to start a career | in the commission if you have a "low" score. | Unfortunately 90% is "low". Hell, that's _very_ low. 98% | is the real "pass grade", and 99% is not a luxury. | | And if they don't do this themselves, like has happened | with medical exams, the "people upstairs" will find ways | to give responsibilities to people who don't pass, who | may not have got the required training to be responsible | about them. | | There _is_ a level of incompetence that will get you | kicked out, but it 's pretty extreme, and usually what | I'd call "callousness" (what you might call a tendency to | proceed after being warned) is a required part. Mere | stupidity won't do it. | jononomo wrote: | Back in the 1980s in India if you scored 80% on a medical | school entrance exam then you were suspected of having | cheated because of how ridiculously high that score was. | (Source: my parents who were professors at a medical school | in India during the 1980s) | mhh__ wrote: | Shouting isn't great but to be honest I'd much rather have a | very detailed if slightly macho technical discussion than some | nonsense HR-gremlin driven "motivation" session. | jononomo wrote: | What Bill Gates should have done is hired a diversity and | equity consultant to make sure Excel centered underprivileged | minorities. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-09-14 23:00 UTC)