cm11 · HackerTrans

cm11

191 karmajoined il y a 8 ans

Submissions

Barcelona's New Message: 'Not One Tourist More'

nytimes.com

2 pointsby cm11il y a 14 jours2 comments

Ask HN: Taking virtual meetings at the coffee shop

3 pointsby cm11il y a 3 ans3 comments

comments

—–—, I believe.

avant-hierdiscuss

Your last sentence is the important one, yeah? On a spectrum of intelligence or expertise, the higher end would be defined (ish) by knowing the right color or having better guesses anyway.

Like someone restoring the Sistine Chapel would ideally have some of: knows what it looked like before because they've been working on it for thirty years, because they've been researching and/or have access to photos or some other historical documents of it's priors, because they're educated on the types of materials and pigments from the time, maybe they know something about the daily use/tourism of the place and how/whether it should change some parts of the restoration. In the absence of those things, then infer that something should be purple-ish because it's blue to the left and red to the right. This is good, but perhaps below great. Maybe the gap should have a hard line between the two colors or maybe there was an object in there.

And of course plenty of people maybe just don't care, aren't getting paid enough, don't have enough discipline to get the right purple, or are playing to their supervisor's eye rather than their trained intuition. The last one having a lot to do with the notion of "plausible". This effort aspect is I guess different, but still related/adjacent to what comes out of or how that "intelligence" is deployed.

il y a 22 joursdiscuss

People trying to think of startup ideas aren't doing it accidentally. They don't want ovens or baked goods. They want to be a founder and/or money. I feel like PG is only right halfway (which maybe means he's not right). He's implying it's wrong to do it that way (to try to think of startup ideas), that it won't work, but geez louise has it worked. To get funded, to get rich, to get an exit. He's also helped enable that path quite a bit.

il y a 22 joursdiscuss

People have different strengths, but I consistently see teams that have people who are decent or better at their non-expert skills and their comments play a very small role in the discourse. Sometimes they speak up more and sometimes not, a lot of them manage to (learn to) just not care. I think there are many teams where the "expert" is not actually better at their role than the other team members.

I mostly see the leaders or the product people telling the engineers or designers that they don't understand business—implying that the latter aren't reasonable people who can advocate for things that balance the various dynamics that have been brought up in a meeting, that their view results from only considering the thing technically or aesthetically. It's a hand-wavey maneuver that's always there, said without specifics. This is particularly so given you've provided specs and designs and they rarely show business or market analysis. I've worked with many PMs to propose our work to stakeholders—they swear to the audience they've done the business work, but in preparing the presentation, they just googled a couple very broad things (one example, "the collaboration market is a $70B market"). I've worked with others, who I've tried to learn from, to show or point me to some basics of that analysis and they didn't know.

Product managers and product people in general have very little background in product management. It's not a degree or anything. Sometimes they come from backgrounds that are helpful, but we oddly have junior and entry level ones. This doesn't make that much sense, given they are formal or informal leaders of teams. What could they be bringing to the table? A (sad) exception is when access to meetings or information is gatekept, so then they're bringing that. Sometimes it's argued that PMs are good at seeing across things, but that has not been my experience. The problem with the each person is an expert in their own field is that in a lot of teams, the expert is frequently not better at their thing. The decision maker is not actually better at business or seeing across things or making decisions.

il y a 22 joursdiscuss

Oops: "...but just *not the vantage point I see from."

il y a 24 joursdiscuss

This resonated with me. I'm a bit struck by a theme in the comments around whether it's worth one's time to argue their side. The logic is understandable, but just the vantage point I see from. I think if this means stating your view and then after that deciding how hard to push it, that's one thing and fine. But I think a lot of people just see a potential disagreement and then don't state their view, or not uncommonly even say the opposite and agree with the person (a la "The best way to get someone to shut up is to agree with them"). I think this is fairly bad all around, and disheartening as you've said. Not only because it's self-centering in the mindset and self-defined in value, but it's also just kind of dismissive.

il y a 24 joursdiscuss

Of course there can be different goals, but I think there's something omitted. It's not quite neutral to put aside some goals for other goals. Reading that your friend wants emotional support rather than truth seeking or to understand their coworkers different values is fine, but also sometimes it's not for the best. The choice of when and when not is a choice, it's fuzzy and reflective of one's values. It's not the sole choice of one person that the other has to then read and adhere to either.

Sometimes friends are wrong to the point of the truth being more important than emotional support. More important for them to hear, or for you to stay aligned to your own values, or for the parties they're mentioning to get fair treatment. It's not so interesting me saying that broadly as I have, it matters where one has chosen that point to be, not that the point exists somewhere.

It's not neutral of me to recognize that the jokey casual conversation I'm having at a bbq is a vibes convo and thus if the jokes start suggesting distorted assertions about different races I should adhere and join (or even just nod politely). Or more mildly, as my friend starts complaining about their boss, who I think might be right, there is some point when I think it might be best for them to know.

Most of these goals are not strictly opposed to each other. They only look opposed when the thing we want starts to contradict with some of the agreed upon "facts" of the situation, and then we say the facts aren't always what matters. To oversimplify, if you choose to give your friend emotional support over truth then they will get the support and be wrong (or vice versa). This is okay if that's the right tradeoff here, but it shouldn't be distorted into belief that your friend is right. And being willing to do that in circumstances A and not in circumstances B is reflective of one's values.

il y a 24 joursdiscuss

I never really understood the “Being right is overrated” mindset. It’s easy enough to understand the good of harmony, but that’s not really how I see it used. They’re not really oppositional, a person has to see it that way. And to the extent that cohesion is valuable, that's just built in to a better calculation of right. But saying it this way, I suspect means that the person doing the calculating needs to overstate this cohesion beyond its value. This is a convenient sorta trusim to make a case.

The premise is that there are factors beyond accuracy which are for the greater good. That seems reasonable, but what are they? There are things like peace and happiness, which sound great, but aren’t at odds with accuracy, or more precisely the pursuit of it. This isn’t really a tradeoff. When people frame accuracy as overrated, it seems they’re often obscuring and gliding over that they don’t have a counter argument. There isn’t necessarily one discoverable truth, but there are better hypotheses and more sincere attempts. To the degree, that optimizing for peace and happiness can be a better goal, the measure of those things is typically self-centered. They would be happier. It can be group self-centered too, as in our team would be happier. It’s not a neutral truism, it’s a personal weighing, of the value of the better outcome resulting from right/better/good decision and the desire for (at least surface-level) harmony.

But more important than that, even if the group would be happier, there is the false tradeoff thing. Embedded in “being right isn’t what’s most important” is agreement about what’s right. Why are we unhappy with something more right? Accuracy/truth seems conspired against at a dispositional level in this situation. Disagreement and disharmony are not the same thing. So it’s not even disagreement leading to disharmony. It seems more of a personal desire against either a particular outcome or against disagreement generally. Both questionable. Relatedly, diplomacy is not a bad trait exactly, but I don’t see it as essentially positive. It betrays a lot. It is a kind of tax, which can be worth it up to a point (there is value in the internal functioning of the group), but probably not as often as the truism has it play out. Something should be questioned when a person/team diverges so much from better/accurate/right.

The idea of picking your battles makes a form of self-centered sense, while also making a (I think large) form of nonsense outside it. There are many forms of dissent that occur before cussing or violence, it is much different to (1) disagree, (2) disagree, but go along, (3) disagree, but say you agree, (4) disagree, but convince yourself to agree for harmony (and perhaps eventually forget that you disagree). A phrase I’ve come to dislike is “I wouldn’t die on that hill”. People should defend, if not die on, more hills. It also might recruit others. We have all these hills that have been ceded because we weren’t willing to say we liked them.

il y a 30 joursdiscuss

Curious if you have any gripes or concerns about using the Apple keychain/passwords setup. Aside from Apple devices, do you mostly also stick with Safari? Was it hard to transition things like TOTP or passkeys?

le mois dernierdiscuss

Awesome! Sometimes a thing conveys it was built with some love or intention. It's not restricted to fun/entertaining content, it can be Saas too. I'm talking more from how it looks and feels than necessarily what's going on in the backend, but I'm not really talking about graphics.

le mois dernierdiscuss

What he does for hyperbole is say that all one needs to become a billionaire is make something people want. It’s that simple. There are of course many non-billionaires who make food or write code that people love. There is more than one path to a billion, but many of them involve employing the people making loved products and services and putting one or many layers in between. The billion is largely not possible from just making it. The layers attract cheating. Some might also argue it's wrong to say the billionaire's path involved the making of the thing people love anyway.

This is not unlike a sibling commenter who hypothesizes earning a $50k margin building a home and all you need to do is do it 20k times. There’s a lot in between doing it once and 20k times. The path has many places where cheating will make things easier and possibly required. If the leader avoids the temptation, their employees may not, society may not. If their competitors cheat and they don't, we should applaud them, but they might not be a billionaire then and we can't count them. I'd guess this is a common way potential billionaires do not become billionaires. It probably catches lots of people getting to a million and then more at ten million and then more.

There's a certain amount of "in theory you could make a billion", that's different than whether we have billionaires that didn't cheat. I think it’s worth noting that you are engaging with the issue in a way that he didn’t. This was the primary argument I was making.

---

  If you soften your definition of cheating to this level, it's no longer a billionaire thing. It's an everyone thing.

FWIW It may well be an everyone thing. As an argument though, if everyone cheats, billionaires cheat. It's not absolving the billionaires. That lots of people do it is the normalization and redefining bit. And everyone wasn't necessarily doing it at the point anyway. People don’t have to count dark patterns as exploiting, but there's a difference between considering it light cheating and moving it to not cheating.

le mois dernierdiscuss

My argument was that he wasn't engaging with the topic. I didn't make a particularly heavy case (as you note) for billionaires as cheaters—part of the reason for that is that there are a few low hanging arguments and examples for it and I'd think a counterargument should address them.

I think you're reframing his argument as something softer. Not whether they cheat or exploit, but whether they're primarily doing it. Is the cheating low enough or outweighed by the tremendous love for the product? I'm not sure he would agree that's what he's trying to say, but I would count that as cheating. At best, there is cheating, but it's worth it (for them and, I don't know, maybe/hopefully even for society).

You're also nudging it towards whether some billionaires are sometimes able to do it without cheating. It's hard to make a strong assertion whether the senator or PG's claims are meant strictly all or nothing. Both have language of this type. I couldn't say which one means it, though I think it's fair to judge hyperbole. I alluded to this in the prior comment, but I think it's fairly easy for CEOs to benefit from cheating happening downstream. Did Dropbox spam users' contact lists to grow? Did their PM or PMMs abuse push notifications for marketing? Again, I can see versions where this doesn't count as cheating for some. Or it does, just low enough level or normalized such that people redefine cheating. I think there's a lot of (often low level) cheating just built into business and it's mostly a matter of whether anyone will take you to task for it.

le mois dernierdiscuss

  The reason her startup was growing so fast was simply that users loved what she'd built.

He's said the "make something people want" thing before, his argument for billionaires doesn't seem to go much beyond it. It seems rather clear it's not all you need nor is it all it took for these people to get there.

You don't just make the thing. The founder didn't become a billionaire simply because users loved her product. You market it and you distribute it and you do all the things normally associated with business. Your ability to do those things "well" has lots of room to cheat. Hasn't Uber and Lyft skirted a bunch of laws? Aren't there still a ton of drivers who feel cheated? Aren't there a bunch of share bikes and scooters lying around cities and landfills? Isn't it fairly standard to throw tons of investor money at your CAC to buy "love" and sabotage competitors? He mentioned Facebook, isn't its origin story connoted with theft? I can see angles where these don't count as cheating for some. I can see slivers where there's only so many degrees of separation you hold the billionaire responsible for what happens downstream. Even if not done intentionally, the accumulated wealth still resulted from some cheating though, no?

And there's the stock market. If he means the stock price when he's talking about things people want, then I might agree. You need to manage the thing people love, and by "the thing people love" I mean your product, and by your "product" I mean your stock price. Most of the billionaires became so because of their equity. We're well down normalizing that your product doesn't need to be profitable (where people love it enough to pay more than it costs to make) for the stock price to soar.

It doesn't count as engaging with the argument if he doesn't engage with it. I'm almost surprised he bothered to respond.

Edit: Interesting downvote situation going on throughout the comments.

le mois dernierdiscuss

I'd guess a lot of people here consider this "reality" at this point. Has anyone come up with a response—not a fix for the company or leaders behaving this way, but a response for their own path?

Did you change from a quiet diligent one to manipulating and playing the game (now that you know the game)? Did you go from quiet and diligent to quiet and not diligent (why do good work when meh work does the trick)? Another path?

il y a 2 moisdiscuss

This feels too soft. Each of these things has truth in it, but isn't some of this self-created? Where are these shit sandwiches coming from? A lot of these problems are the result of overpromising, breaking rules and skirting regulations, underestimating the difficulty of things they have no expertise with, asking people to solve problems with no resources, hiring more chefs rather than more cooks and dishwashers, of mismatches between good profitable product and exec exit. The idea that it makes sense for the CEO's (or really any leader's) core competency to be absorbing drama and pain is something we should think more about. Sometimes you hear that a good manager blocks and shields for their team, you have to wonder why the team always needs so much protection from their own company and processes.

il y a 2 moisdiscuss

I think it's private schools in general. Even those from second and third tier ones, which can filter more by means than the elite ones, find themselves atop companies. It's the natural access and the natural ability to socialize with other private school personalities. Their definition of capable leader is a particular type of leader. They can make and take jokes, but particular types of jokes. They hide each other's shortcomings, insecurities, guilt whereas people from other backgrounds, even people they like and think highly of, tend to serve as a mirror.

Getting funding is a value add, but I agree calling it "skill" misses most of what makes someone "good" at it. We've built things to overwhelmingly rely on funding gated by other private school people though. It would be nice if we could have that person with access pitching without them also being in charge of running a company, product development, or managing people. But then it would require the same of the investors. The investors would then need to evaluate products and ideas and markets. And the markets would have to reward that. Things would need to be different.

il y a 2 moisdiscuss

I'd ground what I say in sharing your assessment of the observations or insight, but with a different takeaway.

  If I need to think about the solution that hard, I may just as well take it all the way, remove the middleman and get some efficiency back.

Totally. And the takeaway is that we by and large should be doing this much more. That's what's needed from leaders. More vision, less delegation of vision. The stronger the vision, the less need for delegation anyway. There's something to be said about the difference between big picture and small picture, but at this point it's relatively intuitive that the big picture divorced from the small makes for worse big pictures. I'm not talking about how handing the big picture to the middle person tends to create interpretation/translation errors as well as execution errors to the extent the subordinate is less capable. Those factors are prominent and _in addition_ to the issue that the big picture is a worse big picture when these duties get stretched across two (or more) people. And thus, we should own these duties "vertically" and if needed reduce duties "horizontally".

Leaders (and companies) should be doing less horizontally. It runs the normal risk of stretching to thin, but their tenth and eleventh ideas are also filtered towards worse. Perhaps more fundamentally, the bar for adding a product/project should be higher. When the leader can "just" add another leader to take on the work—particularly one by nature with less power, ability, autonomy, and perhaps accountability—it's getting set up for a lower chance of success. In order: (1) the project probably shouldn't start at all; (2) if "started" at all, it shouldn't really look like starting, it should be a person validating for the leader who will then start it (many product teams pretend this is what they're doing); (3) if started, it makes quite a bit more sense for the higher (and likely more capable, but especially more empowered) leader to take on that project and hand the existing, stable, better trodded project where the team has institutional knowledge and support to the other leader.

In practice, sharing ownership is superficial, whether between leaders at different levels or between project team members. Why share? Own it or have someone else own it. Or if there isn't trust in the other person, cut it. If the leader doesn't have the time/interest and doesn't think they have someone capable of doing it, it should be as much a sign as a low quality idea.

It's not hard to find problems with middle managers—many are with the sorting that picks them, many are with the conditions of the middle. Structures and strategies to remove them, as you suggest, are a great idea. The main way is for the leaders, when faced with the scenario of "if I need to think hard", to not come away with "let's do it, but not me." We should be default no. Green lighting some work to validate it to a Yes works, but these are tasks such that the leader knows what kind of validation is needed—and is assigned to a person with those skills. An engineer, marketer, business analyst, user researcher, data scientist is going to validate things that a PM or a director have less or no training in. Leaders tend to appoint the latter though, sometimes for empire-building reasons, but I think more basically out of fear of control and legibility. Those are counter productive reasons if understandable.

il y a 2 moisdiscuss

This I believe is lowkey one of the core ways design broke at tech companies. There are other big ones, design (really product) is broke deeply, but once mockups became easy we stopped having discussions about information architecture and UX. We're talking about whether we think this looks nicer in blue or green. Happened before Figma, but Figma really grew it. The designers that tried to hold onto wireframes (or went to mockups, but tried to still have architecture discussions with them) fought an uphill battle—what were these guys even talking about? Even the other designers thought this.

Once mockups became easy, that little bit of vocational gate (as in gate-keeping) that was holding the wall for UX work went away. Execs and PMs could make decent looking rectangles, so designers became the people who could make especially nice looking rectangles. So you got a lot of product/UX designers that were much more visual designers. That matters, but the prior part was bigger in that the product processes and sprints often started to have little design in them at all. What was a two or three phase process was one, designer got requirements and made design—often they didn't even really get requirements before design. The design was the impetus for the requirements not the other way around.

This is what became standard: Leader would give something vague because they didn't have much idea or vision yet. They probably had something blue-sky-ish, meaning they had a bunch of ideas, which in amorphous abstract blue skies come together. Once those things appear side by side on paper/screen, they're off putting and contradicting. There are problems not just with how to fit the pieces, but with the pieces. The visual the designer provides triggers this. Designers being visual people can see a lot of that in their head beforehand, but won't be heard until they show "bad work." It's pretty common though to see the PM or the leader look at it and say it wasn't the vague requirements, it's that the designer didn't get it. Anyways, it's that design that then kicks off some assessment against reality. Then you have a little bit of a shot at real requirements starting to leak out.

il y a 2 moisdiscuss

Does Youtube Premium track and build profiles and use and sell them? I assume so because Google, but does Premium remove advertising (in the broad sense of the business model and profiling) or remove just ads? YT in general seems "kinder" than others at a few things, like you can remove history and activity and even get a blank homescreen.

Aside: I think it's funny how with an NYT subscription, you still get not only ads, but frequent article-covering ads for NYT subscriptions (asking to upgrade to a family account).

il y a 2 moisdiscuss

Your satisfaction is your margin is their opportunity.