Tag: Bleet

In medicine there is the concept of a disease being “subclinical”, and I think the concept can apply to bullying in the workplace.

Every workplace has a threshold for bad behaviour, and subclinical bullying is bad behaviour which doesn’t cross the threshold. Much like how a doctor often won’t treat a subclinical disease, your manager often won’t address subclinical bullying. There are lots of reasons why this might be the case, for better or for worse. One of those reasons might be that your manager is showing grace, which can feel unfair, but is also important for a healthy team dynamic.

Recently someone said to me “stakeholders only care about milestones,” and something clicked for me.

Engineering Managers (EMs) are sometimes said to be “shit umbrellas”. They are supposed to keep all the distractions away from the team: the short-lived whims and fancies of various stakeholders, vague plans that are going to change several times before being solidified — all that stuff. Distractions are poisonous to good software, so hiding them should help the team deliver more and better software. A large part of this is true.

However, I would like to argue here that behaving like an umbrella is probably not a good thing. Umbrellas are shields that block rain. And what are these EMs blocking? Hopefully distractions, but also information and reality.

In part two of this series, we’re going to look at how the must-have priority bucket leads engineering to make bad decisions.

Categorising requirements into buckets like “must-haves” and “nice-to-haves” is a common approach to prioritisation in software projects. In my opinion, this is a bad way to priortise work, for reasons which become clear when you look at the incentives it produces.

A recent shower thought of mine is that agile software development might be similar to the strategic concept of a glass cannon in gaming — specifically, that it’s a high-risk high-reward strategy where the risk can be mitigated by skill/experience.

When is “measure twice, cut once” bad advice?

One of my hobbies is complaining about the tendency of software developers to view choices as binary, moralistic decisions. Measuring twice is obviously correct, and anyone who doesn’t do it is an unprofessional, evil wood waster. Either that or double measurers are a bunch of know-nothing shysters selling snake oil for exorbitant consulting fees. This black-and-white thinking is a mental shortcut that many animals take, but sometimes it’s nice to apply a little more intellectual rigour than a Pomeranian.

I’d like us to think less in terms of right and wrong when it comes to technical decisions, and think more in terms of context, costs and benefits.

Why did Apple not test what happens when a user supplies “True” as their last name? Is it incompetence?

I don’t think so. I think the explanation is simpler: it’s not feasible. It’s highly impractical, if not computationally impossible, to test every input.

This is a short parable I came up while discussing linters, in response to someone asking if I think it’s good to be inconsistent.