Was surprised this comment was this far down. I re-read the YC ask three times to make sure I wasn’t crazy. Dude wrote the whole article based on a misunderstanding.
I wont mention what company, but where I work we've spent about 6 months now with an entire dev team hammering their heads against a wall trying to port our extension to MV3, because the alternative was to lose it entirely at the deadline.
Hacks, workarounds, bad docs, and lately, Google pops up to tell us OSD is kinda sorta a thing you can use, but clearly it's at a basically alpha level of maturity. This latest announcement might seem like a reprieve, but it's even worse than before for us, because now it's clear that OSD is a temporary measure, and now we have promises to fix the actual issues in the future.
As a manager I have no idea how to proceed. Do we solider ahead with OSD like we planned? Wait for them to fix the core issues? We have so little trust in Google fixing things, and a great deal of confidence in them making things worse at this point. If we commit to OSD we might be looking at doing the same level of work again, when they fix the core issues and deprecate it. If we wait for core fixes, we might not get the work done before a nebulous future deadline that could drop on us at any moment.
Google has caused us to burn an absolutely incredible amount of time and money with this. Believe me, we're are footing the bill, and have been for some time now.
I’d like to add RockAuto as a peer to McMaster. It’s auto parts, and somehow uglier than McMaster, but damn if it isn’t the fastest no nonsense website I’ve seen for parts.
I can drill down to a specific part for a specific car in seconds, and see pics of the product, part numbers, specs. It’s lovely.
Rockauto is one of my favorite things in the world. The site is a perfect case study in how to make a UX that's ugly as sin but has evolved to be a million times more usable than anything the "minimal sleek modern UX" crowd could ever come up with.
You always roll the dice with aftermaket parts of course, but my experience has been that they usually don't sell utter crap like you'll find on Amazon and eBay. They make some effort to verify that the parts are not bottom-of-the-barrel because they don't want to deal with returns and after all, they are car people themselves.
My favorite thing that I like to tell people that have not heard of RockAuto yet: I can buy a full of wiper blades for my two cars for about the same price as ONE mid-quality wiper blade at Walmart.
There's nothing slow about this, it's already launched. I don't understand why people don't get this -- it even says so at the top of this page: "Products like Siri and Spotlight Suggestions use Applebot"
I don't know why anyone would think that Apple would make a web page search engine like Google. Apple has already launched the Apple version in your phones integrated into the software you use.
Maybe because they are desperate for a different search provider than Google?
I don't use Siri or any assistant, so I don't seem to use what I'm being averaged into using. Majority opinion here is that Siri is seriously lacking behind the other offerings. Apple won't be oblivious to this. If it is solely due to their back-end search engine, then making that a public search engine website won't do Apple any favors if the results are truly that bad.
Voice assisted search probably won't give you much feedback. With a web based search engine, users provide feedback by ignoring some results and clicking others. Therefore releasing a search engine could help them improving it and deliver results with Siri that people would've clicked on otherwise.
Apple is mostly a focused company. There is no money in search except advertising and user tracking. Apple has already completely failed at advertising once.
Yes I realize that the App Store has ads and it is a stain that should not have ever happened.
Well they've gone to the effort to build a search index and they have sufficient market power to push millions of user onto whichever search engine they'd like. It's essentially leaving money on the table not to take the final step of popping a web frontend on it and making it the Safari default.
That they use their own search for this is not a big headlining marketing feature so they aren’t really evaluated on it.
I do think that’s a direct consequence of their experience with Maps, though I guess their hand was more forced on Maps and they had to tell the world about it.
However, using Siri and search suggestion they can, bit by bit, replace search results from other sources with their own without telling anyone about it. It’s a more careful approach.
Admitting I'm wrong or that I screwed up, and likewise praising others when they're correct or have ideas I agree with.
You would not believe how much smoother everything at work is when you learn to recognize early the signs that you're holding on to a bad opinion, or that you're headed towards a fuckup, and just saying it out loud.
The praising / agreeing thing is a bit more complex. I've noticed more recently that people tend to be quick to disagree but remain silent even when they agree with someones opinion.
Specifically calling out when you agree with an idea has some marvellous effects. The silent ones who also agree join in, people who disagree join the fray, and a rough consensus can be reached quickly.
Admitting I'm wrong or that I screwed up ... You would not believe how much smoother everything at work is when you learn to recognize early the signs that you're holding on to a bad opinion, or that you're headed towards a fuckup, and just saying it out loud.
Avoiding judgement of those that have screwed up or have done something wrong, and simply working with them to correct it goes hand-in-hand with this. By the time someone admits they did something wrong, they already know what they did - by dwelling on that you're just wasting time and energy.
I wonder occasionally how many problems there are in the world that have become much bigger than they needed to be simply because the person who messed up knows the news won't be received well, so they keep their screw up hidden. Similarly, I wonder how effectively we teach children this kind of dishonesty by teaching them that honesty results in punishment.
I hate it when people hold something against someone forever, even though they've already admitted fault. If they get punished even if they repent, there's no incentive to ever repent again. They might as well just keep doing bad things because there's no difference for them.
depends on the screwup. You can separate them into the categories of reasonable and unreasonable.
pushing to production at 5pm on a friday is not a reasonable screwup, and I absolutely will let you know if get called in to fix something that should have waited until Monday.
Sure, there are absolutely varying degrees of screw up. You can make the same argument for anything. But for any position there is usually a general rule, and any number of exceptions.
The point here is that the general rule for human error should tend toward compassion, because the vast majority of mistakes people make are not that serious. In my world at least it seems that we prefer to tend toward punishment instead.
This might sound strange but I wish I learned how to be more assertive and less apologetic/yielding.
When I was in a 50/50 debate/discussions, in many cases I leaned towards myself being wrong and the other being right automatically...and later would feel discontent with everyone when I turned out I was right and should have pushed harder. But I guess dont know how to be assertive without being offensive or overly brazen about my frustration.
I think these two flaws actually go hand in hand, despite seeming opposed:
1. Avoiding acknowledging doubts or weaknesses in the position you're arguing for.
2. Allowing a decision to be finalised when you remain unconvinced.
These two behaviours have different outcomes if you take 'outcome' to mean 'who won the debate'. But they're both flawed and they both come from underconfidence.
Confident engineers care about finding the best consensus. They openly entertain doubts in their own position (and happily change their position in front of others), and they also persist with the discussion until they're genuinely satisfied with whatever consensus is reached.
Likewise, I tend to give the other person the benefit of the doubt, and when one party accepts the possibility that they might be wrong while the other party professes ironclad certainty that they're right, the argument almost always goes to the latter.
These days I temper my "I'm not certain so we should investigate this" with "but you're not certain either so you're not getting out of investigating it and admitting you're wrong if it comes to that."
Yet another variation on this important theme: do not be afraid to speak up when you see areas of waste around you.
You think this or that project is not solving the right problem? Speak up. You think some key result should be achievable with fewer people and sooner than what was planned? Speak up.
I learned this recently, sharing feedback that I was concerned would sound harsh, only to fall on receptive and understanding ears. If anything I should have spoken up sooner/more often!
I have been in the same situation and I observed it happens more often when discussing with non-technical team members.
What I think is happening here is that I forget how "business people" can have different knowledge and beliefs than I do.
Assuming good intentions, it might be just lack of information on both sides that make us hold back and assume "they are probably on the right track".
And IMHO that is good news because there are many possible paths to address this common issue.
That sounds super familiar. One time my team lead moved a meeting one day back for a week, even though I mentioned that the meeting was important every day. When we finally had the meeting, she was mentioned that I took care of it too late. In these situations I tend to be too much 'yes and amen', and I should push back some more.
I've had an unhealthy fixation on my opinions/ideas, which usually resulted in me being overly emotional when they were attacked or disproven. I found out this has been a great source of frustration for me, and for the people around me as well.
> Admitting I'm wrong or that I screwed up (1), and likewise praising others when they're correct or have ideas I agree with (2).
That's what I'm focusing on, now. However, although I always mean it, both (1) and (2) — at least in my ears — sound fabricated and artificial, even patronizing at times, as if I've been trying to manipulate the people around me instead of being a better human.
So, that said... How do you do (1) and (2) properly?
For me, realizing that I ought to behave in some manner is only half of the problem; the other is finding out _how_ exactly I should do that.
The other way to look at this was pointed out to me in the book 'Being Wrong' by Kathryn Schulz (amazing book, btw).
What is your goal? Is your goal to be right, or is your goal to feel right? Because those are not the same things at all. When we get attached to our ideas and emotional, it's because we believed we were right, and we don't want to give up that feeling.
But if our goal is to actually be right, then it's super easy to recognize when you got it wrong and move forward.
It also helps to stop thinking of things as 'correct' or not, and look at them as a spectrum of 'less wrong' to 'more wrong'. If you're constantly working your way towards being less wrong, then it becomes really easy to abandon ideas that have outgrown their usefulness.
The first thing you need to do is admit you are an idiot - constantly doing or saying stuff you regret forever, - and always have been an idiot, and will remain one in the future; probably do even more stupid stuff you will regret today.
I try to make it more meaningful by saying why I agree with or like something in order to clarify the (prefferably shared) values behind my appreciation.
I've also recently used a torrent of appreciation (the Mesita strategy) to build up the self-esteem of a person struggling with self-confidence.
The trick is it has to be honest and at least somewhat meaningful to them (it's not good to compliment someone on things they don't value).
A really over the top example: complimenting a woman in the workplace on her looks. will definitely not be appreciated and these days might get you fired ;)
Sometimes you find yourself "arguing" only to realize you're talking about the same thing using different words. In other words... you both agree.
In other cases you're arguing different aspects of the problem and not realizing it.
I do agree with you though, admitting being wrong is better than being stubborn and wasting time and progress. It is something everyone up and down the chain of command should take to heart, you'll find yourself wasting less company resources, time and energy.
I regret praising others early in my career, being helpful and always looking for my mistakes.
Those who didn't that got a headstart, went further, earned more, took some opportunities that weren't available to me and now, with more money, bigger houses, happier wifes and families, they like to say that they should have acted different in the past.
> You would not believe how much smoother everything at work is when you learn to recognize early the signs that you're holding on to a bad opinion, or that you're headed towards a fuckup, and just saying it out loud.
Doesn't this make you feel good but piss of the other person even though they may be wrong? On the other hand it never wears off if you don't let it out, but the problem is there are lot more peoples opinions to consider other than the person you are dealing with. Its lose-lose situation.
Hello down voter care to reason. My question is genuine. I think the author has some point, but just that i could not get it. May be i should have asked to describe more which would have clarified my intent properly.
I think he is saying that if he is wrong to admit it. I can't see why the other person would be pissed off...
For example if I see that I made a wrong decision earlier in a process and I tell my colleagues that I screwed the pooch, it allows us to get back on track quickly and they would probably be happy that I admitted to my earlier mistake.
They've yet to master their own 10nm process let alone 7nm. I don't doubt their processes outdo the competitors on actual die shrinkage but they've been having a hell of a time of it.
The problem with 10nm is that they were too ambitious and tried to do it without EUV. 7nm is being developed by a different team and does use EUV so it shouldn't suffer from the same delays.
From what I understand they are not really comparable like that. It’s like clock speed, there are a lot of games that can be played, and X 10nm can be much better than Y 7nm.
That's more or less what Steam Greenlight was and one reason why I love it even if it goes by a different name now. I can pick up something interesting, play around with it, and then catch up on it's progress over years.
I've done this with Subnautica, Starbound, Rimworld, and The Long Dark. I don't regret going on a journey with the developers at all.
Yes, Steam Greenlight (whatever it's called these days) is a cute idea, but for every gem like the games you mention, there are hundreds if not thousands of crap, minimal effort "games", many of them in a barely working state, which are released there just to make a quick buck or two, either via direct sales, or via the Steam card sales.
You're talking about early access. Greenlight was just a community based moderation process to allow anyone to submit their game without depending on a well known publisher. A greenlit game doesn't have to be in early access. Nothing prevents someone from submitting a completed game.
I feel like Apple's approach to UI/UX is one half care and consideration for the current user and the rest is "training" for whatever they intend next.
The design world at large gave them shit for excessive Skeuomorphism but it really did train a huge group of people young and old how to use a touch screen.
I wrote code like a madman and then went into management. I like management, but I understand what the author of this article was getting at.
I had an identity crisis early on doing management. I liked to tell people what to do, because I had a big map in my head of where things should go. Because of this developers sort of organically gravitated to me for guidance even before I had the official job. However, I also liked to write a lot of code.
Once I was promoted to management I quickly realized just how much "not coding" that job requires. I struggled with not coding as much. I struggled with wanting to micro manage my staff. I struggled with wanting to write their code for them. I had juniors on my team and I wanted to snatch the keyboard from them and write their code for them.
The defining moment for me was one day, while watching one of my developers deploy something magnificent, that I realized I don't necessarily like to "build things", I like to "see things built". I like to see people succeed. I like to see a scribble on a napkin become a tangible piece of software. Code was a means to an end for me.
I won't lie and say I don't miss coding full time. I still get right in there when I can, but I step aside when I know my management duties are going to let the team down. One thing I don't feel is guilty about not coding as much anymore.
So how DO you deal with people under you writing code under you that just boils your blood? Especially if you instinctually see that their contributions are always more counterproductive than not, but everyone else (including their people manager) thinks they're alright?
I am a manager as well, and I just recall that there are only so many hours in a day and I couldn't have written all of that code myself. But that's for suboptimal code, not atrocious code.
I haven't dealt with people under me who write truly abysmal code so far, mostly because I am a picky hirer, but that subpar code that my people have written is my fault, because it's my responsibility to make them better programmers.
Inspect your own feelings of why you feel your approach/solution is better. If you haven’t done it before, this can be a lot of work.
Get to the point where you can convey the underlying reasons for them: why is it important to you? What’s going to be worse or slower with their solution? What future problems is your solution avoiding? How can they identify similar situations and apply the same concept next time?
It is good that you see these things instinctually as you say but if others don’t (including the coder in question) then you can make improvements by conveying this to them. And that is frequently more than half the battle in getting improvements operationalized: getting others to adopt and push and spread your good ideas as their own.
In a healthy org, these developers should be open and eager to listen, learn from new ideas, and adopt improved methods or outlooks, especially from a tech lead (or equivalent), who in turn should be able to update his/her own methods/outlooks when similarly presented with improvements.
Performance and quality is something you can mentor. I work my ass off to make sure my devs have a plan to get better at their craft and learn from others. If they're not doing well I tell them immediately before it grows into a shitshow.
Bad values is a slightly difference conversation. If the dev has a bad attitude, refuses to improve, lazy, etc then you can only coach that so far before it's time for termination. It sounds harsh but a good managers job isn't just filling seats. You need to make sure the people on your team force multiply each other, and that your best devs are happy enough to mentor the up and comers. Low values people spoil all of that and need to go, even if they're high performers.
