> Reminds me of one of my managers who said, “Sometimes, you have to let people fail.”
I often say "Sometimes, you have to let the manager fail."
Some managers don't like being told their ideas won't work. If you refuse or argue, you are seen as the reason his idea failed. I've found what works best with them is to proceed with the work, but keep them informed very frequently, so they can see how things evolve, and will be able to see the failure you had anticipated a long time ago before it is too late.
Then you're seen in a positive light, and he'll separate you from the project failure.
The vast majority of software projects fail. Honestly, I can't remember ever in my career working on a project I really believed in.
Sometimes I do enjoy the challenge of doing the impossible. Turning a doomed project around or at least minimizing damage. I had some where I thought "this worked out but if anyone but me had been in charge, yeah this would have been a disaster". That feeds my ego. Though I never ever get any thanks from management or any praise. Though this is more of a German culture thing.
There is a reason why burn out is so high in software dev. You are set up to constantly fail. If you succeed against all odds you get more and harder work until you fail.
You got to focus on yourself and find joy in the little challenges. Don't fret over things that you can't change.
The one time a project was heading to failure I went to the VP and explained the sabotage I was seeing. This was a very lucrative contract and failure was not an option.
He pulled that manager and his team so far off they had a new office on the moon. They were pulling non-sense like submitting the pseudo code I white boarded as a commit.
Two weeks in and I’m still explaining to them the plan.
Despite the setback I pulled off a mammoth project and strategically moved in devs to areas where they could succeed. If they slowed me down they were given the boot.
It can go many different ways. You can be 110% invested over years building something (and getting paid for it) for somebody who is ultimately incapable of selling it. It fails, womp womp. You can be 10% invested in a pile of crap (and getting paid for it) for a company that's simply checking the boxes. It fails, womp womp. You can be 90% invested in an ill-conceived idea that actually turns out great (to spec), but ultimately fails, because it wasn't anything anybody EXCEPT the client asked for. Womp womp again! You can even do everything right, do great work for a client, launch it, it performs exactly as was expected, then 3 months later is wiped from the internet because the marketing campaign is over, and a new quarterly budget came in for the client, and then it's on to the next thing.
All of this stuff can be remarkably ephemeral, farts in the wind even, and all you can do is take pride in what you did when you did it, and then take on the next challenge.
Sounds depressing if you frame it up a certain way, but it's actually really freeing to just give in completely to the process and treat it like the weather: you're gonna get everything from sunshine to rain to snow to hurricanes, and none of it is in your control. Just enjoy it while it's good, and ride it out when it's not! There's always something new on the horizon.
I'd say it happens pretty frequently, when in a medium-large corp or larger. The middle layers don't know what they're asking for, and don't listen to feedback, as a general statement. They're just managers, not managers that are also technical experts.
The paycheck is a big motivation, as is "the rest of the work is enjoyable enough to overlook things I disagree with". Work is rarely 100% aligned with every employee's thoughts, so I think this is actually normal. Not ideal, obviously, but normal.
It's why a hierarchy actually does make some sense - alignment is rarely perfect, so choosing a single path and saying "everyone needs to get on board, that's why we pay you" can in fact be better for everyone, rather than bikeshedding everything to death. It can and very frequently does cause rather obvious severe problems, but it's capable of improving some things.
We the unwilling, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much, for so long, with so little, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.
"Fulfilling" work is a rarity afforded by a fairly unique time and place in history. For the rest of us, work is a means to an end and ideally a fulfilling life outside work lets you keep plugging away on some rich idiot's hare brained scheme so you can keep living that fulfilling life outside work. 12 years in and I've not had a single project I worked on reach its own benchmark for success. No fault of mine, just the wrong ideas at the wrong time and place. A day late and a dollar short, all those other euphemisms.
I've been at my current company for ~4 years. Every January the upper management folks kick off the same project and every year it dies in the planning/discussion phase. Maybe one or two other "big" projects or initiatives will "start," but it's always the same: lots of meetings between the managers without the engineers or designers, lots of hype about the "big project," meetings start to get delayed, roadmaps and plans never materialize, then people stop talking about the project altogether. Sometimes I buy into the hype because I believe in the projects, other times I try to point out issues/risks. Either way the engineering team as a whole is always ignored.
What keeps me motivated is doing what I can for the people who _actually appreciate_ what I do. I work in manufacturing and spend a lot of time talking to the people on the factory floor. There's nothing better than hearing about their struggles and then a few days or weeks later coming back to them with "Hey, I heard you saying you're having an issue with X, so I made Y. Want to try it out and see if it makes things easier?" And then when they stop by my desk to say "Hey sibit Y is awesome!". That makes the job just tolerable enough to not leave.
> I work in manufacturing and spend a lot of time talking to the people on the factory floor.
Before the pandemic, I used to work doing software for a manufacturing startup and _loved_ that part of it.
I loved hacking something up for the folks on the floor that helped them automate some tedium. They were always so appreciative, not just of the result but also the attention we paid them.
Most of them came from "traditional" manufacturing backgrounds and the way they told it, it was like we were the first software people to ever pay attention to them and the issues they were experiencing.
We weren't even building crazy stuff for them. Most of it was pretty simple, but the bar was _so low_ they were always amazed whenever we were able to give them _anything_ that helped. It was awesome.
I kept being motivated by frustration and anger. But also, once it starts to be visibly failing and everyone sees the situation, you can actually help and make a change.
Every software has bugs. The best course of action to avoid introducing into they world yet another piece of buggy software is to never write any software. But nobody pays for not writing software. Then writing software that will completely fail is the next best thing. You don't introduce into the world another piece of buggy software, but you can write the software, which is fun and rewarding and also get paid.
I'm always delighted if the software that I wrote ends up on virtual scrap heap.
> Does this website (presumably made with the help of these AI tools) show this kind of understanding of design? Not really. It's chaotic, the text is often hard to read and there is a ton of fluff, both in terms of visuals and copy.
I agree. I tried figuring it out for 1-2 minutes, and then closed the tab.
I hope you get more out of it than I did. I don't recall which of Seneca's work I read several years ago, but to me it was ... meh?
Some of the stuff I strongly agreed with, but I didn't derive value because I already had the mindset. Other stuff I disagreed with, and the book didn't really convince me. Then there was the stuff in between.
Overall, it felt like something you or I could have written - I didn't see something insightful that enlightened me.
Not to take away from your essay, which I thoroughly agree with :-)
New CEO said he'll continue with Foundry provided he gets significant customers to justify the cost. In a recent comment/press release, Intel said they are continuing production on 14A. Ergo, they have external customers (or Trump is bullying him into it, but I suspect it's mostly the former).
I find a major difference is that Linux support is harder to understand but OSX support is harder to get.
I've found support.apple.com and discussions.apple.com to be incredibly wanting. This isn't helped in the slightest by the fact that OSX changes tools, even in major versions. If anyone is doubting the "harder to get" claim then I encourage you to search (you can use LLMs) to figure out how to print the SSID you're connected to from the CLI. Such a task is really really simple. I can tell you a bunch of ways to do this on linux with tools like `iw`, `iwconfig`, `nmcli`, or `iwgetid` but I can no longer tell you how to do this on OSX. The linux answer is hard because the tool might change based on your distro or you can install a tool. That requires more understanding. But on OSX, this category of problems don't exist.
If you want the old answer you can see here. None of those work, even with sudo, nor does wtallis's answer, despite this working on an earlier version of Sequoia (FWIW, I'm now on 15.7.3): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41633547
It wasn't canceled for poor sales. It was canceled because it was too expensive to produce, and would not fund all their other EV/battery projects. They found a better road to profitability in that front.
Exactly. Their truck was apparently quite nice but expensive. And then dealers made it worse by adding a hefty markup to that. It would have done fine at a much lower price point. But that would have required a manufacturing cost level that Ford could not deliver:
There are a few reasons for that:
- Ford designed this as a one off vehicle, not as a platform to build multiple vehicles on. So, a lot of the manufacturing process is making components in low volume just for this truck that they are selling in small numbers. It never hit the economies of scale where they could optimize and lower cost.
- It's a big heavy vehicle that needs lots of battery. Batteries are expensive.
- The tariff situation made importing components from Mexico, China, and elsewhere prohibitively expensive. Ford can't source everything they need locally just yet.
All this drives the production cost up. When they launched the vehicle a few years ago, they were still able to import components. They had a shot at sourcing much cheaper batteries from China down the line. All that went away and locally produced batteries aren't as cheap.
Another factor is that it's a product that was designed to be premium and more expensive than the ICE F150 in order to protect sales of that. It was forever going to be compared to that in terms of performance and towing capacity. And the combination of being more expensive than that while having less range and even less while towing is not a great selling point.
Companies like Rivian or BYD that have no ICE truck sales to protect can operate differently. They simply make the best and most affordable vehicle they can without artificially making it needlessly expensive. Rivian isn't cheap of course but they sell well because it's a desirable product. And Rivian has done a lot of work to lower cost and is now introducing cheaper models on the back of that. BYD is cutting well below F150 ICE prices with their Shark truck. Because they can. Not for sale in the US of course but it makes F150 Lightning international sales a bit unviable. As a US only niche vehicle selling in the low thousands per year the Lightning had no future.
And because they have problems as it is sourcing aluminum for more profitable F150 variants. Ford lives or dies based on the F150, they needed to focus on higher profit margins on the trucks they could actually build.
This is the answer, CyberTruck achieved positive gross margins in Q3 2024. The F-150 never did. So the Lightning is canceled and the CyberTruck lives on.
> While that is true to some degree, the Berlin policy conveniently ignores all second-order effects: Sidewalks are more slippery, more people get hurt
I seriously doubt they did not know that. The whole point of salt is to prevent people from falling. Of course they knew more people will fall.
I've been coding with LLMs for less than a year. As I mentioned to someone in email a few days ago: In the first half, when an LLM solved a problem differently from me, I would probe why and more often than not overrule and instruct it to do it my way.
Now it's reversed. More often than not its method is better than mine (e.g. leveraging a better function/library than I would have).
In general, it's writing idiomatic mode much more often. It's been many months since I had to correct it and tell it to be idiomatic.
I often say "Sometimes, you have to let the manager fail."
Some managers don't like being told their ideas won't work. If you refuse or argue, you are seen as the reason his idea failed. I've found what works best with them is to proceed with the work, but keep them informed very frequently, so they can see how things evolve, and will be able to see the failure you had anticipated a long time ago before it is too late.
Then you're seen in a positive light, and he'll separate you from the project failure.
reply