zerkten

Is it really that hard to fix this in an imperfect way by letting you save a profile? If everything is the same as the profile, go. If things have changed, and all of the options are available, prompt about resetting to match the profile. When there are missing options, ask if you want to go fix that.

Does the journey have value? When you started learning to code to become a software engineer, you probably reasoned that the journey was important.

If you are an exec building an app then the journey is likely to be uninteresting and an impediment to getting to a product. I don't think we'll uncover anything new here that we couldn't reason about before. When execs, or other non-programmers, do get decide to get involved, there is a probability that they will learn something more about software engineering inside their organization. That is the thing that software engineers need to be concerned about because depending on the circumstances, the execs will uncover things which shorten the tenure of SWEs or their management.

>> And I think most people who hate Jira actually just hate the process their company has imposed inside of Jira.

I think what you describe is a problem for a lot of people, but what isn't acknowledged is that some people don't want any kind of process, or rather, they don't want to deal with any kind of friction. These people don't like Jira without the customizations. They don't like equivalent tools.

Given these tools regiment the world to some extent, many programmers are fine with the minimal friction. However, you have big problems when people who don't value any process get into positions of authority. This is also often a problem when you interface with other units of an organization who don't understand the value of a process.

The product at the end is important, but so is the process. Few of the things that would happen along the way are happening here, so it's harder to justify the value of the deliverable when there is a failure.

My fingers are curling up at the look of the angle on that keyboard. I love the idea and the aesthetic, but I could never use this full time.

Putting everything behind a VPN seems like the solution selfhosters have landed on. That way you have some control over how quickly you have to respond.

You still need to manage that change to varying degrees. For every organization which can shift on a whim, there are many more which require mitigation. Normally, there are a lot of things carried forward for internal or external reasons. Developers tend to discount the amount of effort from other actors in the system because they don't understand all of their priorities and which map neatly versus not.

Anything that reduces the blast radius helps. There should still be a focus on further hardening. Most value comes from exploits that enable pivots. Attackers will focus on other vectors that enable broader pivots because immediate high value notes only exist for a limited set of users.

>> But they are so common, i don't know who designs them and makes me feel like 5yo.

Often these are the product managers building follow-on features that don't get the usage they want. Users aren't using them, but monthly usage is the currency of so much PM work that they have to try to draw attention to it.

Prisoners do get taken in situations where they'd be taken without drones. Drones hitting support groups behind enemy lines are akin to airstrikes. When drones are used on the frontline to support ground forces, the enemy will emerge and surrender. Some Russian units in the current invasion of Ukraine have surrendered to drones when ground forces haven't been as close as they'd like to accept the surrender.

There will always be war crimes in a conflict of any scale. That is human nature even if we don't like it. If both sides aren't doing it with drones they are doing it with something else. You now see the action in every situation because there are cameras everywhere and incentive for all sides to shape the narrative with this content.

As far as AI is concerned, there is the huge risk for problems. That said, you can have entire sectors of a battlefield that are kill zones for artillery but now you have drones taking more targeted action. Western artillery capabilities and approaches are more precise than those used by the likes of Russia, but it's a still a case of pummeling certain places. Drones hitting within a sector aren't much different and possibly have some long-term benefits.

Integration points increase the risk of compromise. For that reason, I never use the desktop browser extensions for my password manager. When password managers were starting to become popular there was one that had security issues with the browser integration so I decided to just avoid those entirely. On iOS, I'm more comfortable with the integration so I use it, but I'm wary of it.

My point is that they don't capture the effects you describe - unless designed in. There is little motivation to do that though because they can track larger effects which are aligned with current leadership priorities. That's why I included the part about the PM that has recognized the problem.

I can guarantee you that the class of problem you describe has been discussed at the individual contributor level, so is known to some extent. Getting it from recognition to action is the problem. It is a huge lift to get some of these small things through the gauntlet to execution. Meanwhile, as you say, competitors with taste and attention to detail are building a better product.

This is very much a problem of large organizations. Those same PMs at a small company. If Google Maps was an independent company, the impediments would be fewer and priorities more aligned with building the best Google Maps.

>> Then before you know it, the devops folks have decided that they need to put a gazillion other services and an entire software-defined networking layer on top of it.

I don't work that closely with k8s, but have toyed with a cluster in my homelab, etc. Way back before it really got going, I observed some OpenStack folks make the jump to k8s.

Knowing what I knew about OpenStack, that gave me an inkling that what you describe would happen and we'd end up in this place where a reasonable thing exists but it has all of this crud layered on top. There are places where k8s makes sense and works well, but the people surrounding any project are the most important factor in the end result.

Today we have an industry around k8s. It keeps a lot of people busy and employed. These same folks will repeat k8s the next time, so the best thing people that who feel they have superior taste is to press forward with their own ideas as the behavior won't change.

In enterprise, you have little chance of getting the real story from end users in many cases. IT will also tell you that things are used one way, only for analytics to tell you it's the opposite. If you spend some of your UX research budget to deep dive on the area you can then finally get to the bottom of it.

I think the root of the complaints here is prioritization. The things they care about are prioritized. Qualitative feedback is likely already telling PMs that something is wrong and really should be fixed, but other feedback has more data supporting it.