HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

I've seen titles like sales engineer, product support engineer, technical support engineer involving lots of customer travel. The down side is that you're not usually involved in much new work, mostly providing technical expertise alongside a sales pitch or going in after a sale to hold the customer's hands. I remember the time at a job long ago that IBM sent two sales people and a tech guy to try to get my employer to not only buy the product they probably needed, but a whole lot of other IBM products that the layered on in the sales pitch.

Worst case, you'll end up being asked to draw the Seven Red Lines. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

⬐ hnthrowaway0315

Thanks, this is interesting. We also have support engineers coming from say Looker or some SaaS companies but they are probably full remote now. That said, maybe a lot still do onsite as you mentioned.

⬐ cratermoon

Yeah, in the age of covid lots of things have changed. Add to that the skyrocketing costs of flying, companies are trying to cut back on non-essential travel for the rank-and-file. (The C-suite still goes on "business" trips on the company's dime, of course)

Those who made such "simulation" probably do have forgot or never learn a classic engineering practice (at least in Europe engineering) witch is named resilience.

We need resilient systems as more resilient as bigger is the impact of their eventual failure. In other terms stating we can made a big and complex enough smart grid to run "almost" an renewable means spend an incredible amount of resource to build a hyper-fragile unmaintainable monster that can malfunction at best most of the time.

Also the "little storage" they state is not little at all and most importantly it does NOT LAST LONGER. So far we have some long-lasting storage (pumped hydro) witch is very effective where you have enough mountains and basins, witch might be true for let's say Norway and to a little extent Swiss, but certainly not for let's say Germany. Compressed air storage seems to offer an option at a sufficient scale, but so far only some experimental plants exists and they have a significant amount of fragility and risks. Long story short: we haven't enough storage on scale to deploy almost only intermittent sources of power. BEVs can compensate an unstable grid for homes, but not for industry, hospitals, big infrastructures etc. Long story short those who claim such possibility follow this classic: https://www.commitstrip.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Strip... sorry I do not have one in English but I think anyone can translate quick enough. A video equivalent is https://youtu.be/BKorP55Aqvg

It's not much different than https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-... something that MIGHT BE partially true, in pure math, but practically false. Fails to understand the real feasibility of such projects is probably the root cause of all managerial driven projects fails.

⬐ trashtester

Norway has very little pumped hydro, even though they have 50% of all hydro in Europe. The flexibility is gained by just postponing consumption if demand is low or alternative supply is high.

Of course, these days, there is rarely any surplus power being generated, so Norway is just exporting as much as they can spare (and then some).

> ...the impossibility of their 7 perpendicular red lines requirement.

For those who do not know the reference: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

We've been hearing that for years. And yet here we are.

When an AI can understand and implement the customer's "parallel red lines some of which are perpendicular and some of them are green"[1], only then we're doomed.

Until then, we're secure.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

⬐ kwatsonafter

Massive! Take an upvote.

⬐ dmitriid

Is it in the form of a kitten?

Hahaha this [1] video os the best thing ever that anyone who has done any contracting/consulting should see.

You can only really get it if you've been in the room, but if you have you will not be disappointed!

[1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

PM: "Let's not rush into any hasty answers!"

(Under no circumstances should you show them this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg)

⬐ mirekrusin

He should be fired for not suggesting 7-dimentional plot.

⬐ xsmasher

This is entertaining, but also cringe; clients and product people aren't generally idiots. They just have requirements that they can't adequately express.

Requirements capture is part of every eng job I've had.

⬐ atoav

Agreed, but as a former freelancer: Sometimes your customer doesn't know what they want and instead of figuring it out together they sketched together an internet-research-fuled plan that they want you to follow to the point, even if the plan is inefficient, doesn't solve their problem etc.

I usually managed to convince those people to come up together with a new plan while making sure they still feel like their original work is somewhat in there — after all I was the expert they came to with their issue, would be a bit idiotic to not pay for my expertise..

Sometimes this does not work, then I usually just told them I won't take that project. And projects like these don't make any sense, the customer will complain about their own planning mistakes as if it was your fault, you get angry, they get angry, everybody loses.

The best customers are those who know the problem they want to solve very well, as well as having some idea how a potential solution could look, but who thank you if you have an even better solution.

⬐ recuter

I hear you and I understand what you're saying, those are some good points. Can you express what you require out of a none cringe comedy skit that this lacks?

⬐ xupybd

They aren't generally idiots but sometimes their mental model of the problem space is incomplete and they don't understand what they're asking for. This is fine if they don't want to specify details. However when they do it can result in impossible requests.

Any analysis of a problem, requires understanding WHAT problem needs solving. The issue in real world is, buisnesses and markets (as well as technology) are changing very fast, and any in-depth analysis done two years ago might not have the same outcome as if done today again. This is a fundamental realization of agile. If you have a problem domain which is not subject to change, waterfall might be the right choice. But you almost never have that. I know it is hard to accept for us devs, often with backgrounds in Math/Physics/CS etc. because the problems we were trained to tackle there are always the same, and the laws of math and physics tend to never change (or change way slower than in modern markets).

Relevant clip perfectly highlighting the problems you have during requirement analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

You made me laugh so hard as just yesterday I was re-watching 'The Expert' on youtube[1],just always hit close to home. Mylanta, try designing a Logo for a business, or website, or front/back-end, or apps... I think it's the customer never knowing what they really want that's the common denominator.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

But blindly following a "let's make it work" approach just leads to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

An expert "That Can't Work" early saves a lot of time.

⬐ naveen99

Funny video, but just for fun: you could write the words “red line” with blue ink and use carbon paper with no or transparent ink. Also you could draw 7 perpendicular functions on 7 lines... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonal_functions

A lot of these debates about interpersonal issues come down to personality differences of Jung types.

Can you draw 7 perpendicular red lines?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

Somehow I find this highly related in many cases I have experienced : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

so question is then what?

Probably not what they were referencing, but it made me think of "The Expert" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

This sketch comes to mind: https://youtu.be/BKorP55Aqvg

Pretty well captured by that old comedy sketch "The expert" [1]

I dare say that most people here on HN have been hit by upper management telling them to do something stupid or impossible. I'd even wager that most have had them get defensive when you try to explain why doing X isn't a good idea.

That's effectively what I see when someone criticizes "experts" broadly and generally. I've long accepted that there are many individuals that know a lot more about subjects I know little about. While I have a pretty good read on things related to computers, I'm more than willing to admit that I'm not an expert in science, medicine, climatology.

So who should I trust? Should I trust the youtuber that's "Found" the secret that the "so called experts" are trying to hide from the public? Or should I look to the actual experts actually working in the field and take their word for it? Or do I take the harder route and try and build understanding on the subject on my own?

I certainly have tried to expand my personal understanding in general. However, what I've found is that by and large the experts actually know what they are talking about. You should generally trust them. The place where I've found a LOT of misinformation is the "skeptics" that hurl doubt without evidence while denigrating "experts". That is the place where I've found outright lies.

Evidence of such BS artists include Flat earthers, Anti-vaxxers, and climate change deniers. Those are all flat out wrong positions. There's mountains of evidence and experts against each of those positions and mostly lies or misrepresentation in favor.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

⬐ dudeinjapan

Experts are almost always right, assuming their assumptions are infallible. The skeptic's criticism is often not directed at the expert's conclusions but their axioms.

Red lines with green ink --> use a thermochromic ink, change the temperature.

7 lines all perpendicular to each other --> sure, in 7+ dimensions.

Solve the climate crisis --> geo-engineering.

⬐ jodrellblank

The Expert sketch is all dramatic and frustrating, I rather like the Mitchell and Webb spoon design sketch for a quieter view of the problems of designing and communicating https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu9nhExp5KI

(y'know, if you're faced with something which seems obvious, and the expert is struggling, why? And should you simply trust them and give up? Why is the extra "explanation" just the same thing repeated again and again? How difficult it is to say "I still don't understand" after several of these explanations. And then at the end it's less clear whether the request is reasonable, if you use spoons as a proxy for other things).

⬐ stcredzero

I certainly have tried to expand my personal understanding in general. However, what I've found is that by and large the experts actually know what they are talking about.

Right. It's the expert's blind spots that contain the best nuggets of value.

⬐ mcguire

If an old, grey haired scientist tells you something is possible, he's probably right. If he tells you something is impossible, he's probably wrong.[1] But if a hundred scientists tell you something, they might be wrong but it's still the way you want to put your money.

[1] As the saying goes.

⬐ cvwright

> [1] As the saying goes.

It's from Arthur C. Clarke.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/155962-when-a-distinguished...

One hint from my experience trying to explain technical things to other people. If they reply something in the lines of "Yes, I understand" that more often than not[1] translates into either "I have no clue what you are talking about" or "I misunderstood". Ask them to describe in their own words what you asked them to do. Be also prepared that their answer may make you realize that what you think you want makes no sense. You can't ask people draw red lines with green ink.[2]

[1] Of course, there are exceptions. but you would not be asking here if you worked with them. And you do quickly recognize the people that just nod and get sh*t done. They are rare, however.

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

> Do people actually have fights like this with management at their companies?

There was a time when I thought this video was funny:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

⬐ pintxo

Still think it's funny. But yes, it's no fun while you are the expert.

⬐ NateEag

I used to think that was hilarious.

These days I can only look at it and think "the expert is terrible at calm confrontation and good communication. There would be no problem if he had developed those skills."

⬐ Aeolun

That has to come from two sides though. The people in this sketch are clearly not interested in listening to what the expert says either.

Getting sensible requirements is not only on the expert.

⬐ NateEag

Sure. Both sides need to have good faith.

But the expert is the one who can know if the requirements are sensible.

In requirements gathering, the whole job is to hear people's attempts to describe their problem and figure out what problem they actually have.

By definition they don't have your expertise, or they wouldn't need to talk to you.

So, of course they will say contradictory things and use terms completely incorrectly - they cannot do anything else. That's why they hired you.

The expert in this scenario gets hung up on their incorrect language and gets flustered and stymied, telling them "What you want is impossible!"

What they _said_ is impossible. It's our job to persistently, patiently, calmly help them understand their needs, without judging them for needing our help.

I'm not particularly good at it, but I understand the mission.

⬐ _ph_

I have to agree. Of course the requests in this sketch were obviously silly and not doable when taken literally. But my experience is, that the requestor of a new feature often has big problems communicating that request. It could be that the requestor describes something, which sounds almost as silly and contradictional as those seven lines, the actual request is something different, which actually makes sense. But just is completely badly communicated.

It is important to rule out miscommunications. Contradictions often are not obvious to the requestor. It also helps to understand, which of the contradicting requirements can be dropped to resolve the problem. Sometimes the problem is just a small feature which made it to the requirements, because no one considered it a problem.

That doesn't mean, I haven't gotten requests which were as silly as in the sketch and had discussions along the lines shown :) And of course, I never hesitate to speak up about actual issues.

I hate this so much. But it's so common.

I was told not to mention the caveats, instead, render a confident image for the team many times in my career.

It's like doctors suggest their patients to use some drugs without mentioning any side effects.

It reminds me of the video[0] which asks the developer to draw red lines with blue ink, while the project manager keeps pushing the developer like "You're the expert, of course you can do draw red lines with blue ink!".

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

There are always people who “need” physically tamper proof software, and in a free state you’re free to express such demands. Intel isn’t the first nor the last.

Like so: https://youtu.be/BKorP55Aqvg

⬐ ashtonkem

Tamper resistant.

> somebody said that a thing is simply not possible and a manager asked "but what if it was possible?"

I've been an Individual Contributor, and a Manager, and am back to being an IC.

I've been on both sides of this conversation.

One of the benefits of being a manager is being able to see the forest from the trees while your team members may be so focused on their tasks they do not see the big picture.

Sure, sometimes the answer to "but what if it was possible?" if just "it's not."

But a lot of times, the good managers I've had would propose an approach to MAKING it possible that I just simply didn't see. And I've been able to do the same in their shoes.

Sometimes it requires a paradigm shift -

Q: "How do we get to the other town faster?"

A: "The horses are running as fast as they can"

Q: "What if we found a faster horse?" (e.g. a car)

But honestly in day to day office culture it rarely needs to be so revolutionary -

Q: "Could we finish the project faster if Bill's team helped us?"

A: "No, it's not possible. Bill's team said they are completely swamped"

<Goes off to do some managerial work>

Q: "Okay, I've chatted to Bill, and his team is fully available to help us finish the project."

I'll leave you with this "Expert" saying that something is simply not possible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

And an actual expert showing how it can be done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7MIJP90biM

⬐ Aeolun

This ignores the fact that Bill’s team hasn’t been working on the project and is most likely just going to slow things down.

⬐ wiz21c

interestingly, your examples revolve around making things faster. Which basically is understood as : "well, we've already too much pressure and our PM wants to put even more pressure on us". Going faster (or being more efficient) always mean being able to take more work.

⬐ deanCommie

The horse/car example isn't really about going faster.

It's an example of hitting the limit of a certain technology, saying any further improvements are "impossible", while not recognizing that a "better horse" might just not be a horse at all.

It's not a metaphor for faster project delivery, but a meaningful technological difference that someone may not be able to see.

⬐ scarejunba

No, it doesn't. For instance, at a place I worked at, we wanted to build a particular ad tech product to reinforce strength in a different area. The correct answer to "how do we make this faster" was "buy the guys who do it and then integrate via a bunch of CSVs on GCS and some RPC". We canned our forays into the space and bought them. Less work for all the engineers and data scientists. More work for M&A but they like doing that so it's not upsetting.

At a more granular level, in a different project, the answer to "how do we develop this faster" was "lose these requirements, and just use AWS services for those". Less work in total.

9) The expert barely tolerates when the title 'expert' is used by everybody else to merely justify their lack of knowledge in a given area.

"I don't know nothing about databases, but X/Y can solve it because he/she is the software expert".

"I heard you are the expert in firmware, can you fix the coffee machine?"

More or less like the fact one cannot play like Mozart just because Mozart was a 'genius' (putting aside all the effort he put into it since childhood), the same applies to the 'expert'.

Edit: "The expert" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

I think "roughly aligned with the goals" is ok - from having worked with some people trying to start out in software development the biggest hurdles are in trying to apply the knowledge to the problem at hand.

That some people really struggle with properly defining the problem and what needs done in such a way that it's tractable.

Highly recommend this video on "The Expert" which illustrates this beautifully - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

You'd probably really appreciate this comedy sketch video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

⬐ alecco

While there https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_vcy7I0zIM

⬐ lzol

This is amazing! Thank you

⬐ deanCommie

Clients don't know what they want and don't know how to describe what they do want.

That doesn't mean they're wrong.

Actual experts get to the root of what they need, and find ways to solve the requirements, even when they seem impossible.

Mandatory response viewing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7MIJP90biM

⬐ yellowapple

> That doesn't mean they're wrong.

Perhaps not, but it does make it substantially more difficult to be right.

⬐ geomark

That's even more amazing.

⬐ pimlottc

That’s definitely a clever way to meet all the stated requirements, but in no way does it attempt to get to the root of the real user requirements.

Which, of course, involves talking to actual users.

These comments kind of reminded me of the comedy sketch, “The Expert” [1]. When nobody else will say no to an idea your meeting might end up sounding like that. I agree though that you should let people know the constraints and alternatives if you want to help forge a path ahead for their ideas.

[1]: https://youtu.be/BKorP55Aqvg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg for the confused :)

Completely agree. They don't flub around trying to figure out and contextualize issues. They're able to both categorize the issue and the disagreement and present in ways that everybody can consume.*

We're not all so lucky, though. Many times I've had to tell teams "This is going to sound right. Please forgive me because I'm concerned about X". You can't replace that kind of give-and-take with wordsmithing.

The second skill I've noticed is to be a storytelling master. Great leaders tell engaging stories that emotionally draw you into their way of seeing things.

*A problem occurs when the leader thinks they know what's going on but they are mistaken. In this case better leadership skills can actually lead to poorer overall results. I've seen good people with mission-critical ideas get "facilitated" out of them by well-meaning, nice, and intelligent people who don't know what the hell they're talking about and are unable to accept that fact. Obligatory link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

Yes, this is a major con! Luckily my job involves a lot of R&D for the government, so UX and customer adoption isn't as important, though it still is important.

Like other commenters have said, you need a balance. A workplace where everyone does not understand what the customer wants is crazy. A workplace where (almost) everyone does not understand any technical details of how to build what the customer wants is also crazy.

Basically, you need enough people with enough domain knowledge to avoid this situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

You have an amusing belief about the correlation between expertise and the lack of errors/mistakes.

Also, reading your comment, I couldn't help but think of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

You must be an expert[1]

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

Your example reminds me of this video [1] that (humorously) goes over a similar mismatch problem.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

⬐ adrianratnapala

Yes this is a classic, and I think I was first introduced to it when I was going through my fake-circle trauma. As ridiculous as it seems, it describes the real (mis)behaviour of people. But I feel there should be an equal and opposite video. Perhaps one where an engineer keeps producing solutions to problems nobody has. (An astroturf mower? A robot that goes to the gym for you?)

I think if you had both those videos and a convincing explanation of how they can both be truthful, the combination would great training material for everyone on a product team.

This short is a great example.

https://youtu.be/BKorP55Aqvg

The whole situation reminded me of this sketch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

Given the kind of unreasonable demands, people do crack.

⬐ corford

>Given the kind of unreasonable demands, people do crack.

Haha. As in mentally or the drug? :D

P.S.

Awesome video, thanks for sharing.

⬐ RenierZA

And here's the solution: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7MIJP90biM

⬐ Gigablah

He's missing a few dimensions.

⬐ dennisgorelik

"Dimensions" are not the part of requirements.

This thing reminded of a sketch I saw sometime ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

⬐ mercer

This gives me flashbacks...

"I'm not the expert, you are. Therefore surely you can design something that fits these requirements."

Your entire comment brings to mind this sketch:

https://youtu.be/BKorP55Aqvg

⬐ dreamfactored

Hardly. As I pointed out she isn't asking for anything logically impossible - that's just a conservative-minded assumption from people tethered to the status quo :) What's new is that they are talking about regulating the internet just as they regulate the radio spectrum, transport infrastructure, pharmaceuticals, the media, or anything else which meaningfully impacts the country. In principle, the UK government has the power and authority to block Facebook and Google and develop their own fully tapped and controlled platforms just as China has done. The question being put by the UK government is what is technically possible between that extreme and the status quo where you have foreign companies doing what they want, and what is politically acceptable.

Kind doesn't mean let everyone walk all over you. It's possible to kindly tell someone to fuck off. I've even seen people use those exact words and still appear kind.

Edit: Mildly interesting. 50 minutes after this comment, I was searching for how to calculate the intersection points of collinear line segments which brought me to Stackoverflow [1]; where someone linked to this sketch [2] about drawing red lines with green ink, all perpendicular; which then brought me to this sketch [3] involving politely telling someone to fuck off.

[1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/24511962/calculate-inter...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

[3] https://youtu.be/sxCWB47ZCLQ?t=1m53s

I still don't know how to calculate the intersection points of collinear line segments.

⬐ toomuchtodo

This was not possible in the environment I was operating in.

When I ask, "Is it possible to draw 7 perpendicular lines?" I want the answer, "No." If I want to know why, I'll ask why. If I want an alternative, I'll ask for it.

Instead, what was happening was that after they asked their question and I answered, "no," they'd walk away and not attempt to get my help again with it afterwards.

For the longest time, I thought they were like me and that they were looking to have their question answered. They weren't. They were trying (clumsily) to get help with their problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

⬐ Xcelerate

> When I ask, "Is it possible to draw 7 perpendicular lines?" I want the answer, "No."

Depends. Are we assuming you can't draw in seven dimensional Hilbert space?

⬐ wccrawford

Yeah. I can barely draw in 2-dimensional space, and drawing in 3-dimensional space requires equipment that the company won't provide. There's no way I'm going to manage 7-dimensional drawing.

That does not begin to explain the sometimes orders of magnitude difference between estimates and final costs, elapsed time and required manpower.

I've sat in on meetings with people discussing a new project, it is absolutely incredible how much of the future derailing of a project you can see happen in real time during those preliminary meetings.

A probable clue you can find in this nice video of a product meeting between 'engineering' and 'customers':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg&feature=youtu.be

As an aeronautical engineer (structural dynamics, aeroelasticity, stress analysis, etc.), I can definitely validate this claim--at least partially.

At the lowest level, things are definitely a horrific mosaic of "temporary solutions, strung together by proverbial duct tape". The good news is that there's a good bit of oversight. Even if my analysis on a flight-critical component is a complete and total abuse of physics (either due to my own incompetence, rushed schedule, or limited budget), it still has to go through my manager, an internal review (with many other experience engineers), validation testing (limit load testing, vibration characterization, etc.), and a third party review by a regulatory agency ALL before first flight. Does it take a while? Absolutely, because the consequences of an incorrect air-frame structural analysis can be dire. Is it perfect? Not even close, but it's pretty good. When field issues DO arise, we have a failure investigation team that works around the clock to address the issue. And this is for unmanned aircraft--in commercial it's even more rigorous. Spacecraft? An even higher level or rigor.

When aeronautical / aerospace engineers DO screw up, you definitely hear about it--usually because lives are lost. A single failure can lead to a company going under and being purchased by a competitor as seen in the consolidation of aerospace companies[0]. In most web programming applications, mistakes are much more forgiving. At worst, a bad commit makes it to production code which usually only manifests as lost revenue (either through security breach, downtime, loss of consumer confidence, etc.). I have to imagine that production code on a medical device (say a pacemaker) is more heavily scrutinized than JavaScript includes in a header file, but I could be wrong. Web is a VERY fast industry because it can afford to be--the reward for using new, bleeding edge technology, is often worth the risk because at the end of the day it's all financial.

I do think "everything is [sort of] a mess, once you get close enough to notice". Some other articles on the phenomenon: 1. Everything is Broken [1]: Since programming technology moves so fast, everything is literally strung together because "if it works, it's good enough".

2. Programming Sucks [2]: Everyone has an opinion and since programming is literally working with pure thought, it's objectively difficult to get people to agree.

3. The Expert [3]: Communication between managers and engineers is (and always has been) terrible--having people who can bridge this gap can really make or break an organization.

4. Apathy [4]: At the end of the day, most people are just collecting their pay check and don't care that much. 5. Bullshit Jobs [5]: Most jobs are not really mission critical.

[0] https://theblogbyjavier.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/3874434....

[1] https://medium.com/message/everything-is-broken-81e5f33a24e1...

[2] https://www.stilldrinking.org/programming-sucks

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

[4] http://www.hanselman.com/blog/EverythingsBrokenAndNobodysUps...

[5] http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/

The skill of going from potentially "wrong" requirements from non-experts into something engineers can deliver is one of the most important skills I've seen in technical sales people.

Customers have a problem to solve, and try to ask for something to solve that problem. Understanding the problem and proposing a solution (and a price) is how you get happy customers.

https://youtu.be/BKorP55Aqvg is a great example of how to fail at this. The "expert" totally fails to understand the customers needs, and instead gets hung up on bad definitions. He's supposed to be the expert in drawing lines, so he should be able to understand why they need them. You could say the customer is lying about their requirements, but they probably just don't understand them.

This goes for any customer/provider relationship - internal services, it departments, platform enginners. Not just selling stuff to other companies.

⬐ wolfgke

> You could say the customer is lying about their requirements, but they probably just don't understand them.

To build on the example from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12428337: If another person says "MySQL" it is MySQL and nothing else. If they meant something different, he would say "data store" or give some non-technical description from which a technology-minded person can reconstruct what the person really wants. The same holds for the "submit button". If the person talks about a "submit button", such a button is meant. If he means something else, he would give a description, say "a user interface element which allows to send the data that I have inputted to the central data store such that [...] Choose the technology which is best according the current UI/UX guidelines.".

If I don't know what I want I give the information in a high-level way such that an expert can reconstruct/build the missing details. If I say some concrete technology that is an exact specification. If this is not what you want, it is lying. There is no in-between.

⬐ Retra

Or maybe you don't know exactly what you want so you give examples demonstrating the salient features instead.

⬐ sanderjd

Lying is when you relate something you know to be untrue. What you're describing is more like "confusion".

⬐ mrob

I don't think it's a great example, because with a little creativity that "impossible" spec is possible:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7MIJP90biM

The customers might even be happy with it, because it would mean they wouldn't have to admit their requirements were stupid.

⬐ wolfgke

> because it would mean they wouldn't have to admit their requirements were stupid

I personally prefer it to be instructed when my requirements are stupid (if there really is strong evidence that they are) since this way I can learn in a much faster pace to make good requirements.

Well, in principle you are right, but it sometimes goes like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

>If you did your job right, you have people that are much more experienced than yourself.

"You hired me as your UX expert. I use A/B trials, prior trials, studies, and knowledge I've pieced together over the past 20 years." The question of "What are you even paying me for if you're going to ignore my advice?" is one I'd love to ask but fear getting fired for pointing it out.

The alternative to micro-managing is asking for the impossible [0]. Which also happens frequently. I was once asked to make a transparent .jpg because .png are "too heavy". I had to explain how .jpg's work, tell them I could make it a .gif, but that the .png compressed better and would be more lightweight than the .gif. They insisted on the .jpg at which point I gave up, matched the jpg's background color to the blue background they had and saved it as a .jpg. Which turned out to still be a bigger file size than the equivalent .png.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

⬐ throwawayReply

I'd have been tempted to rename the file to foo.jpg.png and rely on the fact they'll have "hide known extensions" on.

Or even just rename to foo.jpg and figure the MIME type and file header would be enough for browsers to still render it like a PNG.

Whenever I hear "expert" I think of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

⬐ Cyph0n

This is the video I was expecting.

⬐ curiousgal

It can actually be done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7MIJP90biM

Reminds me of this gem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

Well he was an expert.. wasn't he?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

(Draw seven perpendicular red lines)

⬐ jib

That sketch annoys me. Sure, marketing/sales/PM/design guys are idiots, whatever.

Here are 11 things "I can't do it" can mean:

I don't have time

I don't want to

I don't have anyone who knows how to

I want someone else to do it

I don't want to maintain it once built

I want to work on this other thing

Doing it would take away job security for me

I think it is beneath me

You're not going to use it anyway

I don't think it is worth doing

I think it is too expensive

I think it would be easyish to fill out another 10 reasons for what "can't" really means that are more common than "it is flat out impossible regardless of budget/resources".

⬐ vacri

Half of those are perfectly valid responses. "I don't have time" or "I don't know anyone who knows how" or "it is too expensive" - these aren't the passive-aggressive responses that you're implying.

⬐ kbenson

Those aren't the responses, otherwise it would be fine, you would be accurately communicating the actual problem. Instead, those are the underlying reason for just saying "I can't do it" instead of being forthcoming.

⬐ Nadya

>I think it would be easyish to fill out another 10 reasons for what "can't" really means that are more common than "it is flat out impossible regardless of budget/resources".

Yes. But the skit isn't about that.

I often get impossible tasks from managers. Luckily when I tell them why they actually listen and aren't purposefully obtuse like the team from the skit. But the obtuse manner of the meeting is part of the comedy. Sometimes the management/sales/marketing team just doesn't get it.

The most common request?

"Please enhance this 92x92 .jpg logo x5-x10 its current size without lowering the quality of the logo."

My most common pushback?

"Sure. Get with their designer and get me the original file, be it .psd or .ai so that I can work with a larger resolution copy of the image. If they don't have the original file for their logo, you are asking for one of two things: 1) Recreate their logo or 2) The impossible. If (1) my answer is no. If (2) my answer is with modern technology, I can't."

I've also been asked to uncrop photos. Not as in "restore a backup from before we saved over it with a cropped version" but literally uncrop a photo.

I don't necessarily blame these people or get angry with them. I blame CSI and other investigative shows where they "enhance" a blurry photo to 4k crystal-clear resolution and read the reflection off of a button of a guys' jeans to read the licence plate of his car. They've been told this shit is possible by TV shows that use just-enough real tech to make the fake tech seem real to people outside of the loop.

⬐ andreyf

> I don't necessarily blame these people or get angry with them. I blame CSI and other investigative shows where they "enhance" a blurry photo to 4k crystal-clear resolution and read the reflection off of a button of a guys' jeans to read the licence plate of his car.

I wouldn't get angry with them, but I would certainly blame them for thinking something is possible which a small child should be able to tell is not. I would advise you avoid working with people who believe computers are literally magic, as your life will be much better.

⬐ Nadya

>I wouldn't get angry with them, but I would certainly blame them for thinking something is possible which a small child should be able to tell is not.

Your domain experience is showing. ;) A small child doubtfully knows what pixels are, how computers represent data, how an image is actually displayed, and why you can make them smaller with minimal (meaningful) data loss but you cannot make them larger.

That part confuses lots of people. From children to adults to my grandparents.

Also photo restoration is black magic to some people - and a joy to my heart when I get the opportunity to restore a photo for someone.

⬐ andreyf

Nah. I'm pretty sure I could have figured out that zooming in makes things fuzzy, just like if you hold it close to your face it doesn't any detail to a photo, at age 7 or so.

Photo restoration is more art than magic, assuming you're more or less drawing in the missing pieces.

⬐ kbenson

The crazy thing is that the fake tech is also often actually real, but real in the sense that there's a recent academic paper where in certain specific conditions they were able to do what is being asked ask by using lots of math, domain knowledge, and custom programming, at a total cost of hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars when it's all done.

Does that help you in any way in a commercial setting? No, unless you are Google or Apple or the like and it's not a simple request but the basis of a new business division.

⬐ Nadya

Are you talking about the paper where they replicate keys from the roof of a building across the street when the keys were on the floor some several hundred feet away from a photograph? :)

⬐ kbenson

Not specifically, more just the occasional paper you see posted where they've found a way to recover missing data from surrounding context. I.e. something like reverse engineering redaction boxes from JPEGs by reversing a non-lossless algorithm twice, once to get the lossy image in raw form with redactoin boxes, and at that point again to determine what was likely under those boxes from the surrounding lossy compression as it existed before.

⬐ cpdean

+1, parenthetical

⬐ msm23

Never thought I'd see it, but here's the solution to the expert problem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7MIJP90biM

Credit to D. Scott Williamson, Expert

⬐ Nadya

My personal favorite solution: http://i.imgur.com/fdHpJS4.png

this skit is very apropos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

Cardiology tells you it doesn't.

Do you really want to go down that road? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

Or ask somebody to draw three lines on a whiteboard that are mutually perpendicular ([1])

[1] The Expert (Short Comedy Sketch), www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

⬐ kefka

so, and X, Y, and a Z axis.

Done.

Conventions, not rules, better every time. Though a rule that public services should at least state that the data is not sensitive and not needing https is probably a good idea to force people to at least think about it.

But we should encourage more public data not less, not add another potential step that might delay/discourage people from making data available. Making https/ssl/tls easier and easier will make this a non issue eventually.

(I had to stop myself from spamming the github issue with a link to the seven red lines video.... :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg )

Also, I'd like to half of the statue transparent and the other half in the form of a kitten? Oh and reflective. In red ink.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

I really enjoyed the post. I reminded me a lot of this Youtube video(http://youtu.be/BKorP55Aqvg).

I understand this is a comical post but as the son of a carpenter and understanding the profession decently well I would say these are none of the questions that would be asked of a carpenter.

There are however many important questions a person would need to answer to be hired as a carpenter or more likely be able to join a union. There they would be able to get experience and training. Then the company the union carpenter work for already knows the skills and abilities they have and there is really no need for any interview. Any GC or sub asks for guys to do a job. The local sends them the qualified guys. Pretty simple actually.

⬐ s_kilk

> I really enjoyed the post. I reminded me a lot of this Youtube video(http://youtu.be/BKorP55Aqvg).

Jesus, that's painfully real.

⬐ delinka

"...these are none of the questions that would be asked of a carpenter."

That's exactly the point. But it parallels the useless questions so often asked of the general computer programmer by the Corporate HR Recruiter Drone .

Even harder to debate about when it's something on the verge of stupid, but has been decided otherwise by the top brass.

This video seems relevant here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

> to appear utterly confident in his ideas and proposals

I'm sure this clip has probably crossed your screen before, but I think that protagonist eventually realizes he has to out-BS the BS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

To illustrate my point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

This guy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

Context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

The author of the (current title of) the post is presumably hinging the argument on the definition of 'expert' described in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

Here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

Glad to see this finally making it on the front page. I'm particularly impressed with the actors' ability to capture the subtle facial expressions and other mannerisms that the various characters tend to make in real life under various situations.

Direct YT link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

============================================================

My favorite bit...

PHB: "That's it. Now you've confused everyone. So what exactly is stopping us from doing this?"

Anderson the Engineer: "Geometry."

Client: "Just ignore it."

PHB: "We have a task. Seven red lines. It's not 20. It's just seven! Anderson I understand you're a specialist of a narrow field; you don't see the overall picture. But surely it's not a difficult task to draw some seven lines."

Walter the PM: "Exactly! Suggest a solution. Now, any fool can criticize --no offense-- but, you're an expert. You should know better."

⬐ jacalata

He really should have turned that around. "Did you just criticize my analysis of this problem?"

⬐ zenlikethat

I agree that this bit is fantastic. Can't count the number of times I've encountered each one of these tropes. The power of positive thinking will allow us to do the impossible and so on.

⬐ dredmorbius

Though there's considerable competition for the spot, I'm coming to the conclusion that wishful thinking (of the utterly unjustified sort) is quite probably humanity's most crushing weakness.

⬐ sharemywin

awesome!

⬐ johnlbevan2

Solution:

Use red paper.

Draw the straight lines in parallel to one another then fold the paper diagonally so all lines cross all lines.

Draw the transparent lines with transparent ink (e.g. an ink corrector pen).

Using a green pen draw long thin boxes; i.e. outline of the resulting red lines.

Kittens / birds: have it in the shape of a kitten or bird approaching a blackhole (spaghettification) - or draw in a straight line whilst moving the paper to create the shape / do some really creative folding.

Kitten Balloon - put the deflated balloon into a (small) kitten shaped mould and blow it up in there (leaving it in) - or pose as a kitten whilst inflating the balloon (so you're inflating it in the shape of a kitten, rather than the inflated balloon being in the shape of a kitten).

Or... Based on Randall Munroe's strip http://xkcd.com/1351/, an even better solution to the ink colour problem.

⬐ aspensmonster

PHB: "That's it. Now you've confused everyone. So what exactly is stopping us from doing this?"

Anderson the Engineer: "Geometry."

Client: "Just ignore it."

PHB: "We have a task. Seven red lines. It's not 20. It's just seven! Anderson I understand you're a specialist of a narrow field; you don't see the overall picture. But surely it's not a difficult task to draw some seven lines."

Walter the PM: "Exactly! Suggest a solution. Now, any fool can criticize --no offense-- but, you're an expert. You should know better."

It's a shame that this will die in "new" submissions. Because it's fuckin' hilarious.