Negative feedback is much larger category then just telling someone "you are naughty". There was not mention of occasional in op post either. Most troublemakers are not making trouble occasionally - the kids who are real problem do unwanted things often.
"These are children, not puppies; children are perfectly capable of associating being called "naughty" with specific behavior."
Their implication about specific behavior being often "playing in sight" or "I wont please teacher so I will make myself funny so other kids like me at least". Or the implication does not matter, because behavior was down to impulsive or unable to control emotions (I am frustrated I act out so it gives me attention and it is already reflex at this point).
Because your "5 minutes" is pure bullshit and your engineer knows it.
Your engineer knows that if she writes your "5 minute" query without careful analysis, peer review and documentation and the query ever produces a questionable result --- whether it was anticipated by your requirements or not --- it's your engineers ass; you'll throw your engineer under the bus _instantly_.
Your engineer knows that if she writes your "5 minute" query and it produces any actual value you'll be back the next day with a "5 minute" enhancement. Anything you ask for that might matter the next day has to be built to be maintained by others because if she happens to take the day off when you show up and demand a revision to your "5 minute" wonder query and there is nothing for the other engineers to go on (revision controlled work, documentation, etc.) then that's her ass; she knows you won't stand up for her.
Your engineer didn't just fall out of the boat and is in no hurry to obligate herself to take responsibility for your adhoc miracle queries and the questions that will emerge when you go waving the output under everyone's nose, and she knows that's exactly what you'll do with it. Your little query is your view of the world and that view is highly unlikely to survive the first bit of scrutiny that's applied by anyone other than yourself, much less the second.
I had a veteran DBA close to retirement (she was my cube-mate) warn me about this when I was an intern. I had a very simple request come in to update some data. Didn't even take 5 minutes. She told me: never do the simple tasks immediately. Sit on them for a bit. Business users don't understand complexity of different tasks and think they should all take the same amount of effort. So, if you do one thing in just a few minutes, they'll expect everything to take the same amount of time. In my experience, it's proved to be true.
I heard a story from an ex-wall-street engineer who related he was once asked to fix a message passing system so that it could now pass something like 10 x as many messages per second that before. He rewrote it and it now passed 1000 x messages / sec. He almost turned it in that way and then realized he was undercutting his future self. So he backed off the improvements to the required 10 x. Sure enough he got a big bonus and kudos for his work and a year later he was asked if he could pull another miracle out of his hat. Indeed he could. He sat on it for weeks, updated one line of code and then got another big bonus. LOL.
Broken home, broken kids. I know that antagonizes a lot of people, some of whom found their role as parents incompatible with their preferred lifestyle... The truth is a bitch.
The 5 commissioners of the FCC are appointed by the President of the United States. The commission may not have more than 3 members from the same political party. Effectively this means the FCC is dominated by the party of whomever is elected President.
>> “Engineers are like that,” Mr. Kim said. “We don’t lie.”
Hmm. That's pretty general, but he may be right. The engineers willing to lie tend to get promoted to management to do the necessary lying on behalf of the engineers that aren't.
I have a 'pet theory' (ie random thought that crossed my mind a few times), that to become a good engineer or software developer you need to have, or make yourself a perspective of the world, and your place in it, where you don't need to - even subconsciously - lie to yourself in order to feel all right.
It almost appears as if the brain almost doesn't allow us to see what we need to see, and think what we need to think to be good at those task, if doing so will interfere with our self image and/or worldview in a similar vein as our more physical self-preservation instincts make it very hard to consciously do things that will cause pain or harm.
I don't think it is about having to be altogether rational or truthful, but rather that you and the perception of whatever world you experience will not be significantly challenged by the observations you do each day, the thoughts you experience, and the decisions you make.
This is sort of along the lines of something I've commented on with my wife a couple of times recently. People like to see themselves as doers of good, not evil. It helps keep a person sane. Not many people are okay with being bad people (doing unethical things on purpose). So what do we do when we are acting unethically? We have internal justifications and rationalizations that we use to excuse unethical behaviors in our own minds in order to keep a positive picture of ourselves in our own minds or identities.
As a tangent, this also reminds me of what an NYTimes op-ed columnist wrote about the current administration:
> Truth be told, the incessant lying by this president and the elaborate apparatus he has built in the White House to bend reality to meet those lies means that nothing they say is to be believed anyway, but this is of a different nature. This says to America: I’m going to tell you a lie that is so outrageous that you will want to believe that some part of it is true, to preserve your faith in truth, democracy and mankind.
It's probably a mix of stockholm syndrome (with respect to peers and company) and the Dunning–Kruger effect (overall competence). Also with a heavy serving of denial.
Indeed. I observe that women somehow managed without 32% of all births being Cesarean[1]. The last time I looked up that figure a few years ago it was 24%. What a racket.
Manuals. Compilers came with comprehensive manuals. When you paid for things like Turbo C++ or Paradox or MS Cobol you got a well edited, indexed and quality printed book that covered the entire language and tools comprehensively. From there you wade into existing code bases, learn by maintaining the work of others, and eventually you originate new work. Along the way you dog-eared the manuals.
The Internet has obviated the need for comprehensive books for the bulk of contemporary programming. I suppose there are obscure enough and/or proprietary platforms that still follow the "comprehensive documentation" approach, but it seems it's possible for widely used tooling to be poorly documented and rely on online forums to fill in the gaps with crowd sourced answers and examples. This makes "mind share" crucial to the usability of a language/platform.
I am sometimes frustrated with the contemporary model, but the old way wasn't a panacea either; just broken differently. If you want a good taste of "what it was like" find the manuals for Turbo C++ 3.0 (1991.) You'll learn things about C/C++ that you've never seen written down anywhere.
> Compilers came with comprehensive manuals. When you paid for things like Turbo C++ or Paradox or MS Cobol you got a well edited, indexed and quality printed book that covered the entire language and tools comprehensively.
Often, three or more books: commonly a library reference (which was just what it says, but with a lot more detail than many packages today have with their low-effort, auto-generated API docs), a programmer's guide (a comprehensive guide to the language supported), and a user's guide (a guide to the tooling provided.)
The web has made finding answers to hard questions quite a bit easier, but it's also made the basics quite a bit harder. Current (to the software version you are using), correct, and clear information covering the majority of things most people would use was a lot easier to find when getting a compiler meant getting books with exactly that information.
Note that, FWIW, Free Pascal today comes with the same manuals - a user's guide (telling you how to install and use the compiler, the IDE and the various tools), a programmer's guide (telling you implementation details for the language), a language reference (explaining the language itself, in theory you can make your own compiler from that), a runtime library reference (what the name implies) and a framework reference (reference for the extra libraries that usually come with FPC). Also there is a reference for the documentation generator in case you need to write docs yourself.
I started with PHP3, and spend so much time ready the manual. It was/is pretty good, well written and the comments can be pretty helpful.
Most programming language have manuals, and at least those I've used have been pretty good. People just don't want to read manuals, they just want the answer to their current problem.
Ok, so you're past claiming that "pretty much everyone in the country" has the benefit of "wide availability of cellular service that provides broadband speeds."
Occasional negative feedback doesn't create an inherent self-image.
"It is not even actionable command"
These are children, not puppies; children are perfectly capable of associating being called "naughty" with specific behavior.
You have very extreme views regarding children.