And 2024, a Not-So-Wonderful Year
January 22, 2025
Every year has tech failures, some of them will join the zeitgeist as cultural phenomenons like Windows Vista, Windows Me, Apple’s Pippin game console, chatbots, etc. PC Mag runs down the flops in: “Yikes: Breaking Down the 10 Biggest Tech Fails of 2024.” The list starts with Intel’s horrible year with its booted CEO, poor chip performance. It follows up with the Salt Typhoon hack that proved (not that we didn’t already know it with TikTok) China is spying on every US citizen with a focus on bigwigs.
National Public Data lost 272 million social security numbers to a hacker. That was a great day in summer for hacker, but the summer travel season became a nightmare when a CrowdStrike faulty kernel update grounded over 2700 flights and practically locked down the US borders. Microsoft’s Recall, an AI search tool that took snapshots of user activity that could be recalled later was a concern. What if passwords and other sensitive information were recorded?
The fabulous Internet Archive was hacked and taken down by a bad actor to protest the Israel-Gaza conflict. It makes us worry about preserving Internet and other important media history. Rabbit and Humane released AI-powered hardware that was supposed to be a hands free way to use a digital assistant, but they failed. JuiceBox ended software support on its EV car chargers, while Scarlett Johansson’s voice was stolen by OpenAI for its Voice Mode feature. She sued.
The worst of the worst is this:
“Days after he announced plans to acquire Twitter in 2022, Elon Musk argued that the platform needed to be “politically neutral” in order for it to “deserve public trust.” This approach, he said, “effectively means upsetting the far right and the far left equally.” In March 2024, he also pledged to not donate to either US presidential candidate, but by July, he’d changed his tune dramatically, swapping neutrality for MAGA hats. “If we want to preserve freedom and a meritocracy in America, then Trump must win,” Musk tweeted in September. He seized the @America X handle to promote Trump, donated millions to his campaign, shared doctored and misleading clips of VP Kamala Harris, and is now working closely with the president-elect on an effort to cut government spending, which is most certainly a conflict of interest given his government contracts. Some have even suggested that he become Speaker of the House since you don’t have to be a member of Congress to hold that position. The shift sent many X users to alternatives like Bluesky, Threads, and Mastodon in the days after the US election.”
Let’s assume NPR is on the money. Will the influence of the Leonardo da Vinci of modern times make everything better? Absolutely. I mean the last Space X rocket almost worked. No Tesla has exploded in my neighborhood this week. Perfect.
Whitney Grace, January 22, 2025
Bossless: Managers of the Future Recognize They Cannot Fix Management or Themselves
January 17, 2025
A dinobaby-crafted post. I confess. I used smart software to create the heart wrenching scene of a farmer facing a tough 2025.
I have never heard of Robert Walters. Sure, I worked on projects in London for several years, but that outfit never hit my radar. Now it has, and I think its write up is quite interesting. “Conscious Unbossing – 52% of Gen-Z Professionals Don’t Want to Be Middle Managers” introduced me to a new bound phrase: Conscious unbossing. That is super and much more elegant than the coinage ensh*tification.
A conscious unbosser looks in the mirror and sees pain. He thinks, “I can’t make the decision to keep or fire Tameka. I can’t do the budget because I don’t have my MBA study group to help me. I can’t give that talk to the sales team because I have never sold a thing in my life. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. I figured out how to make you work again. Too bad about killing those scanners, right?
The write up reports:
Over half of Gen-Z professionals don’t want to take on a middle management role in their career.
Is there some analysis? Well, sort of. The Robert Walters outfit offers this:
The Robert Walters poll found that 72% of Gen-Z would actually opt for an individual route to advance their career – one which focuses on personal growth and skills accumulation over taking on a management role (28%). Lucy Bisset, Director of Robert Walters North comments: “Gen-Z are known for their entrepreneurial mindset – preferring to bring their ‘whole self’ to projects and spend time cultivating their own brand and approach, rather than spending time managing others. “However, this reluctance to take on middle management roles could spell trouble for employers later down the line.”
The entrepreneurial mindset and “whole self” desire are what the survey sample’s results suggest. The bigger issue, in my opinion, is, “What’s caused a big chunk of Gen-Z (whatever that is) to want to have a “brand” and avoid the responsibility of making decisions, dealing with consequences (good and bad) of those decisions, and working with people to build a process that outputs results?”
Robert Walters sidesteps this question. Let me take a whack at why the Gen-Z crowd (people who were 23 to 38 in 2019) are into what I call “soft” work and getting paid to have experiences work.
- This group grew up with awards for nothing. Run in a race, lose, and get a badge. Do this enough and the “losers” come to know that they are non-performers no matter what mommy, daddy, and the gym teacher told them.
- Gen-Z was a group who matured in a fantasy land with nifty computers, mobile phones, and social media. Certain life skills were not refined in the heat treating process of a competitive education.
- Affirmation and attention became more important as their social opportunities narrowed. The great tattooing craze grabbed hold of those in Gen-Z. When I see a 32 year old restaurant worker adorned with tattoos, I wonder, “What the heck was he/she/ze thinking? I know what I am thinking, “Insecurity. A desire to stand out. A permanent “also participated” badge which will look snappy when the tattooed person is 70 years old.
Net net: I think the data in the write up is suggestive. I have questions about the sample size, the method of selection, and the statistical approach taken to determine if a “result” is verifiable. One thing is certain. Outfits like McKinsey, Bain, and BCG will have to rework their standard slide decks for personnel planning and management techniques. However, I can overlook the sparse information in the write up and the shallow analysis. I love that “conscious unbossing” neologism. See, there is room for sociology and psychology majors in business. Not much. But some room.
Stephen E Arnold, January 17, 2025
Amazon Embodies Modern Management: Efficient, Effective, Encouraging
January 16, 2025
A dinobaby-crafted post. I confess. I used smart software to create the heart wrenching scene of a farmer facing a tough 2025.
I don’t know if this write up is spot on, but I loved it. Navigate to “Amazon Worker – Struck and Shot in New Orleans Terror Attack – Initially Denied Time Off.” If the link is dead, complain to MSFT, please. (Perhaps the headline tells the tale?) The article pointed out:
Alexis Scott-Windham was celebrating the New Year with friends on Bourbon Street when a pickup truck mounted the sidewalk and rammed a crowd shortly after 3 am local time. She was treated in hospital after the back of her right foot was run over by the vehicle, and she was also shot in the foot. The bullet remains in her limb while doctors work out the best course of action to remove it while she recovers at home. The regional Times-Picayune newspaper interviewed Scott-Windham, who revealed she had been denied medical leave by the Amazon warehouse where she works for a medical checkup in two weeks’ time. The mother feared if she was absent from work for that appointment, she would lose her job.
Several observations are warranted:
-
Struck means that the vehicle hit her. That would probably test the situational awareness of a Delta Force operator walking with pals to the Green Beans.
-
Shot. Now when a person is shot, there is the wound itself. However, the shock and subsequent pain are to some annoying. I knew a person who flinched each time a sharp sound interrupted a conversation. That individual, who received a military award for bravery, told me, “Just a reflex.” Sure. Reflex. Hard wired decades after the incident in the Vietnam “conflict.”
-
Fear of being fired for injuries incurred in a terrorist incident. That’s a nifty way to motivate employees to do their best and trust an organization.
Herewith, the dinobaby award for outstanding management goes to the real or virtual individual who informed the person injured in the terrorist attack the Outstanding Management insignia. Wear it proudly. When terminating people, the insignia is known to blink in Morse code, “Amazon is wonderful.”
Stephen E Arnold, January 16, 2025
Agentic Workflows and the Dust Up Between Microsoft and Salesforce
January 14, 2025
Prepared by a still-alive dinobaby.
The Register, a UK online publication, does a good job of presenting newsworthy events with a touch of humor. Today I spotted a new type of information in the form of an explainer plus management analysis. Plus the lingo and organization suggest a human did all or most of the work required to crank out a very good article called “In AI Agent Push, Microsoft Re-Orgs to Create CoreAI – Platform and Tools Team.”
I want to highlight the explainer part of the article. The focus is on the notion of agentic; specifically:
agentic applications with memory, entitlements, and action space that will inherit powerful model capabilities. And we will adapt these capabilities for enhanced performance and safety across roles, business processes, and industry domains. Further, how we build, deploy, and maintain code for these AI applications is also fundamentally changing and becoming agentic.
These words are attributed to Microsoft’s top dog Satya Nadella, but they sound as if one of the highly paid wordsmiths laboring for the capable Softies. Nevertheless, the idea is important. In order to achieve the agentic pinnacle, Microsoft has to reorganize. Whoever can figure out how to make agentic applications work across different vendors’ solutions will be able to make money. That’s the basic idea: Smart software is going to create a new big thing for enterprise software and probably some consumers.
The write up explains:
It’s arguably just plain old software talking to plain old software, which would be nothing new. The new angle here, though, is that it’s driven mainly by, shall we say, imaginative neural networks and models making decisions, rather than algorithms following entirely deterministic routes. Which is still software working with software. Nadella thinks building artificially intelligent agentic apps and workflows needs “a new AI-first app stack — one with new UI/UX patterns, runtimes to build with agents, orchestrate multiple agents, and a reimagined management and observability layer.”
To win the land in this new territory, Microsoft must have a Core AI team. Google and Salesforce presumably have this type of set up. Microsoft has to step up its AI efforts. The Register points out:
Nadella noted that “our internal organizational boundaries are meaningless to both our customers and to our competitors”. That’s an odd observation given Microsoft published his letter, which concludes with this observation: “Our success in this next phase will be determined by having the best AI platform, tools, and infrastructure. We have a lot of work to do and a tremendous opportunity ahead, and together, I’m looking forward to building what comes next.”
Here’s what I found interesting:
- Agentic is the next big thing in smart software. Essentially smart software that does one thing is useful. Orchestrating agents to do a complex process is the future. The software decides. Everything works well — at least, that’s the assumption.
- Microsoft, like Google, is now in a Code Yellow or Code Red mode. The company feels the heat from Salesforce. My hunch is that Microsoft knows that add ins like Ghostwriter for Microsoft Office is more useful than Microsoft’s own Copilot for many users. If the same boiled fish appears on the enterprise menu, Microsoft is in a world of hurt from Salesforce and probably a lot of other outfits.
- The re-org parallels the disorder that surfaced at Google when it fixed up its smart software operation or tried to deal with the clash of the wizards in that estimable company. Pushing boxes around on an organization chart is honorable work, but that management method may not deliver the agentic integration some people want.
The conclusion I drew from The Register’s article is that the big AI push and the big players’ need to pop up a conceptual level in smart software is perceived as urgent. Costs? No problem. Hallucination? No problem. Hardware availability? No problem. Software? No problem. A re-organization is obvious and easy. No problem.
Stephen E Arnold, January 14, 2025
GitHub Identifies a Sooty Pot and Does Not Offer a Fix
January 9, 2025
This is an official dinobaby post. No smart software involved in this blog post.
GitLab’s Sabrina Farmer is a sharp thinking person. Her “Three Software Development Challenges Slowing AI Progress” articulates an issue often ignored or just unknown. Specifically, according to her:
AI is becoming an increasingly critical component in software development. However, as is the case when implementing any new tool, there are potential growing pains that may make the transition to AI-powered software development more challenging.
Ms. Farmer is being kind and polite. I think she is suggesting that the nest with the AI eggs from the fund-raising golden goose has become untidy. Perhaps, I should use the word “unseemly”?
She points out three challenges which I interpret as the equivalent of one of those unsolved math problems like cracking the Riemann Hypothesis or the Poincaré Conjecture. These are:
- AI training. Yeah, marketers write about smart software. But a relatively small number of people fiddle with the knobs and dials on the training methods and the rat’s nests of computational layers that make life easy for an eighth grader writing an essay about Washington’s alleged crossing of the Delaware River whilst standing up in a boat rowed by hearty, cheerful lads. Big demand, lots of pretenders, and very few 10X coders and thinkers are available. AI Marketers? A surplus because math and physics are hard and art history and social science are somewhat less demanding on today’s thumb typers.
- Tools, lots of tools. Who has time to keep track of every “new” piece of smart software tooling? I gave up as the hyperbole got underway in early 2023. When my team needs to do something specific, they look / hunt for possibilities. Testing is required because smart software often gets things wrong. Some call this “innovation.” I call it evidence of the proliferation of flawed or cute software. One cannot machine titanium with lousy tools.
- Management measurements. Give me a break, Ms. Farmer. Managers are often evidence of the Peter Principle, an accountant, or a lawyer. How can one measure what one does not use, understand, or creates? Those chasing smart software are not making spindles for a wooden staircase. The task of creating smart software that has a shot at producing money is neither art nor science. It is a continuous process of seeing what works, fiddling, and fumbling. You want to measure this? Good luck, although blue chip consultants will gladly create a slide deck to show you the ropes and then churn out a spectacular invoice for professional services.
One question: Is GitLab part of the problem or part of the solution?
Stephen E Arnold, January 9, 2025
Why Buzzwords Create Problems. Big Problems, Right, Microsoft?
January 7, 2025
This is an official dinobaby post. No smart software involved in this blog post.
I read an essay by Steven Sinofsky. He worked at Microsoft. You can read about him in Wikipedia because he was a manager possibly associated with Clippy. He wrote an essay called “225. Systems Ideas that Sound Good But Almost Never Work—”Let’s just…” The write up is about “engineering patterns that sound good but almost never work as intended.”
I noticed something interesting about his explanation of why many software solutions go off the rails, fail to work, create security opportunities for bad actors associated with entities not too happy with the United States, and on-going headaches for for hundreds of millions of people.
Here is a partial list of the words and bound phrases from his essay:
Add an API
Anomaly detection
Asynchronous
Cross platform
DSL
Escape to native
Hybrid parallelism
Multi-master writes
Peer to peer
Pluggable
Sync the data
What struck me about this essay is that it reveals something I think is important about Microsoft and probably other firms tapping the expertise of the author; that is, the jargon drives how the software is implemented.
I am not certain that my statement is accurate for software in general. But for this short blog post, let’s assume that it applies to some software (and I am including Microsoft’s own stellar solutions as well as products from other high profile and wildly successful vendors). With the ground rules established, I want to offer several observations about this “jargon drives the software engineering” assertion.
First, the resulting software is flawed. Problems are not actually resolved. The problems are papered over with whatever the trendy buzzword says will work. The approach makes sense because actual problem solving may not be possible within a given time allocation or a working solution may fail which requires figuring out how to not fail again.
Second, the terms reveal that marketing think takes precedence over engineering think. Here’s what the jargon creators do. These sales oriented types grab terms that sound good and refer to an approach. The “team” coalesces around the jargon, and the jargon directs how the software is approached. Does hybrid parallelism “work”? Who knows, but it is the path forward. The manager says, “Let’s go team” and Clippy emerges or the weird opaqueness of the “ribbon.”
Third, the jargon shaped by art history majors and advertising mavens defines the engineering approach. The more successful the technical jargon, the more likely those people who studied Picasso’s colors or Milton’s Paradise Regained define the technical frame in which a “solution” is crafted.
How good is software created in this way? Answer: Good enough.
How reliable is software created in this way? Answer: Who knows until someone like a paying customer actually uses the software.
How secure is the software created in this way? Answer: It is not secure as the breaches of the Department of Treasury, the US telecommunications companies, and the mind boggling number of security lapses in 2024 prove.
Net net: Engineering solutions based on jargon are not intended to deliver excellence. The approach is simply “good enough.” Now we have some evidence that industry leaders realize the fact. Right, Clippy?
Stephen E Arnold, January 8, 2025
A Technologist Realizes Philosophy 101 Was Not All Horse Feathers
January 6, 2025
This is an official dinobaby post. No smart software involved in this blog post.
I am not too keen on non-dinobabies thinking big thoughts about life. The GenX, Y, and Zedders are good at reinventing the wheel, fire, and tacos. What some of these non-dinobabies are less good at is thinking about the world online information has disestablished and is reassembling in chaotic constructs.
The essay, published in HackerNoon, “Here’s Why High Achievers Feel Like Failures” explains why so many non-dinobabies are miserable. My hunch is that the most miserable are those who have achieved some measure of financial and professional success and embrace whinge, insecurity, chemicals to blur mental functions, big car payments, and “experiences.” The essay does a very good job of explaining the impact of getting badges of excellence for making a scoobie (aka lanyard, gimp, boondoggle, or scoubidou) bracelet at summer camp to tweaking an algorithm to cause a teen to seek solace in a controlled substance. (One boss says, “Hey, you hit the revenue target. Too bad about the kid. Let’s get lunch. I’ll buy.”)
The write up explains why achievement and exceeding performance goals can be less than satisfying. Does anyone remember the Google VP who overdosed with the help of a gig worker? My recollection is that the wizard’s boat was docked within a few minutes of his home stuffed with a wifey and some kiddies. Nevertheless, an OnlyFans potential big earner was enlisted to assist with the chemical bliss that may have contributed to his logging off early.
Here’s what the essay offers this anecdote about a high performer whom I think was a entrepreneur riding a rocket ship:
Think about it:
- Three years ago, Mark was ecstatic about his first $10K month. Now, he beats himself up over $800K months.
- Two years ago, he celebrated hiring his first employee. Now, managing 50 people feels like “not scaling fast enough.”
- Last year, a feature in a local business journal made his year. Now, national press mentions barely register.
His progress didn’t disappear. His standards just kept pace with his growth, like a shadow that stretches ahead no matter how far you walk.
The main idea is that once one gets “something”; one wants more. The write up says:
Every time you level up, your brain does something fascinating – it rewrites your definition of “normal.” What used to be a summit becomes your new base camp. And while this psychological adaptation helped our ancestors survive, it’s creating a crisis of confidence in today’s achievement-oriented world.
Yep, the driving force behind achievement is the need to succeed so one can achieve more. I am a dinobaby, and I don’t want to achieve anything. I never did. I have been lucky: Born at the right time. Survived school. Got lucky and was hired on a fluke. Now 60 years later I know how I achieve the modicum of success I accrued. I was really lucky, and despite my 80 years, I am not yet dead.
The essay makes this statement:
We’re running paleolithic software on modern hardware. Every time you achieve something, your brain…
- Quickly normalizes the achievement (adaptation)
- Immediately starts wanting more (drive)
- Erases the emotional memory of the struggle (efficiency)
Is there a fix? Absolutely. Not surprisingly the essay includes a to-do list. The approach is logical and ideally suited to those who want to become successful. Here are the action steps:
Once you’ve reviewed your time horizons, the next step is to build what I call a “Progress Inventory.” Dedicate 15 minutes every Sunday night to reflect and fill out these three sections:
Victories Section
- What’s easier now than it was last month?
- What do you do automatically that used to require thought?
- What problems have disappeared?
- What new capabilities have you gained?
Growth Section
- What are you attempting now that you wouldn’t have dared before?
- Where have your standards risen?
- What new problems have you earned the right to have?
- What relationships have deepened or expanded?
Learning Section
- What mistakes are you no longer making?
- What new insights have you gained?
- What patterns are you starting to recognize?
- What tools have you mastered?
These two powerful tools – the Progress Mirror and the Progress Inventory – work together to solve the central problem we’ve been discussing: your brain’s tendency to hide your growth behind rising standards. The Progress Mirror forces you to zoom out and see the bigger picture through three critical time horizons. It’s like stepping back from a painting to view the full canvas of your growth. Meanwhile, the weekly Progress Inventory zooms in, capturing the subtle shifts and small victories that compound into major transformations. Used together, these tools create something I call “progress consciousness” – the ability to stay ambitious while remaining aware of how far you’ve come.
But what happens when the road map does not lead to a zen-like state? Because I have been lucky, I cannot offer an answer to this question of actual, implicit, or imminent failure. I can serve up some observations:
- This essay has the backbone for a self-help book aimed at insecure high performers. My suggestion is to buy a copy of Thomas Harris’ I’m OK — You’re Okay and make a lot of money. Crank out the merch with slogans from the victories, growth, and learning sections of the book.
- The explanations are okay, but far from new. Spending some time with Friedrich Nietzsche’s Der Wille zur Macht. Too bad Friedrich was dead when his sister assembled the odds and ends of Herr Nietzsche’s notes into a book addressing some of the issues in the HackerNoon essay.
- The write up focuses on success, self-doubt, and an ever-receding finish line. What about the people who live on the street in most major cities, the individuals who cannot support themselves, or the young people with minds trashed by digital flows? The essay offers less information for these under performers as measured by doubt ridden high performers.
Net net: The essay makes clear that education today does not cover some basic learnings; for example, the good Herr Friedrich Nietzsche. Second, the excitement of re-discovering fire is no substitute for engagement with a social fabric that implicitly provides a framework for thinking and behaving in a way that others in the milieu recognize as appropriate. This HackerNoon essay encapsulates why big tech and other successful enterprises are dysfunctional. Welcome to the digital world.
Stephen E Arnold, January 6, 2025
Modern Management Revealed and It Is Jaundiced with a Sickly Yellowish Cast
December 26, 2024
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. No smart software was used.
I was zipping through the YCombinator list of “important” items and spotted this one: “Time for a Code-Yellow?: A Blunt Instrument That Works.” I associated Code Yellow with the Google knee jerk in early 2023 when Microsoft rolled out its smart software deal with OpenAI. Immediately Google was on the backfoot. Word filtered across the blogs and “real” news sources that the world’s biggest online ad outfit and most easily sued company was reeling. The company declared a “Code Yellow,” a “Code Red,” and probably a Code 300 Terahertz to really goose the Googlers.
Grok does a code yellow. Good enough.
I found the reaction, the fumbling, and the management imperative as wonky as McKinsey getting ensnared in its logical opioid consulting work. What will those MBAs come up with next?
The “Time for a Code Yellow” is interesting. Read it. I want to focus on a handful of supplemental observations which appeared in the comments to the citation for the article. These, I believe, make clear the “problem” that is causing many societal problems including the egregious actions of big companies, some government agencies, and those do-good non-governmental organizations.
Here we go and the italics are my observation on the individual insights:
Tubojet1321 says: “If everything is an emergency, nothing is an emergency.” Excellent observation.
nine_zeros says: “Eventually everyone learns inaction.” Yep, meetings are more important than doing.The fix is to have another meeting.
magical hippo says: “My dad used to flippantly say he had three piles of papers on his desk: “urgent”, “very urgent” and “no longer urgent”. The modern organization creates bureaucratic friction at a much faster pace.
x0x0 says: “I’m utter sh*t at management, [I] refuse to prioritize until it’s a company-threatening crisis, and I’m happy to make my team suffer for my incompetence.” Outstanding self critique.
Lammy says: “The etymology is not green/yellow/red. It’s just not-Yellow or yes-Yellow. See Stephen Levy’s In The Plex (2011) pg186: ‘A Code Yellow is named after a tank top of that color owned by engineering director Wayne Rosing. During Code Yellow a leader is given the shirt and can tap anyone at Google and force him or her to drop a current project to help out. Often, the Code Yellow leader escalates the emergency into a war room situation and pulls people out of their offices and into a conference room for a more extended struggle.’ Really? I thought the popularization of “yellow” as a caution or warning became a shared understanding in the US with the advent of trains long before T shirts and Google. Note: Train professionals used a signaling system before Messrs. Brin and Page “discovered” Jon Kleinberg’s CLEVER patent.
lizzas says: “24/7 oncall to … be yanked onto something the boss fancies. No thanks. What about… planning?” Planning. Let’s call a meeting, talk about a plan, then have a meeting to discuss options, and finally have a meeting to do planning. Sounds like a plan.
I have a headache from the flashing yellow lights. Amazing about Google’s originality, isn’t it? Oh, over the holiday downtime, check out Dr. Jon Kleinberg and what he was doing at IBM’s Almaden Research Laboratory in US6112202, filed in 1997. Are those yellow lights still flashing?
Stephen E Arnold, December 26, 2024
The Modern Manager Confronts Old Realities in an AI World
December 18, 2024
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. No smart software was used.
Beleaguered
I read and got a kick out of “Parkinson’s Law: It’s Real, So Use It.” The subtitle: “Yes, Just Set That Deadline.” The main idea is that deadlines are necessary. Loosely translated to modern technology lingo: “Ship it. We will fix it with an update.”
The write up says:
Projects that don’t have deadlines imposed on them, even if they are self-imposed, will take a lot longer than they need to, and may suffer from feature creep and scope bloat. By setting challenging deadlines you will actually get better results.
Yesterday evening I received an email asking for some information related to a lecture we delivered earlier in the day. My first question was, “What’s the deadline?” No answer came back. I worked on a project earlier this year and deadlines were dots on a timeline. No dates, just blobs in months. We did a small project for an AI outfit. Nothing actually worked but I was asked, “How’s your part coming?” It wasn’t.
I concluded from these 2024 interactions that planning was not a finely tuned skill in four different, big time, high aspiration companies. Yet, here is a current article advocating for deadlines. I think the author has been caught in the same weird time talk my team and I have.
The author says:
Deadlines force a clear tempo and cadence and, fundamentally, they make things happen.
I agree. Deadlines make things happen. In my experience, that means, “Ship it. We will fix it with updates.” (Does that sound familiar?)
This essay makes clear to me that today’s crop of “managers” understand that some basics work really well. However, are today’s managers sufficiently informed to think through the time and resources required to deliver a high value, functional product or service. I would respectfully submit that there are some examples of today’s managers confusing marketing jabber and the need to make sales with getting work done so a product actually works. Consider these examples:
- Google’s announcements about quantum breakthroughs. Do they work? Sure, well, sort of.
- Microsoft’s broken image generation function in Copilot. Well, it worked and then it didn’t.
- Amazon’s quest to get Alexa to be more than a kitchen timer using other firms’ technology. Yeah, that is costing how much?
Knowing what to do — that is, setting a deadline— and creating something that really works — that is, an operating system which allows a user to send a facsimile or print a document — are interdependent capabilities. Managers who don’t know what is required cannot set a meaningful deadline. That’s what’s so darned interesting about Apple’s AI. Exactly when was that going to be available? Yeah. Soon, real soon. And that quantum computing stuff? Soon, real soon. And artificial general intelligence? It’s here now, pal.
Stephen E Arnold, December 18, 2024
Technology Managers: Do Not Ask for Whom the Bell Tolls
December 18, 2024
This blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. No smart software was used.
I read the essay “The Slow Death of the Hands-On Engineering Manager.” On the surface, the essay provides some palliative comments about a programmer who is promoted to manager. On a deeper level, the message I carried from the write up was that smart software is going to change the programmer’s work. As smart software become more capable, the need to pay people to do certain work goes down. At some point, some “development” may skip the human completely.
Thanks OpenAI ChatGPT. Good enough.
Another facet of the article concerned a tip for keeping one’s self in the programming game. The example chosen was the use of OpenAI’s ChatGPT open source software to provide “answers” to developers. Thus instead of asking a person, a coder could just type into the prompt box. What could be better for an introvert who doesn’t want to interact with people or be a manager? The answer is, “Not too much.”
What the essay makes clear is that a good coder may get promoted to be a manager. This is a role which illustrates the Peter Principle. The 1969 book explains why incompetent people can get promoted. The idea is that if one is a good coder, that person will be a good manager. Yep, it is a principle still evident in many organizations. One of its side effects is a manager who knows he or she does not deserve the promotion and is absolutely no good at the new job.
The essay unintentionally makes clear that the Peter Principle is operating. The fix is to do useful things like eliminate the need to interact with colleagues when assistance is required.
John Donne in the 17th century wrote a poorly structured sonnet which asserted:
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
The cited essay provides a way to further that worker isolation.
With AI the top-of-mind thought for most bean counters, the final lines of the sonnet is on point:
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
My view is that “good enough” has replaced individual excellence in quite important jobs. Is this AI’s “good enough” principle?
Stephen E Arnold, December 17, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
