Good engineering principles, like prioritizing simplicity, focusing on the user, and embracing iteration, apply equally to individuals and organizations. An engineer's effectiveness hinges on clear communication, understanding context, and building trust, just as an organization's success depends on efficient processes, shared understanding, and psychological safety. Essentially, the qualities that make a good engineer—curiosity, pragmatism, and a bias towards action—should be reflected in the organizational culture and processes to foster a productive and fulfilling engineering environment. By prioritizing these principles, both engineers and organizations can create better products and more satisfying experiences.
Business books are largely entertainment, not practical guides to strategic success. They offer simplified narratives, relatable anecdotes, and the illusion of actionable advice, but lack the nuance and context-specific insights necessary for real-world application. While enjoyable to read, they often promote generic, easily digestible concepts that are already widely understood. True strategic advantage comes from deeply understanding your specific industry, market, and company, which requires focused analysis and practical experience, not passively consuming popular business literature. Essentially, business books offer the comfort of perceived learning without the hard work of genuine strategic thinking.
Hacker News commenters largely agreed with the article's premise that business books offer little practical value. Many argued that these books often state the obvious, repackage common sense, or offer vague, unactionable advice. Several commenters pointed out that direct experience and learning by doing were far more effective than reading generalized business principles. Some suggested that the true value of these books might lie in networking, signaling intellectual curiosity, or simply providing entertainment. A few dissenting voices argued that some business books offer valuable frameworks or introduce readers to new perspectives, but even they acknowledged that application and critical thinking are essential. A recurring theme was the importance of filtering the signal from the noise in the crowded business book market.
Getting things done in large tech companies requires understanding their unique dynamics. These organizations prioritize alignment and buy-in, necessitating clear communication and stakeholder management. Instead of focusing solely on individual task completion, success lies in building consensus and navigating complex approval processes. This often involves influencing without authority, making the case for your ideas through data and compelling narratives, and patiently shepherding initiatives through multiple layers of review. While seemingly bureaucratic, these processes aim to minimize risk and ensure company-wide coherence. Therefore, effectively "getting things done" means prioritizing influence, collaboration, and navigating organizational complexities over simply checking off individual to-dos.
Hacker News users discussed the challenges of applying Getting Things Done (GTD) in large organizations. Several commenters pointed out that GTD assumes individual agency, which is often limited in corporate settings where dependencies, meetings, and shifting priorities controlled by others make personal productivity systems less effective. Some suggested adapting GTD principles to focus on managing energy and attention rather than tasks, and emphasizing communication and negotiation with stakeholders. Others highlighted the importance of aligning personal goals with company objectives and focusing on high-impact tasks. A few commenters felt GTD was simply not applicable in large corporate environments, advocating for alternative strategies focused on influence and navigating organizational complexity. There was also discussion about the role of management in creating an environment conducive to productivity, with some suggesting that GTD could be beneficial if leadership adopted and supported its principles.
OpenAI is restructuring to better pursue its mission of ensuring safe and beneficial artificial general intelligence (AGI). They're creating two new entities: "OpenAI Nonprofit" will continue to guide their mission, fund open-source AI research, and advocate for responsible AI development. "OpenAI LP," a capped-profit company, will conduct product development and other commercial activities. This structure allows them to raise capital for computationally intensive AGI research while ensuring that any excess returns beyond the cap will flow back to the nonprofit for the benefit of humanity. This change reflects their evolving needs and commitment to prioritizing their long-term mission over immediate profits.
HN commenters express skepticism and concern about OpenAI's restructuring announcement. Many see it as a power grab by Sam Altman and Ilya Sutskever, consolidating control under the guise of AGI development urgency. Some speculate about internal conflicts and the possibility of Altman positioning OpenAI for acquisition by Microsoft. Others question the sincerity of their stated mission, given the perceived shift towards commercial interests. Several commenters also criticize the lack of transparency and specific details in the announcement, calling it vague and performative. A few express cautious optimism, hoping the changes will lead to faster AGI progress, but the overall sentiment is one of distrust and apprehension about the future direction of OpenAI.
Simply cloning a Git repository doesn't replicate a team's knowledge, experience, and working relationships. Building a successful software project relies heavily on tacit knowledge, undocumented practices, and the shared understanding built through collaboration. While code captures the "what," it often misses the crucial "why" behind design decisions. Replicating a project's success requires more than just the code; it necessitates transferring the team's collective intelligence, which is a far more complex and nuanced undertaking. This includes understanding the project's history, the reasoning behind architectural choices, and the intricate web of interpersonal dynamics that contribute to effective teamwork.
Hacker News users generally agreed with the premise of the article – that simply copying a team's structure or tools doesn't replicate their success. Several commenters emphasized the importance of intangible factors like team dynamics, shared context, and accumulated experience. One compelling comment highlighted the difference between "knowledge" (easily transferable) and "know-how" (developed through practice and collaboration). Others discussed the challenges of scaling successful small teams, noting that growth often necessitates changes in communication and process. Some users shared personal anecdotes of failed attempts to replicate effective teams, reinforcing the article's central point. A few commenters also pointed out the importance of hiring for cultural fit and fostering psychological safety within a team.
"Accountability Sinks" describes how certain individuals or organizational structures absorb blame without consequence, hindering true accountability. These "sinks" can be individuals, like a perpetually apologetic middle manager, or systems, like bureaucratic processes or complex software. They create an illusion of accountability by seemingly accepting responsibility, but prevent real change because the root causes of problems remain unaddressed. This ultimately protects those truly responsible and perpetuates dysfunctional behaviors, leading to decreased efficiency, lower morale, and a culture of learned helplessness. Instead of relying on accountability sinks, organizations should prioritize identifying and addressing systemic issues and cultivating a culture of genuine responsibility.
Hacker News users discussed the concept of "accountability sinks," where individuals or teams are burdened with responsibility but lack the authority to effect change. Several commenters shared personal experiences with this phenomenon, particularly in corporate settings. Some highlighted the frustration and burnout that can result from being held accountable for outcomes they cannot control. Others discussed the difficulty of identifying these sinks, suggesting they often arise from unclear organizational structures or power imbalances. The idea of "responsibility without authority" resonated with many, with some proposing strategies for navigating these situations, including clearly defining roles and responsibilities, escalating issues to higher levels of authority, and documenting the disconnect between accountability and control. A few commenters questioned the overall premise of the article, arguing that true accountability necessitates some level of authority.
Oda Ujiharu, a Sengoku-era warlord often dubbed the "weakest," is surprisingly remembered fondly in Japan, not for military prowess, but for his peaceful and clever governance. Faced with the overwhelming power of Oda Nobunaga, Ujiharu recognized his inevitable defeat and prioritized the well-being of his people. Instead of futile resistance, he negotiated surrender terms that preserved their lives and livelihoods, even securing a comfortable retirement for himself. This act of selflessness and pragmatic leadership, prioritizing his people over personal glory, cemented his legacy as a benevolent and wise ruler, a stark contrast to the era's often brutal warlords.
HN commenters generally found the story of Oda Ujiharu heartwarming and appreciated learning about a historical figure who prioritized his people's well-being over personal glory. Several highlighted the contrast between Ujiharu's compassionate leadership and the typical ruthlessness often associated with warlords. Some debated the accuracy of the "weakest" label, arguing that his pragmatic choices demonstrated strength and wisdom. A few commenters also pointed out the story's relevance to modern leadership and its potential lessons for business and management. One compelling comment suggested that Ujiharu's enduring popularity stems from a cultural appreciation for humility and the quiet strength of choosing peace, especially in a society that historically valued martial prowess. Another insightful comment connected Ujiharu's actions to the concept of "noblesse oblige," arguing that his sense of responsibility towards his people drove his decisions.
University of Chicago president Paul Alivisatos argues against the rising tide of intellectual cowardice on college campuses. He believes universities should be havens for difficult conversations and the pursuit of truth, even when uncomfortable or unpopular. Alivisatos contends that avoiding controversial topics or shielding students from challenging viewpoints hinders their intellectual growth and their preparation for a complex world. He champions the Chicago Principles, which emphasize free expression and open discourse, as a crucial foundation for genuine learning and progress. Ultimately, Alivisatos calls for universities to actively cultivate intellectual courage, enabling students to grapple with diverse perspectives and form their own informed opinions.
Hacker News users generally agreed with the sentiment of the article, praising the university president's stance against intellectual cowardice. Several commenters highlighted the increasing pressure on universities to avoid controversial topics, particularly those related to race, gender, and politics. Some shared anecdotes of self-censorship within academia and the broader societal trend of avoiding difficult conversations. A few questioned the practicality of the president's idealism, wondering how such principles could be applied in the real world given the complexities of university governance and the potential for backlash. The most compelling comments centered around the importance of free speech on campuses, the detrimental effects of chilling discourse, and the necessity of engaging with uncomfortable ideas for the sake of intellectual growth. While there wasn't overt disagreement with the article's premise, some commenters offered a pragmatic counterpoint, suggesting that strategic silence could sometimes be necessary for survival in certain environments.
Research suggests supervisors often favor employees who moderately bend the rules, viewing them as resourceful and proactive. These "constructive nonconformists" challenge procedures in ways that benefit the organization, while still adhering to core values and demonstrating respect for authority. However, this tolerance has limits. Employees who consistently or significantly violate rules, exhibiting "destructive nonconformity," are viewed negatively and penalized. Supervisors perceive a key difference between rule-breaking that aims to improve the organization versus self-serving or malicious violations.
HN commenters generally agree with the study's findings that moderate rule-breaking is viewed favorably by supervisors, particularly when it leads to positive outcomes. Some point out that "rule-breaking" is often conflated with independent thinking, initiative, and a willingness to challenge the status quo, traits valued in many workplaces. Several commenters note the importance of context and company culture. In some environments, rule-breaking might be implicitly encouraged, while in others, it's strictly punished. A few express skepticism about the study's methodology and generalizability, questioning whether self-reported data accurately reflects supervisors' true opinions. Others highlight the potential downsides of rule-breaking, such as creating inconsistency and unfairness, and the inherent subjectivity in determining what constitutes "acceptable" rule-breaking. The "Goldilocks zone" of rule-breaking is also discussed, with the consensus being that it's a delicate balance, dependent on the specific situation and the individual's relationship with their supervisor.
The blog post "There is no Vibe Engineering" argues against the idea that creating a specific "vibe" or feeling in a digital product can be systematically engineered. The author contends that while design elements influence user experience, the subjective nature of "vibe" makes it impossible to reliably predict or control. A product's perceived "vibe" emerges organically from the interplay of numerous factors, including individual user interpretation, cultural context, and unpredictable external influences, making it more of an emergent property than a designable feature. Ultimately, focusing on clear functionality and user needs is a more effective approach than attempting to directly engineer a specific feeling or atmosphere.
HN commenters largely agree with the author's premise that "vibe engineering" isn't a real discipline and that attempts to manufacture a specific "vibe" often come across as inauthentic or forced. Several commenters pointed out the importance of focusing on the underlying substance and functionality of a product or community, arguing that a genuine "vibe" emerges organically from positive user experiences and interactions. Some suggested that focusing on "vibe" can be a distraction from addressing real issues. A few commenters offered alternative perspectives, proposing that while "vibe engineering" might not be a formal discipline, considering the overall feeling evoked by a product is still a valuable aspect of design. One commenter highlighted the potential for misuse, noting that manipulative actors could exploit "vibe engineering" tactics to create a false sense of community or belonging.
This 2015 blog post outlines the key differences between Managers, Directors, and VPs, focusing on how their responsibilities and impact evolve with seniority. Managers are responsible for doing – directly contributing to the work and managing individual contributors. Directors shift to getting things done through others, managing managers and owning larger projects or initiatives. VPs are responsible for setting direction and influencing the organization strategically, managing multiple directors and owning entire functional areas. The post emphasizes that upward movement isn't simply about more responsibility, but a fundamental shift in focus from tactical execution to strategic leadership.
HN users generally found the linked article's definitions of manager, director, and VP roles accurate and helpful, especially for those transitioning into management. Several commenters emphasized the importance of influence and leverage as key differentiators between the levels. One commenter highlighted the "multiplier effect" of higher-level roles, where impact isn't solely from individual contribution but from enabling others. Some discussion revolved around the varying definitions of these titles across companies, with some noting that "director" can be a particularly nebulous term. Others pointed out the emotional labor involved in management and the necessity of advocating for your team. A few commenters also shared their own experiences and anecdotes that supported the article's claims.
Apple has reorganized its AI leadership, aiming to revitalize Siri and accelerate AI development. John Giannandrea, who oversaw Siri and machine learning, is now focusing solely on a new role leading Apple's broader machine learning strategy. Craig Federighi, Apple's software chief, has taken direct oversight of Siri, indicating a renewed focus on improving the virtual assistant's functionality and integration within Apple's ecosystem. This restructuring suggests Apple is prioritizing advancements in AI and hoping to make Siri more competitive with rivals like Google Assistant and Amazon Alexa.
HN commenters are skeptical of Apple's ability to significantly improve Siri given their past performance and perceived lack of ambition in the AI space. Several point out that Apple's privacy-focused approach, while laudable, might be hindering their AI development compared to competitors who leverage more extensive data collection. Some suggest the reorganization is merely a PR move, while others express hope that new leadership could bring fresh perspective and revitalize Siri. The lack of a clear strategic vision from Apple regarding AI is a recurring concern, with some speculating that they're falling behind in the rapidly evolving generative AI landscape. A few commenters also mention the challenge of attracting and retaining top AI talent in the face of competition from companies like Google and OpenAI.
The Startup CTO Handbook offers practical advice for early-stage CTOs, covering a broad spectrum from pre-product market fit to scaling. It emphasizes the importance of a lean, iterative approach to development, focusing on rapid prototyping and validated learning. Key areas include defining the MVP, selecting the right technology stack based on speed and cost-effectiveness, building and managing engineering teams, establishing development processes, and navigating fundraising. The handbook stresses the evolving role of the CTO, starting with heavy hands-on coding and transitioning to more strategic leadership as the company grows. It champions pragmatism over perfection, advocating for quick iterations and adapting to changing market demands.
Hacker News users generally praised the handbook for its practicality and focus on execution, particularly appreciating the sections on technical debt, hiring, and fundraising. Some commenters pointed out potential biases towards larger, venture-backed startups and a slight overemphasis on speed over maintainability in the early stages. The handbook's advice on organizational structure and team building also sparked discussion, with some advocating for alternative approaches. Several commenters shared their own experiences and resources, adding further value to the discussion. The author's transparency and willingness to iterate on the handbook based on feedback was also commended.
The question of whether engineering managers should still code is complex and depends heavily on context. While coding can offer benefits like maintaining technical skills, understanding team challenges, and contributing to urgent projects, it also carries risks. Managers might get bogged down in coding tasks, neglecting their primary responsibilities of team leadership, mentorship, and strategic planning. Ultimately, the decision hinges on factors like team size, company culture, the manager's individual skills and preferences, and the specific needs of the project. Striking a balance is crucial – staying technically involved without sacrificing management duties leads to the most effective leadership.
HN commenters largely agree that the question of whether managers should code isn't binary. Many argue that context matters significantly, depending on company size, team maturity, and the manager's individual strengths. Some believe coding helps managers stay connected to the technical challenges their teams face, fostering better empathy and decision-making. Others contend that focusing on management tasks, like mentoring and removing roadblocks, offers more value as a team grows. Several commenters stressed the importance of delegation and empowering team members, rather than a manager trying to do everything. A few pointed out the risk of managers becoming bottlenecks if they remain deeply involved in coding, while others suggested allocating dedicated coding time for managers to stay sharp and contribute technically. There's a general consensus that strong technical skills remain valuable for managers, even if they're not writing production code daily.
This article outlines five challenging employee archetypes: the Passive-Aggressive, the Know-It-All, the Gossip, the Negative Nancy, and the Slacker. It offers strategies for managing each type, emphasizing clear communication, direct feedback, and setting expectations. For passive-aggressive employees, the key is to address issues openly and encourage direct communication. Know-it-alls benefit from being given opportunities to share their expertise constructively, while gossips need to be reminded of professional conduct. Negative employees require a focus on solutions and positive reinforcement, and slackers respond best to clearly defined expectations, accountability, and consequences. The overall approach emphasizes addressing the behavior directly, documenting issues, and focusing on performance improvement, ultimately aiming to foster a more positive and productive work environment.
Hacker News users generally found the linked article on difficult employees to be shallow and offering generic, unhelpful advice. Several commenters pointed out that labeling employees as "difficult" is often a way for management to avoid addressing underlying systemic issues or their own shortcomings. Some argued that employees exhibiting the described "difficult" behaviors are often reacting to poor management, unrealistic expectations, or toxic work environments. The most compelling comments highlighted the importance of addressing the root causes of these behaviors rather than simply trying to "manage" the individual, with suggestions like improving communication, providing clear expectations and feedback, and fostering a healthy work environment. A few commenters offered personal anecdotes reinforcing the idea that "difficult" employees can often become valuable contributors when management addresses the underlying problems. Some also criticized the framing of the article as victim-blaming.
The Twitter post satirizes executives pushing for a return to the office by highlighting their disconnect from the realities of average workers. It depicts their luxurious lifestyles, including short, chauffeured commutes in Teslas to lavish offices with catered meals, private gyms, and nap pods, contrasting sharply with the long, stressful commutes and packed public transport experienced by regular employees. This privileged perspective, the post argues, blinds them to the benefits of remote work and the burdens it lifts from their workforce.
HN commenters largely agree with the sentiment of the original tweet, criticizing the disconnect between executives pushing for return-to-office and the realities of employee lives. Several commenters share anecdotes of long commutes negating the benefits of in-office work, and the increased productivity and flexibility experienced while working remotely. Some point out the hypocrisy of executives enjoying flexible schedules while denying them to their employees. A few offer alternative explanations for the RTO push, such as justifying expensive office spaces or a perceived lack of control over remote workers. The idea that in-office work facilitates spontaneous collaboration is also challenged, with commenters arguing such interactions are infrequent and can be replicated remotely. Overall, the prevailing sentiment is that RTO mandates are driven by outdated management philosophies and a disregard for employee well-being.
Tony Fadell, in an excerpt from his book "Build," reveals storytelling lessons learned from Steve Jobs while working on the iPod and iPhone. Jobs emphasized creating a simple, almost reductive narrative focused on a singular core message, avoiding feature lists. He believed in crafting an emotional connection with the audience by focusing on the "why" – how the product improves lives – rather than just the "what" – its technical specifications. Jobs also meticulously rehearsed presentations and product demos, controlling every detail to ensure a compelling and persuasive narrative. Finally, he insisted on empowering others to tell the story too, ensuring consistent messaging across the organization.
HN commenters largely discussed the value of storytelling, particularly in a business context. Some were skeptical of the excerpt's framing of Jobs as a "master storyteller," arguing that his success stemmed more from product vision and marketing savvy. Others pointed out the importance of substance over storytelling, suggesting that a compelling narrative can't mask a mediocre product. A few commenters shared personal anecdotes about effective storytelling in their own careers, while others debated the ethics of manipulating emotions through narrative. One highly upvoted comment highlighted the difference between manipulative and inspirational storytelling, emphasizing the importance of authenticity and genuine belief in the message.
The article discusses how Elon Musk's ambitious, fast-paced ventures like SpaceX and Tesla, particularly his integration of Dogecoin into these projects, are attracting a wave of young, often inexperienced engineers. While these engineers bring fresh perspectives and a willingness to tackle challenging projects, their lack of experience and the rapid development cycles raise concerns about potential oversight and the long-term stability of these endeavors, particularly regarding Dogecoin's viability as a legitimate currency. The article highlights the potential risks associated with relying on a less experienced workforce driven by a strong belief in Musk's vision, contrasting it with the more traditional, regulated approaches of established institutions.
Hacker News commenters discuss the Wired article about young engineers working on Dogecoin. Several express skepticism that inexperienced engineers are truly "aiding" Dogecoin, pointing out that its core code is largely based on Bitcoin and hasn't seen significant development. Some argue that Musk's focus on youth and inexperience reflects a broader Silicon Valley trend of undervaluing experience and institutional knowledge. Others suggest that the young engineers are likely working on peripheral projects, not core protocol development, and some defend Musk's approach as promoting innovation and fresh perspectives. A few comments also highlight the speculative and meme-driven nature of Dogecoin, questioning its long-term viability regardless of the engineers' experience levels.
The concept of the "alpha wolf" – a dominant individual who violently forces their way to the top of a pack – is a misconception stemming from studies of unrelated, captive wolves. Natural wolf packs, observed in the wild, actually function more like families, with the "alpha" pair simply being the breeding parents. These parents guide the pack through experience and seniority, not brute force. The original captive wolf research, which popularized the alpha myth, created an artificial environment of stress and competition, leading to behaviors not representative of wild wolf dynamics. This flawed model has not only misrepresented wolf behavior but also influenced theories of dog training and human social structures, promoting harmful dominance-based approaches.
HN users generally agree with the article's premise that the "alpha wolf" concept, based on observations of captive, unrelated wolves, is a flawed model for wild wolf pack dynamics, which are more family-oriented. Several commenters point out that the original researcher, David Mech, has himself publicly disavowed the alpha model. Some discuss the pervasiveness of the myth in popular culture and business, lamenting its use to justify domineering behavior. Others extend the discussion to the validity of applying animal behavior models to human social structures, and the dangers of anthropomorphism. A few commenters offer anecdotal evidence supporting the family-based pack structure, and one highlights the importance of female wolves in the pack.
AI products demand a unique approach to quality assurance, necessitating a dedicated AI Quality Lead. Traditional QA focuses on deterministic software behavior, while AI systems are probabilistic and require evaluation across diverse datasets and evolving model versions. An AI Quality Lead possesses expertise in data quality, model performance metrics, and the iterative nature of AI development. They bridge the gap between data scientists, engineers, and product managers, ensuring the AI system meets user needs and maintains performance over time by implementing robust monitoring and evaluation processes. This role is crucial for building trust in AI products and mitigating risks associated with unpredictable AI behavior.
HN users largely discussed the practicalities of hiring a dedicated "AI Quality Lead," questioning whether the role is truly necessary or just a rebranding of existing QA/ML engineering roles. Some argued that a strong, cross-functional team with expertise in both traditional QA and AI/ML principles could achieve the same results without a dedicated role. Others pointed out that the responsibilities described in the article, such as monitoring model drift, A/B testing, and data quality assurance, are already handled by existing engineering and data science roles. A few commenters, however, agreed with the article's premise, emphasizing the unique challenges of AI systems, particularly in maintaining data quality, fairness, and ethical considerations, suggesting a dedicated role could be beneficial in navigating these complex issues. The overall sentiment leaned towards skepticism of the necessity of a brand new role, but acknowledged the increasing importance of AI-specific quality considerations in product development.
Jo Freeman's "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" argues that informal power structures inevitably arise in groups claiming to be structureless. While intending to promote equality and avoid hierarchy, the absence of formal procedures and explicit roles actually empowers a hidden "elite" who influence decisions through informal networks and pre-existing social capital. This informal power is difficult to challenge because it's unacknowledged and therefore lacks accountability. The essay advocates for consciously creating explicit structures and processes within groups to ensure genuine participation and distribute power more equitably, making decision-making transparent and enabling members to hold leaders accountable.
HN commenters discuss Jo Freeman's "The Tyranny of Structurelessness," largely agreeing with its core premise. Several highlight the inherent power dynamics that emerge in supposedly structureless groups, often favoring those with pre-existing social capital or manipulative tendencies. Some offer examples of this phenomenon in open-source projects and online communities. The "tyranny of the urgent" is mentioned as a related concept, where immediate tasks overshadow long-term planning and strategic decision-making. A few commenters question the binary presented in the essay, suggesting more nuanced approaches to structure and leadership, like rotating roles or distributed authority. The essay's age and continued relevance are also noted, with some arguing that its insights are even more applicable in the decentralized digital age.
The blog post "The Missing Mentoring Pillar" argues that mentorship focuses too heavily on career advancement and technical skills, neglecting the crucial aspect of personal development. It proposes a third pillar of mentorship, alongside career and technical guidance, focused on helping mentees navigate the emotional and psychological challenges of their field. This includes addressing issues like imposter syndrome, handling criticism, building resilience, and managing stress. By incorporating this "personal" pillar, mentorship becomes more holistic, supporting individuals in developing not just their skills, but also their capacity to thrive in a demanding and often stressful environment. This ultimately leads to more well-rounded, resilient, and successful professionals.
HN commenters generally agree with the article's premise about the importance of explicit mentoring in open source, highlighting how difficult it can be to break into contributing. Some shared personal anecdotes of positive and negative mentoring experiences, emphasizing the impact a good mentor can have. Several suggested concrete ways to improve mentorship, such as structured programs, better documentation, and more welcoming communities. A few questioned the scalability of one-on-one mentoring and proposed alternatives like improved documentation and clearer contribution guidelines. One commenter pointed out the potential for abuse in mentor-mentee relationships, emphasizing the need for clear codes of conduct.
Mastering the art of saying "no" as a product manager is crucial for focusing on impactful work and avoiding feature creep. It involves strategically prioritizing tasks, aligning with overall product vision, and gracefully declining requests that don't contribute to that vision. This requires clear communication, explaining the rationale behind decisions, and offering alternative solutions when possible. Ultimately, saying "no" effectively allows product managers to protect their roadmap, manage stakeholder expectations, and deliver a more valuable product.
HN commenters largely agree with the article's premise of strategically saying "no" as a product manager. Several share personal anecdotes reinforcing the importance of protecting engineering resources and focusing on core value propositions. Some discuss the nuances of saying "no," emphasizing the need to explain the reasoning clearly and offer alternative solutions where possible. A few commenters caution against overusing "no," highlighting the importance of maintaining positive relationships and remaining open to new ideas. The most compelling comments focus on the strategic framing of "no" as a tool for prioritization and resource allocation, not simply rejection. They emphasize using data and clear communication to justify decisions and build consensus. One commenter aptly summarizes this as "saying 'no' to the idea, but 'yes' to the person."
James Shore envisions the ideal product engineering organization as a collaborative, learning-focused environment prioritizing customer value. Small, cross-functional teams with full ownership over their products would operate with minimal process, empowered to make independent decisions. A culture of continuous learning and improvement, fueled by frequent experimentation and reflection, would drive innovation. Technical excellence wouldn't be a goal in itself, but a necessary means to rapidly and reliably deliver value. This organization would excel at adaptable planning, embracing change and prioritizing outcomes over rigid roadmaps. Ultimately, it would be a fulfilling and joyful place to work, attracting and retaining top talent.
HN commenters largely agree with James Shore's vision of a strong product engineering organization, emphasizing small, empowered teams, a focus on learning and improvement, and minimal process overhead. Several express skepticism about achieving this ideal in larger organizations due to ingrained hierarchies and the perceived need for control. Some suggest that Shore's model might be better suited for smaller companies or specific teams within larger ones. The most compelling comments highlight the tension between autonomy and standardization, particularly regarding tools and technologies, and the importance of trust and psychological safety for truly effective teamwork. A few commenters also point out the critical role of product vision and leadership in guiding these empowered teams, lest they become fragmented and inefficient.
Summary of Comments ( 98 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44026703
HN commenters largely agreed with Moxie's points about the importance of individual engineers having ownership and agency. Several highlighted the damaging effects of excessive process and rigid hierarchies, echoing Moxie's emphasis on autonomy. Some discussed the challenges of scaling these principles, particularly in larger organizations, with suggestions like breaking down large teams into smaller, more independent units. A few commenters debated the definition of "good engineering," questioning whether focusing solely on speed and impact could lead to neglecting important factors like maintainability and code quality. The importance of clear communication and shared understanding within a team was also a recurring theme. Finally, some commenters pointed out the cyclical nature of these trends, noting that the pendulum often swings between centralized control and decentralized autonomy in engineering organizations.
The Hacker News post discussing Moxie Marlinspike's blog post "A Good Engineer" has generated a substantial amount of discussion, with a diverse range of perspectives on the qualities that define both good engineers and effective engineering organizations.
Several commenters agree with Marlinspike's central premise, highlighting the importance of curiosity, the ability to quickly learn and adapt, and a proactive approach to problem-solving. One commenter elaborates on this, stating that good engineers possess an "innate drive to understand how things work," which translates into a continuous quest for improvement and optimization. Another emphasizes the significance of "systems thinking," arguing that understanding the broader context in which a problem exists is crucial for developing effective solutions. They go further, suggesting that fostering an environment where engineers can explore and experiment, even if it leads to occasional failures, is essential for long-term growth.
The discussion also touches upon the translation of individual qualities to the organizational level. Some commenters believe that organizations mirroring the characteristics of a good engineer—adaptability, a willingness to learn, and a focus on continuous improvement—tend to be more successful. One commenter specifically mentions the importance of "psychological safety," allowing engineers to voice their concerns and propose novel ideas without fear of reprisal. This sentiment is echoed by another who emphasizes the need for open communication and collaboration within the organization.
However, not all comments are in complete agreement with Marlinspike. Some argue that while the qualities he mentions are valuable, they don't encompass the full spectrum of what makes a good engineer. One commenter points out the importance of domain expertise and experience, especially in complex fields, suggesting that a focus solely on adaptability can sometimes overlook the value of specialized knowledge. Another commenter highlights the importance of communication and teamwork, asserting that even the most brilliant individual can be ineffective if they struggle to collaborate with others.
Several comments also delve into the practical aspects of building good engineering organizations. One commenter discusses the challenges of hiring and retaining talent, emphasizing the importance of creating a culture that attracts and nurtures individuals with the desired qualities. Another commenter highlights the role of leadership in fostering a positive and productive engineering environment, suggesting that effective leaders empower their teams and provide them with the resources they need to succeed.
Finally, a few commenters provide anecdotal evidence from their own experiences, sharing stories of both successful and unsuccessful engineering teams and the factors that contributed to their respective outcomes. These personal accounts add a layer of practical insight to the more theoretical aspects of the discussion. Overall, the Hacker News comments provide a rich and multifaceted perspective on the characteristics of good engineers and the organizational structures that support their success.