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.
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.
Robin Sloan reflects on the evolving nature of online stores, arguing against the prevailing trend of mimicking large marketplaces like Amazon. He champions the idea of smaller, more curated shops that prioritize a unique browsing experience and foster a direct connection with customers. These "shopkeepers" should embrace the web's potential for individual expression and build digital spaces that reflect their own tastes and passions, rather than striving for sterile efficiency. He encourages creators to consider the emotional impact of their shops, emphasizing the joy of discovery and the personal touch that distinguishes a truly memorable online retail experience.
HN commenters largely agreed with the author's premise that "shopkeeping" tasks, like managing infrastructure and deployments, distract from product development. Many shared their own experiences of getting bogged down in these operational details, echoing the frustration of context switching and the feeling of being a "glorified sysadmin." Some suggested various solutions, from embracing serverless platforms and managed services to hiring dedicated DevOps engineers or even outsourcing entirely. A particularly compelling comment thread discussed the "build vs. buy" dilemma, with some arguing that building custom solutions, while initially attractive, often leads to increased shopkeeper duties down the line. Others emphasized the importance of early investment in automation and tooling to minimize future maintenance overhead. A few countered that small teams and early-stage startups might not have the resources for these solutions and that some level of shopkeeping is inevitable.
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.
Layoffs, often seen as a quick fix for struggling companies, rarely achieve their intended goals and can even be detrimental in the long run. While short-term cost savings might materialize, they frequently lead to decreased productivity, damaged morale, and a loss of institutional knowledge. The fear and uncertainty created by layoffs can paralyze remaining employees, hindering innovation and customer service. Furthermore, the costs associated with severance, rehiring, and retraining often negate any initial savings. Ultimately, layoffs can create a vicious cycle of decline, making it harder for companies to recover and compete effectively.
HN commenters generally agree with the article's premise that layoffs often backfire due to factors like loss of institutional knowledge, decreased morale among remaining employees, and the cost of rehiring and retraining once the market improves. Several commenters shared personal anecdotes supporting this, describing how their companies suffered after layoffs, leading to further decline rather than recovery. Some pushed back, arguing that the article oversimplifies the issue and that layoffs are sometimes necessary for survival, particularly in rapidly changing markets or during economic downturns. The discussion also touched upon the psychological impact of layoffs, the importance of clear communication during such events, and the ethical considerations surrounding workforce reduction. A few pointed out that the article focuses primarily on engineering roles, where specialized skills are highly valued, and that the impact of layoffs might differ in other sectors.
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.
The "Cowboys and Drones" analogy describes two distinct operational approaches for small businesses. "Cowboys" are reactive, improvisational, and prioritize action over meticulous planning, often thriving in dynamic, unpredictable environments. "Drones," conversely, are methodical, process-driven, and favor pre-planned strategies, excelling in stable, predictable markets. Neither approach is inherently superior; the optimal choice depends on the specific business context, industry, and competitive landscape. A successful business can even blend elements of both, strategically applying cowboy tactics for rapid response to unexpected opportunities while maintaining a drone-like structure for core operations.
HN commenters largely agree with the author's distinction between "cowboy" and "drone" businesses. Some highlighted the importance of finding a balance between the two approaches, noting that pure "cowboy" can be unsustainable while pure "drone" stifles innovation. One commenter suggested "cowboy" mode is better suited for initial product development, while "drone" mode is preferable for scaling and maintenance. Others pointed out external factors like regulations and competition can influence which mode is more appropriate. A few commenters shared anecdotes of their own experiences with each mode, reinforcing the article's core concepts. Several also debated the definition of "lifestyle business," with some associating it negatively with lack of ambition, while others viewed it as a valid choice prioritizing personal fulfillment.
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.
CEO Simulator: Startup Edition is a browser-based simulation game where players take on the role of a startup CEO. You manage resources like cash, morale, and ideas, making decisions across departments such as marketing, engineering, and sales. The goal is to navigate the challenges of running a startup, balancing competing priorities and striving for a successful exit, either through acquisition or an IPO. The game features randomized events that force quick thinking and strategic adaptation, offering a simplified but engaging experience of the pressures and triumphs of the startup world.
HN commenters generally found the CEO Simulator simplistic but fun for a short time. Several pointed out the unrealistic aspects of the game, like instantly hiring hundreds of engineers and the limited scope of decisions. Some suggested improvements, including more complex financial modeling, competitive dynamics, and varied employee personalities. A common sentiment was that the game captured the "feeling" of being overwhelmed as a CEO, even if the mechanics were shallow. A few users compared it favorably to other similar games and praised its clean UI. There was also a brief discussion about the challenges of representing startup life accurately in a game format.
Firing programmers due to perceived AI obsolescence is shortsighted and potentially disastrous. The article argues that while AI can automate certain coding tasks, it lacks the deep understanding, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills necessary for complex software development. Replacing experienced programmers with junior engineers relying on AI tools will likely lead to lower-quality code, increased technical debt, and difficulty maintaining and evolving software systems in the long run. True productivity gains come from leveraging AI to augment programmers, not replace them, freeing them from tedious tasks to focus on higher-level design and architectural challenges.
Hacker News users largely agreed with the article's premise that firing programmers in favor of AI is a mistake. Several commenters pointed out that current AI tools are better suited for augmenting programmers, not replacing them. They highlighted the importance of human oversight in software development for tasks like debugging, understanding context, and ensuring code quality. Some argued that the "dumbest mistake" isn't AI replacing programmers, but rather management's misinterpretation of AI capabilities and the rush to cut costs without considering the long-term implications. Others drew parallels to previous technological advancements, emphasizing that new tools tend to shift job roles rather than eliminate them entirely. A few dissenting voices suggested that while complete replacement isn't imminent, certain programming tasks could be automated, potentially impacting junior roles.
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.
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 ( 117 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43555220
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 Hacker News post titled "Supervisors often prefer rule breakers, up to a point" sparked a lively discussion with several compelling comments. Many commenters related the findings of the study to their own experiences.
Several commenters highlighted the nuance of "rule-breaking" discussed in the study, emphasizing that it's not about flagrant disregard for rules but rather about strategically challenging or bending them for positive outcomes. One commenter illustrated this by contrasting "malicious compliance," which aims to harm the organization by strictly adhering to unhelpful rules, with constructive rule-breaking that aims to improve processes or outcomes. Another pointed out that the type of rule-breaking matters, with some rules being bendable (bureaucratic red tape) and others not (safety regulations).
The concept of context was also a recurring theme. Commenters noted that the acceptability of rule-breaking depends heavily on the specific industry, company culture, and the individual supervisor's personality. One commenter shared an anecdote about working in a large organization where rule-breaking was tolerated, even encouraged, during periods of rapid growth and innovation, but became frowned upon during periods of consolidation and cost-cutting. Another commenter suggested that supervisors might appreciate rule-breaking in employees who demonstrate competence and loyalty, while viewing the same behavior in less trusted employees as insubordination.
Some commenters discussed the potential downsides of tolerating rule-breaking, such as creating an inconsistent environment or fostering resentment among employees who consistently follow the rules. One commenter cautioned that supervisors might unconsciously favor rule-breakers who are similar to themselves, leading to bias and unfair treatment. Another raised concerns about the potential for escalation, where tolerated minor rule-breaking could embolden employees to break more significant rules.
The discussion also touched on the challenges of defining and measuring "constructive" rule-breaking. One commenter questioned how organizations could systematically encourage beneficial rule-breaking without creating chaos. Another suggested that organizations should focus on fostering a culture of open communication and psychological safety, where employees feel comfortable challenging outdated or ineffective rules without fear of retribution.
Finally, several commenters pointed out the practical implications of the study for both managers and employees. They suggested that managers should be mindful of their own biases and strive to create clear guidelines about which rules are flexible and which are non-negotiable. Employees, on the other hand, should carefully consider the potential consequences before breaking any rules and ensure that their actions are aligned with the organization's overall goals.