> I apologize. I believe you may have misunderstood brevity for cynicism.These are systemic problems. There are no bad actors and everybody means well.
I, too, apologize, as I didn't mean to suggest your were implying malice. I meant cynicism in its fairly strict/traditional sense of presuming action based on (primarily or exclusively) self-interest. Being self-interested doesn't automatically mean someone is a bad actor.
Thinking further, I would object even to the brevity, since it appears to dismiss (or oversimplify) the supporters' motivations.
> The other major thing I've learned in this area, from my own work with tech groups instead of HN, is that people like doing what people like doing. That is, given their druthers, people will always drift back to doing certain types of things.
I absolutely agree, and I also think that, more importantly, the converse applies, hence my remark about people not wanting to do X.
> we've managed to take everything we've touched, split it into smaller pieces, and make them complicated. It's what we like doing. Over many years, this means that any significant tech effort contains dozens of skillsets, all of which can be very complex. This number continues increasing.
I disagree. There seems to be little evidence of it. We may have constantly shifting sub-specialties based on currently popular tools, but, for example, programmers are still programmers.
I don't believe there was ever a time of Renaissance Man tech folks, where the same person could build a computer from silicon and then program it equally competently.
> Because X is a skill, not a role. If you transition from "jobs require these roles" to "jobs require these skills", and you let the problem drive your learning and adaptation, it all works out.
I don't get it, I'm afraid. Is there more to "skill not a role" than semantics? Even the statement "jobs require these roles" sounds awkward because its just too many words. The job is the role, so no transition needed. I'm pretty sure it's already understood that the job/role requires those skills, but, more importantly, is primarily (or even exclusively) about those skills. For people who want to do X (as well as for those who want to avoid X, even if they possess some of the skill), that can be important.
I, too, apologize, as I didn't mean to suggest your were implying malice. I meant cynicism in its fairly strict/traditional sense of presuming action based on (primarily or exclusively) self-interest. Being self-interested doesn't automatically mean someone is a bad actor.
Thinking further, I would object even to the brevity, since it appears to dismiss (or oversimplify) the supporters' motivations.
> The other major thing I've learned in this area, from my own work with tech groups instead of HN, is that people like doing what people like doing. That is, given their druthers, people will always drift back to doing certain types of things.
I absolutely agree, and I also think that, more importantly, the converse applies, hence my remark about people not wanting to do X.
> we've managed to take everything we've touched, split it into smaller pieces, and make them complicated. It's what we like doing. Over many years, this means that any significant tech effort contains dozens of skillsets, all of which can be very complex. This number continues increasing.
I disagree. There seems to be little evidence of it. We may have constantly shifting sub-specialties based on currently popular tools, but, for example, programmers are still programmers.
I don't believe there was ever a time of Renaissance Man tech folks, where the same person could build a computer from silicon and then program it equally competently.
> Because X is a skill, not a role. If you transition from "jobs require these roles" to "jobs require these skills", and you let the problem drive your learning and adaptation, it all works out.
I don't get it, I'm afraid. Is there more to "skill not a role" than semantics? Even the statement "jobs require these roles" sounds awkward because its just too many words. The job is the role, so no transition needed. I'm pretty sure it's already understood that the job/role requires those skills, but, more importantly, is primarily (or even exclusively) about those skills. For people who want to do X (as well as for those who want to avoid X, even if they possess some of the skill), that can be important.