Ah I C: takes lots fewer words when you already know several

Post #385,132 by Ashton 1/9/14 8:42:27 PM Reply	Ah I C: takes lots fewer words when you already know several of the back-stories and: that those converge, on pure-pithiness like Google's culture doesn't understand why you'd want to do that. MS's culture understands, but doesn't care. Shall try to stifle future naive efforts to comprehend more than a touch of this involuted/convoluted industry; I Mean: an 'industry' founded upon clear/workable ... massive! results: from Boolean Logic/applied. And yet.. an even enhanced-version of normal biz dissembling, anti-factual koans and just pure fabrications! ... Rulez. And Not merely the internal zeitgeist, but apparently: there's almost an algorithm for mis-information-Development (?) It is Indeed--much worse than my simple mind could guesstimate. Dunno HOW youse guys daily interface among the know-little-Suits, the know-more $-motivated S/W purveyors, the bald-faced obtuse and: somehow manage to keep a present System functioning ... in whatever time you have Left? for that. (Anyway, thanks for clearing-up the funny-but-devastatingly Cynical er, Real Mission (non-)Statements of merely TWO of these Too-big Not-to Lie mega-Corps.) It's no wonder that mere 'government' could not possibly peel away the onion-layers far enough to 'Regulate' any aspect of this jello-nailed-to-a-Wall of premeditated obfuscation. Hey!! Save Grey Cells! (they're all that's really-You) Get. Out. (I'll stick more to quantum electrodynamics.. it's simpler, amidst the first ten unfathomable topics.)
Post #385,142 by drook 1/10/14 8:35:21 AM Reply	No special insight here Just treat a company as a person and listen to what they say. What's the most-likely explanation? What story would they be telling themselves that would make them say what they're saying? -- Drew
Post #385,177 by Ashton 1/10/14 8:44:06 PM Reply	That's a useful start, but.. aren't these Mission-things always a committee+boilerplate contrived Statement? (I Mean: look at the bible--those various 'corrections' across the centuries: committees all!) And rarely it seems, is there actually a bug er fly-on-wall whereby you can give credence to a summary via hearing how they talk to each other. (Sometimes we get lucky, of course; someone jabbers under the influence of Affluenza and: we get an uncensored hint.) {sigh} In an 'information-based' New-world ... we're starving.
Post #385,182 by drook 1/10/14 9:53:29 PM Reply	Oh, I don't believe what they say It's a combination of taking user requirements and reading code. * Users rarely know what they need, and when they do they're likely to tell you something that they think will get them what they think they want. * When reading stupid code, I try to figure out, "What non-stupid reason would lead someone to do this?" Everyone has reasons for what they do, reasons that make sense to them. -- Drew
Post #385,334 by drook 1/15/14 7:38:22 PM Reply	Great description of what I (try to) do http://www.ribbonfar...dan-kartik-keith/ The act of refactoring is a revisiting, an attempt at understanding the pathways of thought that led to a particular result, and experiments in improving upon it. This is a sort of temporally-displaced empathy, putting yourself in past-youÂs shoes, or in the shoes of prior wayfarers. Choices that may appear perverse or horrifying from the outside may be found, on reflection, to be less unreasonable than first thought, as the technical limitations, skill limitations, or political constraints upon the original solution come to light. (The reverse may instead be true; choices you thought noble may turn out to have been thoroughly venal). -- Drew

Welcome to IWETHEY!