This phrase creeps me out. It reads like you're putting a thin veneer of "corporate happyface" over a heart of "STFU and do as you're told, children".
Maybe that wasn't the intention, but still... that's how it sounds.
>Precipitating new conversations with strong implication there’s a better way is less welcome.
Provided you are thick skinned enough not to take offense I don't see the problem.
I've had conversations like this with juniors where they want to rewrite everything and I usually drill in to what they're saying using a kind of socratic questioning method and get them to explain on a deeper level what they think the benefits and costs of the approach they're describing is.
This process is both instructive (juniors are typically pretty bad at cost/benefit analyses, and need to learn) and it makes them feel like they're being listened to. Usually it ends up with an agreement about how to proceed - which is often "good, but not high priority idea but let's put it on the back burner" and is sometimes "bad idea, actually, but that's ok".
IME you get jaded and burned out people much quicker by instinctively rejecting suggestions and telling them to knuckle under, do as they're told and not speak out of turn until they've "earned" the right to do so. That's also a fantastic way of keeping genuinely good ideas and salient observations under wraps.
>they definitely need at least a year before they understand the problem space well enough for their offers of major architecture changes to be welcome.
IME, hubris usually correlates with architectural problems and higher than normal technical debt.
I can't see any good reason to analyze ideas about architectural overhauls on anything other than their technical merits. If there's a reason relating to the problem space for rejecting one particular idea that's fine, but unless your architecture is completely fucked that should be very rare.
It's perfectly normal to tear out the badly written guts of a software system and build up a better version, and a deep understanding of requirements should not really be required to do that in most cases.
>disorganized workplaces run by a paranoid manager (all too common)
You basically can't win in a place like this. It's better to keep your head down and leave as soon as you can and try to see the warning signs before taking the job in future.
>there's a need for a tool that will automate and enforce git workflows. Beyond branches and remotes?
Yeah, because most branching and merging in a team setting follows a policy. That branch/merge strategy (and naming) is based upon a whole host of things including testing strategies, release schedules, issue tracker used, code review policies, how much you need bisect, etc.
Git is entirely indifferent to those workflows and is as happy to let you follow it as it is to let you commit and push directly to the master branch with a commit message of "fixed shit".
>Checking out branches and git add/status/diff/commit/push is that time consuming not only would you need to create a shortcut, other devs would opt-in to it?
Yeah, when you add stashing, changing to the correct branches, rebasing and pushing, changing back and unstashing it actually does get tedious, especially since I needed to run it about 20 times a day.
I actually didn't even create the script for them originally, I created it for me and they just started using it.
>This is what irks me. I view git as high level and opinionated already
However high level you think it is, it has no opinion on workflows and there's a need for a tool that will automate and enforce git workflows.
I'm not sure if this tool the answer, but there is a need for some sort of tool like this.
I wrote a hacky 'git sync' script at an old company and it achieved what sending a bunch of developers on a course about git did not (it sped up the workflow and cut down on git errors).
"Problems With Precision and Judgment, but Not Integrity"
The New York Times is hardly going to come out themselves and admit that they have a problem with integrity are they?
The sheer number of inaccuracies and the fact that they all cast Tesla in a poor light in this case was pretty telling, as were the financial incentives (Big 3 pay NYT's bills, Tesla doesn't).
"To be honest, those shills on Reddit tend to be pretty obvious"
It's often difficult to distinguish between people who are first-order shills and people who have just swallowed and regurgitated piece of PR from elsewhere.
There's an equally overzealous tendency of the big three to knock him. E.g. the time when the New York Times reviewer John Broder (probably acting on behalf of some of their best advertiser-customers) wrote the review with ~9 coincidentally unfavorable inaccuracies described here: https://www.tesla.com/blog/most-peculiar-test-drive
I suspect more social media shilling is paid for by the big three than by Tesla.
Even if you don't do much actual programming you need to be the one that monitors and accepts all pull requests.
That also means taking responsibility for any of the subsequent angry users because you merged that code and you could have stopped it.
Keeping an eye on pull requests also means gently guiding the junior devs to amend their code when they head down the wrong path (e.g. by pairing with them) rather than just rejecting it outright or (worse), writing a snarky comment.
This phrase creeps me out. It reads like you're putting a thin veneer of "corporate happyface" over a heart of "STFU and do as you're told, children".
Maybe that wasn't the intention, but still... that's how it sounds.
>Precipitating new conversations with strong implication there’s a better way is less welcome.
Provided you are thick skinned enough not to take offense I don't see the problem.
I've had conversations like this with juniors where they want to rewrite everything and I usually drill in to what they're saying using a kind of socratic questioning method and get them to explain on a deeper level what they think the benefits and costs of the approach they're describing is.
This process is both instructive (juniors are typically pretty bad at cost/benefit analyses, and need to learn) and it makes them feel like they're being listened to. Usually it ends up with an agreement about how to proceed - which is often "good, but not high priority idea but let's put it on the back burner" and is sometimes "bad idea, actually, but that's ok".
IME you get jaded and burned out people much quicker by instinctively rejecting suggestions and telling them to knuckle under, do as they're told and not speak out of turn until they've "earned" the right to do so. That's also a fantastic way of keeping genuinely good ideas and salient observations under wraps.