@macf00bar@hachyderm.io

Reinhard Lackner @macf00bar@hachyderm.io

· 1w ago

grad wurd mir das YT Video in meine timeline gespült. hier mein coment dazu:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4Zr7pmaqlY

Da kommt sinngemäß die Idee auf, Politik wäre besser, wenn dort mehr Leute säßen, die einen Beruf gelernt, in der freien Wirtschaft gearbeitet und Verantwortung übernommen haben.

Und da verliere ich sie ein bissl.

Berufserfahrung außerhalb der Politik ist wertvoll. Aber Demokratie heißt doch nicht, dass Wirtschaftserfahrung eine Eintrittskarte für politische Kompetenz ist.

Ja, ich will dort Unternehmer und Leute mit Managementerfahrung. Aber genauso Lehrer, Pflegekräfte, Wissenschaftler, Beamte, Arbeiter, Selbstständige, Juristen, Sozialarbeiter usw.

Sonst wird politische Repräsentation zum Recruitingverfahren für Geschäftsführer.

Ein Unternehmen zu führen ist auch nicht dasselbe wie einen demokratischen Staat zu führen. Politik heißt, Interessen auszuhandeln, Mehrheiten zu finden, Kompromisse zu schließen und sich gegenüber allen zu verantworten. Auch gegenüber jenen, die einen nicht gewählt haben.

Mein größeres Problem liegt woanders:

Why the fuck sollte sich ein vernünftiger, kompetenter Mensch Politik heute überhaupt noch antun?

Nicht nur wegen Social Media oder öffentlicher Beschimpfung. Sondern teilweise wegen der eigenen Partei.

Mitterlehner/Kern ist für mich ein gutes Beispiel. Wenn politische Erfolge unerwünscht werden, weil jemand innerhalb der eigenen Partei davon profitiert (hüst, hüst, Kurz), wenn Regierung oder Parteichef scheitern, dann haben wir ein Incentive-Problem, kein Lebenslauf-Problem.

Und die SPÖ demonstriert dieses Problem seit Jahren selbst.

Natürlich braucht eine Partei inneren Diskurs. Bitte darum sogar! Aber irgendwann muss man sich fragen, ob man Differenzen austrägt oder sich gegenseitig so lange die Beine wegzieht, bis von der eigenen Partei nichts mehr übrig ist.

Neuer SPÖ-Slogan:
„Keine Sorge, liebe politische Konkurrenz. Wenn gerade niemand gegen uns arbeitet, erledigen wir das schon selber.“

FFS!

Wir brauchen nicht einfach „mehr Leute aus der Wirtschaft“, sondern unterschiedliche Leute mit Kompetenz, Erfahrung, viel Rückgrat und Ideen.

Und eine politische Kultur, in der solche Leute nicht nach fünf Minuten feststellen:

„Fuck this shit. Warum sollte ich mir das antun?“

1

0

Reinhard Lackner @macf00bar@hachyderm.io

· 8mo ago

Just watched a Mark & Scott segment (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-3I1mLYkxU
) poking at the “apps are dead / SaaS is dead / UX is dead, it’s all just chat now” idea, and it landed for me more than I expected.

What they’re really arguing (I think) is about where you put certainty. If something is repetitive and has real stakes, money, security, compliance, even just “don’t embarrass me,” you don’t want the workflow to live in a conversation you have to recreate from scratch every time. You want the boring version: a stable flow, clear steps, predictable outcomes. If there’s one fuzzy step (like turning a receipt into text), fine, but the rest should be locked down.

The expense report rant is a great example because it’s not even a tech problem, it’s a systems problem. The “solution” shouldn’t be “teach an assistant to click around my terrible UI.” It should be “why does this process still exist like this?” Why are receipts still photos? Why isn’t the transaction data coming straight from the card provider? The automation is kind of impressive, but it also feels like treating symptoms while the disease keeps partying.

They also call out travel booking as the same category: stuff where small errors are expensive. And the “chat is the new interface” take falls apart once you remember that humans still need review screens, structured input, and guardrails. They mention tools that generate little choice menus on the fly, which is interesting (it blurs the line), but it doesn’t change the core point: if you do it often, you should bottle it into something dependable.

Verdict: “please don’t replace good software with vibes.” Enjoyed it.

#software #ux #saas #product #dev
@markrussinovich@bird.makeup
@shanselman@hachyderm.io

19

0

4

1

Reinhard Lackner @macf00bar@hachyderm.io

· 3mo ago

Replying to

@AinsleyLowbeer@mastodon.social oh my friend, you couldn't have been further from the truth! LoL! Why you'd actually come to the conclusion that this has anything to do with the company this awesome individual is currently working for?! You do know Scotts podcast, right? Do you even know who taf this Person is?

4

1

0

Reinhard Lackner @macf00bar@hachyderm.io

· 8mo ago

Replying to on mastodon.social

@taylorlorenz@mastodon.social The strongest pitch isn't "more free speech." It's "you get to choose who sets the rules." That's the real difference. On Twitter, one guy decides what flies. On Mastodon, you pick your community or run your own server. Don't like the moderation? Move to another instance and keep your connections. Nobody pulls the rug out from under you. The email analogy works best on TV: imagine if email only worked on Gmail and Google could nuke your account tomorrow with no appeal. That's centralized social media. The fediverse works like email already does. Pick any provider, talk to everyone. People live with a successful federated system every day without thinking about it. No algorithm deciding what you see to maximize engagement. No ad machine that needs you angry to make money. Your feed is chronological, your data stays yours. Honest caveat though: the "free expression" angle can backfire. Each instance has its own rules, and instances can cut each other off. Some corners of the fediverse are stricter than Twitter ever was. The difference is those rules are community-chosen, not handed down by a trust & safety team optimizing for advertiser comfort. That distinction matters, but it's not "anything goes" and pretending otherwise loses credibility fast. If I had 30 seconds on TV I'd say: "The internet was designed so nobody owns it. Social media broke that promise. The fediverse fixes it. Pick your server like you pick your email provider, talk to the whole network, and if you don't like the house rules, you move. You don't lose everything."

10

0

6

0

Reinhard Lackner @macf00bar@hachyderm.io

· 7mo ago

Replying to

@shanselman@hachyderm.io Scott, the paper frames the problem well but undersells one angle: the mid-tier. There is a huge population of devs who are not senior by title or years but have deep domain knowledge from living inside a product or industry for a long time. Those people get just as much of a boost as seniors, sometimes more, because they know exactly what to ask for and what to reject. The binary of "senior vs EiC" misses that. The preceptorship model is solid in theory but I am not sure it addresses the deeper problem. My wife teaches first semester procedural programming and second semester OOP at university level. She switched to an inverse classroom model, students are engaged in lectures, homework comes back looking good, no questions, no pushback. Then exam time hits and the majority fails. My suspicion is that LLM generated homework mimics what a professor would expect closely enough that it does not flag as plagiarism, but the students never actually internalized the material. The cognitive debt from the paper is already showing up in education before these people even enter the workforce. And from what I see with EiC colleagues who are already working: they use LLMs heavily on a daily basis with the same prompt-and-accept pattern. If that habit is already baked in by the time they start their first job, I am not confident a preceptorship program changes the dynamic. The mentor can explain and guide, but if the junior has no instinct to question AI output because they never built that muscle in school, you are fighting uphill. The core thesis is right: stop growing juniors and you run out of seniors. But the pipeline problem might start earlier than the paper assumes, at the education level, not the first job.

5

1

3

0

Reinhard Lackner @macf00bar@hachyderm.io

· 5mo ago

Replying to

@Unixbigot@aus.social in a stern, commanding voice: "WITHOUT ME, MY OH SHIT KIT IS USELESS. WITHOUT MY OH SHIT KIT, I AM ALSO USELESS, BUT WITH BETTER LABELING. I SHALL NAME IT CHARLENE AND DEPLOY IT ONLY UNDER LEVEL 5 OH SHIT CONDITIONS."

2

0

Reinhard Lackner @macf00bar@hachyderm.io

· 7mo ago

Replying to

@shanselman@hachyderm.io Following up on the "senior vs EiC" framing: I think domain experts deserve a closer look here. Someone with deep domain knowledge who can produce specs that verify outcomes in a consistent, non-gameable way (think end-to-end acceptance criteria where the testing logic is not leaked to the LLM so it cannot optimize for passing while missing the point) is arguably doing the hardest part of the job. They are defining what correct looks like under real conditions. That is the exact skill the paper identifies as the bottleneck: verification. But it roots that skill in engineering seniority when in practice it often lives with the person who knows the domain cold. Implementation is what AI is getting good at. Knowing whether the result actually solves the real problem is not an engineering judgment call, it is a domain judgment call. The concession is that for things like concurrency, security architecture, and systems design, domain knowledge alone is not enough. But for a large share of actual product work, the person who can say "here is what done looks like, prove it without seeing my rubric" is more valuable than the person who can write the code. The paper's hierarchy flips in those contexts. So the talent model is not a pyramid with seniors at the top and EiCs at the bottom. It is more like a matrix where domain depth and engineering depth are separate axes, and AI compresses the engineering axis while making the domain axis more important than ever.

2

0

Reinhard Lackner @macf00bar@hachyderm.io

· 9mo ago

Replying to

@julijane@ruhr.social or, there's the possibility to put socks over your shoes. sounds funny, but isn't.

2

1

0

Reinhard Lackner @macf00bar@hachyderm.io

· 6mo ago

Replying to

@khalidabuhakmeh@mastodon.social oh, and just to be clear, adding a glossary applies to any overused acronyms in any language.

1

0

Reinhard Lackner @macf00bar@hachyderm.io

· 6mo ago

Replying to

@khalidabuhakmeh@mastodon.social even after living abroad and getting so used to english that I was dreaming in it, I still think acronyms are overused. If need be, at least include a glossary.

1

0

Reinhard Lackner @macf00bar@hachyderm.io

· 42mo ago

Replying to

@patagona@chaos.social wow, didn't know usb floppies existed @leyrer@chaos.social schau mal

1

0

Reinhard Lackner @macf00bar@hachyderm.io

· 8mo ago

Replying to

@hazelweakly have you checked out Scott Hanselmans blog yet: https://www.hanselman.com/blog/one-email-rule-have-a-separate-inbox-and-an-inbox-cc-to-reduce-email-stress-guaranteed (check out also the link to an older version of it here https://www.hanselman.com/blog/the-three-most-important-outlook-rules-for-processing-mail )

hanselman.com

One Email Rule - Have a separate Inbox and an Inbox CC to reduce email stress. Guaranteed.

I've mentioned this tip before but once more for the folks in the back. This ...

0

2

0

Reinhard Lackner @macf00bar@hachyderm.io

· 8mo ago

Replying to

@hazelweakly the only thing I changed lately was to get rid of all sub folders and automatic rules to move them based on sender/subject and if I'm in the to or just cc and if I'm the only recipient etc. My rules now follow loosely what Scott promotes with To-Inbox, CC-Inbox and some conditional formatting (different colours for certain sender and/or groups). And I delete stuff where I'm only in cc and there are many more on the cc. I only keep them if I'm mentioned in the body directly.

0