fat punk, musician, guitarist, metalhead, diabetic, possibly carpal tunneled.
King Shit Post (read: owner) of Killing eSports Racing Southeast (@KeRSapocryphal (on twitter)).
30 or 40 years old and do not need this.
music production, computer games, webdev, liberal arts (media analysis), possible trackmania & simracing esports stuff.


cathoderaydude
@cathoderaydude

comment I just made in a chat, regarding coworkers making no effort to keep email threads readable:

It's wild how Coworkers are always oblivious. Invariably, everyone you ever speak to as a direct acquaintance will be the only person that they work with who pays any attention to their environment or surroundings, or actually looks at the effect of what they're doing, or thinks about taking actions that would make their job easier or their work cleaner. There's only ever one person, and that's the person you know, and somehow every other employee at that entire company is just utterly oblivious.

it's been that way everywhere I've worked. anyone else I talk to about i.e. "hey maybe we should stop using our full signatures on every single message, so email threads are more readable" looks at me like a Martian; I gave up years ago. They hate the way emails look, I can watch them on a screenshare struggling to find a simple piece of information in an email because 95% of the space is taken up by the same signature over and over and over, and the actual data is relegated to hard-to-parse lines of text tucked in between these huge, useless boilerplates. They obviously don't like how this is working, but they seem incapable of recognizing that it frustrates them.

The email thing is just an example, there are hundreds of problems at every job I've worked at that that would be simple to fix if people would just think for a second about what irritates them or slows down their work, but they won't even acknowledge that the problem exists even if it's right in front of them, and I just don't understand how I could be the only person who can see this, or how My immediate friends can be the only people at each of their employers that can see problems like this. The probabilities just don't make sense.


apocryphalmess
@apocryphalmess

in my experience, the majority of people in the world do not look at systems, only the immediate happenstance. even people whose job descriptions are “build and maintain this large, complicated system” are usually unwilling or unable to look at a system as a whole, but must instead look at each individual part as if it was a discrete thing, leading to the kinds of technology and organizational failures we’re all so familiar with. you can show them things like “How Complex Systems Fail” and it will have absolutely no effect because they simply cannot model a system in their minds

this doesn’t appear to have anything to do with being neurodivergent vs being neurotypical, being from a technical background, etc. it’s a specific kind of intelligence that isn’t even necessarily tied to memory, but is closed related to problem-solving. it feels like it should be related to spatial awareness but it isn’t; I’ve known a number of people who are terrible at directions and are completely lost trying to interpret maps, but who are otherwise quite capable of modeling (for example) a complicated social structure in their heads. it’s entirely disconnected from math, too

as our world becomes more reliant on huge, interconnected, complicated systems, more and more people are just going to end up completely lost because they are either incapable of modeling a system, have never been taught how to do so, or find it in their best economic interest to simply ignore everything outside of their immediate perceptions

as to why it seems like it’s just your friends and close acquaintances who can see the flaws in the machinery, I think there’s two possibilities:

  1. queer folks tend to be able to break out of simplistic, “this is how things are” viewpoints, for obvious reasons. clearly there are exceptions, and being very wealthy means you can simply buy yourself the world you want instead of figuring out how it works, but being able to realize that you are not what your label says you are requires a bare minimum capability to understand that the map is not the territory

  2. the kinds of people you (and I) like to talk to and hang out with are people who are not dumb as a box of hair, so there’s some selection for minimal comprehension going on here as well. after a certain age, you’ve filtered out all the dumbasses you used to hang out with just because you shared hobbies

the downside of being able to model complicated systems is that the world is even more terrible due to it being understandable. “horrors beyond your comprehension” are mild compared to the horrors you can understand but cannot fix. being able to look at the food you eat and understand what had to happen for it to arrive on your table is not a blessing in the world we live in

this was longer than intended



You must log in to comment.

in reply to @cathoderaydude's post:

At my office job we were Required to Have Signatures, so if we had to send something to corporate or a different office or whatever it could be tracked easier, but it meant that intraoffice emails could get long by just signatures because honestly, it was just set it and forget it. Turn on automatic signatures and then you work on glazing over the signatures of your coworker or manager three rows over.

The pseudo-funny thing about corporate where i work is that the signatures are mandatory, includes image and full color content, and are non-optionally added to every messages, including replies and transfers.

And to make things even more interested, we don't really have access to a proper computer during work hours, so all communications aimed at us, forklift drivers, have to be printed. And because of corporate cost-saving policies, duplex printing is always-on.

And to add to the fun, people often load the printer with the pre-cut sheets that are used to make 6 price tags out of one letter-sized page.

So if we're lucky, we end up with a 20-page document consisting of mostly signatures and headers, with fragments of information spread through the mess, often on the other side of one page.

If we're unlucky, we end up with 120 little paper rectangles with text fragments on both sides, that we have to put together like a puzzle and tape into a solid document so that they can be flipped over and read on both sides.

And somehow, this is normal.

in reply to @apocryphalmess's post:

trying to model the way competitive MTG is played in your head is like understanding the entire instruction set for a modern CPU. MTG is literally Turing-complete and you should not feel bad about not getting it

obviously it's possible but you will probably have to carve out some part of your brain to make space for it; I used to know a CPU architect who no longer understood what clothes were acceptable to wear in public because that part of his head was now dedicated to x86 opcodes

for the people who don't understand it, i don't think it's "people can't model it", i think it's more of a "it doesn't fit into their usual model that works 95% of the time, and they cannot be bothered to change things."

i think people struggle with them because "no-one wants to eat their vegetables". a complex system is one where the usual tactics fail, and people always want to try the usual tactics first, just in case, even if you know they're pointless.

i've bumped into many a programmer who have asked "how do i avoid race conditions", and not many of them like the answer "be explicit about the order of your operations".

it's much easier to shift the locks around until the problem goes away, than it is to actually understand what the program is meant to do, and re-express that in a deterministic, causal manner. it's much easier to do the change your boss asked for, and hope someone else gets the bug to fix.

it's not just "systems problems require more work to fix", a systems problem can be quite hard to put it into words, too. look up anything on "systems thinking" and you'll find something nigh-indistinguishable from word salad.

that's why I don't think it's a "people can't model these things", I think it's a "people don't want to model things like this, it takes a lot of work, and convincing people it's worthwhile is exhausting." and "these are just hard problems, too"

besides, i've seen a lot of systems thinking people struggle with other topics.

find some people who are great at debugging a film noir style distributed system—using nothing but a trace log, grep, and two printf statements—and you'll find the very same people yelling "i literally don't understand why anyone would do this"

I get what you're saying here, and in hindsight when I described some people who:

find it in their best economic interest to simply ignore everything outside of their immediate perceptions

I should have generalized this to include folks who have other motivations to ignore the complexity of larger systems in favor of their own preferred solutions or their own simplified model, whether they're aware of why they're making these choices or not

some people can't model a large, complex system; some people just don't for a variety of reasons, including the ones you mention. I don't disagree with any of your points, really

also, just to be clear, my original post was intended to be less about software development and more about processes and structures within organizations. there's overlap there but it's not one-to-one IMO

in reply to @amydentata's post:

Seeing the systemic problems and knowing how to fix them, now that's the easy part. Convincing people with the power to implement those fixes to do so, well... nothing has ever been harder.