6 ms·

nowadays if you design anything at all that has an end-user component you'll spend at least as much time at making it jerk-proof and doing all kinds of abuse an

nowadays if you design anything at all that has an end-user component you'll spend at least as much time at making it jerk-proof and doing all kinds of abuse analysis http://www.google.com/search?q=%22always+blames+his+tools%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22always+blames+his+tools%22 Echoes of Kozmo: http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/14/technology/kozmo_redux http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/14/technology/kozmo_redux No more 50-cent deliveries [...] Customers of Kozmo.com who fondly remember getting single pints of ice cream delivered on a whim won't get off that easy this time. MaxDelivery has a $10 minimum order, and there's a $4.95 delivery charge for orders under $50. Siragusa said this is to keep customers from abusing the system, as they did with Kozmo, and he says MaxDelivery's average order size is much different than Kozmo's. "Someone ordered a pack of Mentos. Then two hours later they'd order a pint of ice cream," said Siragusa. "People did this because there was no penalty. Kozmo had a number of orders that were unprofitable." Kozmo's founders designed its system to reward customers for making frequent low-value orders. When the customer base responded in a way that should have been predicted by the Kozmo founders, instead of recognizing and fixing their error, those founders instead called it "abuse".

RiderOfGiraffes 18y ago
I'm perplexed by your implied comment that having to spend time making your product jerk-proof and performing abuse analysis is only done by poor workmen. It seems to me that work must be done to create value, and work must be done to make the system idiot proof (despite the continuing ingenuity of idiots), and this is true regardless of the talent and abilities of those producing the service or product.
- gravitycop 18y ago
  I'm perplexed Work (value creation) can be more or less efficient. As stated, an inefficient workman blames his tools, instead of the way he is going about his work. In this case, and often in other cases, the customer base forms part of the toolset. The workman is saying that his tools are not doing what they are supposed to be doing, and that it is their fault. Here is more on this phenomenon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control Internals tend to attribute outcomes of events to their own control. Externals attribute outcomes of events to external circumstances. In the present case, the customer base would be seen as uncontrollable (only susceptible to external control) by the inefficient workman, and controllable (susceptible to internal control) by the efficient workman. work must be done to create value [...] regardless of [...] talent and abilities Yes. But do you mean, as Marxists contend, that variance in ability plays little or no role in variance in the efficiency of the work?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value#Marx.27s_contribution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value#Marx.27s_...
  - jacquesm 18y ago
    I can't figure out if you're just a very clever troll or someone that has something to contribute, if the former, then congratulations, well played but it does not really help the conversation, if the latter then maybe you should try to make your point in smaller steps so that lesser minds like mine can make sense of what you are trying to communicate.
  - RiderOfGiraffes 18y ago
    In this case ... the customer base forms part of the toolset. I do not subscribe to this theory. Toolsets can be changed, improved or mastered. I can do none of these with my customers. I can only do it with the things I use to create my services. I use tools to create services to assist my customers. Calling my customers "tools" does not help me. The workman is saying that his tools are not doing what they are supposed to be doing, and that it is their fault. I disagree with this analysis. The workman is saying that there are (usually a small number of) customers who require that the services be more complex in their implementation than might otherwise be expected. This is not the same thing. I know that around 80% to 90% of my customers never provoke the inbuilt protection systems in my code. The protection systems account for about 50% of my code. I have measured these things because I work in the defense industry. I know that around half my code is there because up to 20% of my customers don't use the system the way it was intended to be used. Whether this is lack of training, lack of awarenes, or malice doesn't matter. I don't "blame" them, but I know that if my customers only did what they were shown in training, and didn't do what they are trained not to do, 50% of my code would be unnecessary. But do you mean, as Marxists contend, that variance in ability plays little or no role in variance in the efficiency of the work? Of course not. I mean that for every worker, some of their work is producing features and facilities, and some of their work is protecting against inappropriate actions. The balance between these two might change with the abilities of the workers, but I suspect not much. It's a pretty constant ratio across my programmers. To assume what you seem to have assumed from what I have said is, again, perplexing. Perhaps we constantly talk past each other, but I'm finding it difficult in general to understand your mindset.
    - gravitycop 18y ago

RiderOfGiraffes 18y ago

I'm perplexed by your implied comment that having to spend time making your product jerk-proof and performing abuse analysis is only done by poor workmen. It seems to me that work must be done to create value, and work must be done to make the system idiot proof (despite the continuing ingenuity of idiots), and this is true regardless of the talent and abilities of those producing the service or product.

gravitycop 18y ago
I'm perplexed Work (value creation) can be more or less efficient. As stated, an inefficient workman blames his tools, instead of the way he is going about his work. In this case, and often in other cases, the customer base forms part of the toolset. The workman is saying that his tools are not doing what they are supposed to be doing, and that it is their fault. Here is more on this phenomenon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control Internals tend to attribute outcomes of events to their own control. Externals attribute outcomes of events to external circumstances. In the present case, the customer base would be seen as uncontrollable (only susceptible to external control) by the inefficient workman, and controllable (susceptible to internal control) by the efficient workman. work must be done to create value [...] regardless of [...] talent and abilities Yes. But do you mean, as Marxists contend, that variance in ability plays little or no role in variance in the efficiency of the work?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value#Marx.27s_contribution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value#Marx.27s_...
- jacquesm 18y ago
  I can't figure out if you're just a very clever troll or someone that has something to contribute, if the former, then congratulations, well played but it does not really help the conversation, if the latter then maybe you should try to make your point in smaller steps so that lesser minds like mine can make sense of what you are trying to communicate.
- RiderOfGiraffes 18y ago
  In this case ... the customer base forms part of the toolset. I do not subscribe to this theory. Toolsets can be changed, improved or mastered. I can do none of these with my customers. I can only do it with the things I use to create my services. I use tools to create services to assist my customers. Calling my customers "tools" does not help me. The workman is saying that his tools are not doing what they are supposed to be doing, and that it is their fault. I disagree with this analysis. The workman is saying that there are (usually a small number of) customers who require that the services be more complex in their implementation than might otherwise be expected. This is not the same thing. I know that around 80% to 90% of my customers never provoke the inbuilt protection systems in my code. The protection systems account for about 50% of my code. I have measured these things because I work in the defense industry. I know that around half my code is there because up to 20% of my customers don't use the system the way it was intended to be used. Whether this is lack of training, lack of awarenes, or malice doesn't matter. I don't "blame" them, but I know that if my customers only did what they were shown in training, and didn't do what they are trained not to do, 50% of my code would be unnecessary. But do you mean, as Marxists contend, that variance in ability plays little or no role in variance in the efficiency of the work? Of course not. I mean that for every worker, some of their work is producing features and facilities, and some of their work is protecting against inappropriate actions. The balance between these two might change with the abilities of the workers, but I suspect not much. It's a pretty constant ratio across my programmers. To assume what you seem to have assumed from what I have said is, again, perplexing. Perhaps we constantly talk past each other, but I'm finding it difficult in general to understand your mindset.
  - gravitycop 18y ago