Skip to content(if available)orjump to list(if available)

Most technical problems are people problems

woodylondon

100% agree. Sadly, I have realised fewer people actually give an F than you realise; for some, it's just a paycheck. I am not sure what has happened over the decades regarding actually being proud of the work you produce.

I also think they tend to be the older ones among us who have seen what happens when it all goes wrong, and the stack comes tumbling down, and so want to make sure you don't end up in that position again. Covers all areas of IT from Cyber, DR, not just software.

When I have moved between places, I always try to ensure we have a clear set of guidelines in my initial 90-day plan, but it all comes back to the team.

It's been 50/50: some teams are desperate for any change, and others will do everything possible to destroy what you're trying to do. Or you have a leader above who has no idea and goes with the quickest/cheapest option.

The trick is to work this out VERY quickly!

However, when it does go really wrong, I assume most have followed the UK Post Office saga in the UK around the software bug(s) that sent people to prison, suicides, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal

I am pretty sure there would have been a small group (or at least one) of tech people in there who knew all of this and tried to get it fixed, but were blocked at every level. No idea - but suspect.

hnthrow0287345

>I am not sure what has happened over the decades regarding actually being proud of the work you produce.

Because there's still people doing less work than you do for a bigger paycheck

Because you'd get fired or laid off for someone working for 1/2 to 1/4th of your pay

Because they make you jump through multiple rounds of interviews and technical tests while people above you have a far less barrier to being hired

Because someone stole credit for your work

Because you'd get re-hired and find a mountain of shit code from a company that off shored their dev team

Because companies stopped giving significant raises that didn't keep up with major inflation in the past few years, while your work might have gotten them many multiples more of profits

Idk it's just a mystery we'll never know

wccrawford

What happened is that most companies do not care about their employees, and their employees know it.

If anything happens, the company will lay off people without a care for what happens to them.

Even when they do care, such as in a smaller company, their own paycheck is being weighed against the employees, and they will almost always pick themselves, even if they caused the problems.

CEOs making millions while they lay off massive amounts of people is the norm now, and everyone knows it.

You can't blame the employee for not caring. They didn't start it.

1718627440

> they will almost always pick themselves, even if they caused the problems.

And that exactly used to be different and still is in small companies.

Noaidi

> for some, it's just a paycheck.

What is wrong with just wanting to work for money?

> I am not sure what has happened over the decades regarding actually being proud of the work you produce.

Maybe if wages kept up with inflation people would still care. You know, when I was young, I was able to rent an apartment while being a cashier in a grocery store.

wccrawford

Ethically? Nothing.

Socially and emotionally? It's brutal. For both the employee and society in general.

Spending almost half their waking hours not caring is not good for people.

zwnow

Give us a reason to care. It's that simple.

zwnow

Work is just a paycheck because I am just a number for my employer. Why would I be proud of my work when apparently according to management I should be replaced by AI at some point because im just a cost factor. Why would I care about the business at that point? Fuck the higher ups, I'll be proud of my work and actually put in effort if I can afford a house.

woadwarrior01

Incidentally, in Adlerian psychology; all problems are considered people problems.

anonu

> Most Technical Problems Are Really People Problems

The irony is that this is a classic engineer's take on the root cause of technical debt. Engineers are happy to be heads-down building. But when you get to a team size >1, you actually need to communicate - and ideally not just through a kanban board.

IAmBroom

Reading the article, I'll note the author has chosen to format hyperlinks with dark grey font on a black background.

It comes as no surprise that a worker unit who makes this conscious decision might have problems interfacing with a Homo sapiens unit.

jl6

This is why communication skill is the most important differentiator between a senior dev and a junior dev.

zaphar

I think I'm mostly of the opinion these days that there is no such thing as an "outdated technology". There are technologies that are no longer fit for purpose but that is almost never because of their age. It nearly always because of one of as examples: Needing to run in an environment it can't support, Having bugs that are not getting fixed/no longer maintained, Missing features necessary to solve new problems or add new features, Hitting scale limits.

Outdated may sometimes be a euphemism for one of the above but usually when I see it in a discussion it just means "old" or "out of fashion" instead.

amonith

I'd also add "there are almost no developers using it on the job market" to the list why some technologies are no longer fit for purpose. It's a major one. Sort of tied to the ecosystem (no devs - not many things get mantained/created).

quadrifoliate

> Most technical problems are really people problems. Think about it. Why does technical debt exist? Because requirements weren't properly clarified before work began. Because a salesperson promised an unrealistic deadline to a customer. Because a developer chose an outdated technology because it was comfortable.

I used to be a "stay out of politics" developer. After a few years in the industry and move to a PM role, I have had the benefit of being a bit more detached. What I noticed was that intra-developer politics are sometimes way more entrenched and stubborn than other areas of the business.

Sure, business divisions have infighting and politics but at the end of the day those are tempered by the market. It's far harder to market test Ruby Versus Java in a reasonable manner, especially when you have proponents in both camps singing the praises of their favored technology in a quasi-religious manner. And yes, I have also seen the "Why would I learn anything new, <Technology X> works for me, why would I take the effort to learn a new thing" attitudes in a large number of coworkers, even the younger Gen-Z ones.

N_Lens

Isn't this generally the case across all sectors and industries? We have the technology today to create a post scarcity utopia, to reverse climate change, to restore the biosphere. The fact that none of that happens is a people problem, a political problem, a spiritual problem, more so than any technological barrier.

roxolotl

Yea this is true of virtually all problems today. It's one of the blind spots of the AI acceleration crowd. Cancer vaccine discovered by GPT-6? You still have to convince people it's safe. Fusion reactor modeled by Gemini? Convince people it's not that kind of nuclear power. Global Engineering solution for climate change? Well it might look like chemtrails but it's not. Implementation of all of these things in a society is always going to be hard.

I think this is a large factor in the turn towards more authoritarian tendencies in the Silicon Valley elites. They spent the 2000s and 2010s as a bit more utopian and laissez faire and saw it got them almost nowhere because of technology doesn't solve people problems.

Noaidi

People are not problems. This is sociopath talk. This is why they want to replace you with AI, they see you as the problem.

magicmicah85

That's not what the article was about. It's about people failing to communicate.