> why it is also weird that we'd rather have pay raises through switching companies than through internal raises

How does the saying go, something like “show me the incentives and I’ll show you the outcome?”

> That's like trying to fix the damage from the footgun with a footgun.

If you value your money/time/etc, wouldn't the best way to fix the damage from footguns be by preventing the damage to you in the first place by not being there if/when it goes off?

I think your point is well put, I’m just trying to follow your reasoning to a conclusion logical to me, though I don't know if mine is the most helpful framing. I didn’t pick the footgun metaphor, but it is a somewhat useful model here for explaining why people may act the way they do.

▲ ffsm8 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

The other thing about documentation is that it inevitably goes stale.

So the question becomes: is no documentation better or documentation that can be - potentially - entirely out of date, misleading or subtly wrong, because eg they documented the desired behavior vs actual behavior (or vice versa).

I'm generally pro documentation, I'm just fully aware that internal documentation the devs need to write themselves and for themselves... Very rarely gets treated with enough respect to be trustworthy.

So what it comes down to is one person spearheading the efforts for docs while the rest of the team constantly "forgets" it, until they decide it's not worth the effort as soon as the driving force either changes teams or gave up themself.

	▲	godelski 5 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		`> documentation is that it inevitably goes stale.` Of course! Just like the code itself. There's two helpful and minimal mitigating strategies here `1) dating/versioning Provides hints that they might be stale if we can identify if they're old. Easy to diff a function between versions when something seems wrong 2) In code documentation (e.g. docstrings) While not as good as a manual, it's not too difficult to write docstrings while coding.` But the unfortunate thing is that you just need to keep documents up to date. Docstrings only go so far. Also, I'm pretty certain we've all experienced a choice between two tools where our choice prioritized documentation. Docker is a great example (it's even RedHat's business model!). There's many container systems, many that can even do more! But take systemd-nspawn (and vm). Very poorly documented stuff and not many examples to learn from. I wanted to make that reminder because UX is important to the business.
	▲	aspenmayer 5 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I think there’s a natural tendency to want to document the process for those who have the work assigned to them, and some folks will self-assign it because they see the value. Knowledge transfer through technical writing doesn’t always manifest itself if it isn’t part of the work process at the time you have that in your mental context. It’s hard to have that context to write the docs if you’re context switching from working on something else or not involved at that level, so it’s hard to just drop in to add docs if there isn’t some framework for writing ad hoc docs for someone to fix up later. I don’t have experience at traditional employers though so I can’t speak authoritatively here. I’m used to contracts and individual folks and small business. Having human readable documents is important to me because I’m used to folks having things explained on their level, which requires teaching only what they need and want to know to get their work done. Some folks don’t even know what they need when they ask me for help, so that’s its own process of discovery and of documentation. I’m used to having to go to them where they are and where the issue is, so there was no typical day at the office or out of it. Whatever couldn’t fit through the door, I had to go to myself. I’ve had to preserve evidence of potential criminal wrongdoing and document our process. It taught me to keep notes and to write as I work. I think most places do have some kind of process for doing this, and I suspect the friction in doing the thing is part of the issue, and the fact that it’s difficult thankless work that doesn’t show up on most tracked metrics is part of the issue. If docs were mandated they would get done. If someone’s job was to make sure they were done well, that would help. I guess folks could step up and try to make that happen and that might be what it takes to make that happen.
	▲	MoreQARespect 5 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>The other thing about documentation is that it inevitably goes stale. Not if you generate reference docs from code and how-to docs from tests.

▲ godelski 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

  > How does the saying go, something like “show me the incentives and I’ll show you the outcome?”

I think you're trivializing this saying here. The incentives actually suggest you should raise wages of current employees more than new ones. Current ones are more valuable.

Of course, the issue is time. What timeframe are we measuring the incentives at.

You should pay current employees less iff either 1) time doesn't exist (or you are finding the instantaneous optimal solution) or 2) employees are fungible (institutional knowledge does not exist)

Otherwise, you should be trying harder to keep current employees because you recognize the value of institutional knowledge. You don't have to train current employees. Current employers don't have to get up to speed (which usually take a few months and can take years).

It's not a hard equation

  Costs:

  Existing employee: 
    +cost of raise

  New employee: 
    +salary of existing employee
    + raise
    - onboarding inefficiency * (t_n - t_0)
    - existing employee * (time they train)
    - costs to interview, hire, etc * (time to hire new person)

So yeah, if time doesn't exist, you're right, it is the incentives. But since it does, I disagree that they are

  > the best way to fix the damage from footguns be by preventing the damage to you in the first place by not being there if/when it goes off?

This implies that the footgun will inevitably fire. It also implies you can get out of the line of fire. But you can't get out of the way of a footgun. A footgun is something where you, the gun operator, shoot yourself in the foot.

My argument is that the best strategy is to ,,never fire'' the footgun.

Avhception gives a good visual analogy without using the word footgun[0]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44744167

▲ aspenmayer 5 days ago | parent [-]

> The incentives actually suggest you should raise wages of current employees more than new ones. Current ones are more valuable.

You should only do this if you have to in order to have better business outcomes. It may be better for the business to not do this, because the current employees will stay even if you don't pay them more, until they don't. So we have to find out what that point they will leave is by not paying some of them more when we otherwise ought to or would otherwise.

> This implies that the footgun will inevitably fire. It also implies you can get out of the line of fire. But you can't get out of the way of a footgun. A footgun is something where you, the gun operator, shoot yourself in the foot.

These are Chekhov's footguns. As you mention in this comment, they do fire, and they will hit whoever is in front of them. They don't only fail when pointed at the feet of the operator. Your wording implies that they will go off in the original comment too. I can't be blamed for the shortcomings of your original metaphorical argument, which I responded to in good faith.

> > That's like trying to fix the damage from the footgun with a footgun.

This implies that the footgun going off is seemingly unavoidable, which leads folks to weird anti-footgun (damage) mitigations, even second footguns. I responded to this phrasing specifically. That's why I argue that the damage of footguns is probabilistic, in that iff footguns usually go off, then on a long enough timeline, they will hit someone somewhere, and you don't want that to be you, so you should jump ship before it seems like it's unavoidable. I don't see how that is a misreading of the concept or your words, because that is consistent with how a lot of job hoppers I know relate to their work and switching jobs. Even when they do their best, the footguns eventually go off on someone at job sites that allow the footguns to begin with, so it is fair to say that they will go off, but it's uncertain who management will blame or find fault with, so they need not "go off on" the person holding the footgun or even the person who loaded it or pulled its trigger. Those are all different roles/jobs, even though they may be done by the same person at times.

> My argument is that the best strategy is to ,,never fire'' the footgun.

Surely then the second best strategy is to not be there if/when it goes off? We can't count on them not being fired, to my view.

After all, these are Chekhov's footguns, remember?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun

▲ godelski 5 days ago | parent [-]

  > You should only do this if you have to in order to have better business outcomes.

Correct. As I explained.

  > These are Chekhov's footguns

I think you're confusing "Chekhov's rifle" with "footgun".

A "footgun" is a reference to (shorthand for) the idiom "shooting yourself in the foot." The idiom refers to a self-inflicted problem. Just as how someone may carelessly handle a gun and shoot themselves in the foot.

On the other hand, Checkhov's rifle is a foreshadowing device. There is no requirement that the owner shoots themselves or that even any harm to the protagonist is caused. The protagonist can use it to kill the antagonist, the antagonist can use it against the protagonist, and anyone can even use it as a footgun. It's just a subset or extension of the "rule" "every scene should advance the story".

But a footgun is a very different thing and I think the miscommunication may be driven by this misunderstanding.

[0] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/shoot...

▲ aspenmayer 4 days ago | parent [-]

I’m speaking metaphorically. I know what footguns are, though I am using my words in a literary sense, and I think you’re being more literal maybe?

Implicit in the usage of the term footgun in a non-hypothetical context is that said footguns refer to actually existing issues or events. My point in mentioning Checkhov's rifle was to acknowledge this property of footguns: it’s not a matter of if but when they go off.

But seeing as how they will unless your process can eliminate them, it behooves us to apply some game theory to explain why collaborative development when footguns are involved is something between a Mexican standoff and Russian roulette: a circular firing squad.

We can’t blame the footguns at that point. That’s just the game. The only winning move is not to play.

▲ godelski 4 days ago | parent [-]

  > I know what footguns are, though I am using my words in a literary sense, and I think you’re being more literal maybe?

This makes no sense to me. They are just different things... and do you think I'm talking about a literal gun? What about a footgun is literal lol

I really don't know what you're going on about

▲ aspenmayer 4 days ago | parent [-]

I don’t mean literal guns, I mean literary[0] guns.

I feel that we agree, as I originally stated in my first reply, so I apologize if you feel that I’ve wasted your time.

My goal was to explain why I think that people leave jobs for higher pay instead of fixing things and getting promoted internally, which I believe was what you mentioned, which is party due to dysfunctional workplaces with footguns without proper safeguards, and in the context of this thread above you, people who have the context may have left the company, temporarily or otherwise, and those who remain to do the work may use LLMs to compensate.

[0]> (of language) associated with literary works or other formal writing; having a marked style intended to create a particular emotional effect: the script was too literary.

- Oxford English Dictionary

▲ godelski 4 days ago | parent [-]

I know the difference. You write literal.

  >>> I think you’re being more literal maybe?

I'm saying a footgun is de facto metaphorical so it is a weird thing to accuse me of being literal. I understand Chekhov's rifle is a different thing, and a literally. I literally demonstrated knowledge of this. I literally stated as such

  >> Checkhov's rifle is a foreshadowing device

	▲	aspenmayer 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I don’t know what to say. I explained my position and you find it lacking. I make no accusations of lack of understanding, I merely lay out my reason for all to critique and correct, and so you may understand my thought process. Do you think that metaphors can be used too literally? All models are wrong, and some are useful. Let’s not let the perfect allusion, that I didn’t make, be the enemy of the good comparison, that I didn’t (in your view), make. I’m fine discussing my views, but I can’t change what I said originally. No one is finding fault with you in this thread, least of all me. If you persist in finding fault where I readily admit fault through deliberation, I might be led to believe perhaps you protest too much? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_doth_protest_too_much...