> 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...