Shame works for me. If I was ever the one that got sniped and my colleagues saw it I'd forever be paranoid about it. Like when my dad sat me down and told me that I couldn't keep losing hats all the time when I was a kid and that I wasn't a baby anymore and it was expensive, and that shame made me look behind me when I leave somewhere until today and stop losing stuff.

Specially for security, yes, shame the personal in a small setting, shame them in a positive way, as in lets all learn from this, but shame is very powerful. Much more powerful than saying "someone in this team failed this" and everyone thinks it was the other guy.

▲

hypfer an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I think people saw that old culture and thought "man, that's horrible. We must never do that". And the assessment was right, but also wrong.

Previously, shame (and other pressure) was just applied without first empathically inspecting why the node was acting in the way it did, thinking that just enough force will surely solve the problem. It kinda did, but with lots of collateral.

Essentially, the security consultants (and everyone else involved) were just being lazy and not doing their job correctly.

But now we have this overcorrection, because people are still lazy and do not want to do their job correctly, which leads to the systems failing in a different way.

___

The solution would be to understand the individual node and apply the correct corrective measure. This can be shame, but it might also not be. And the level of it is also highly dependent on the situation.

This is a hard problem to solve, but it needs to be solved for good results.

The problem here being that scaling that up is hard, but everything needed to hyperscale. With either the individual nodes or the system integrity picking up the slack.

▲

stymaar an hour ago | parent [-]

> I think people saw that old culture and thought "man, that's horrible. We must never do that". And the assessment was right, but also wrong. Previously, shame (and other pressure) was just applied without first empathically inspecting why the node was acting in the way it did, thinking that just enough force will surely solve the problem. It kinda did, but with lots of collateral. […] But now we have this overcorrection, because people are still lazy and do not want to do their job correctly, which leads to the systems failing in a different way.

Very well said, and I think your exact description applies to management in general: management is hard, and require hard work to be done correctly, tailoring you response to every person, because two people being bad are their job aren't always bad for the same reason.

But most managers are not suited to the job, because it's mostly a status symbol and not something you give to the most qualified person, and most are too lazy to even try learning about it, so they don't make the effort of adapting to every individual, and in the end they end up either tyrannical or complacent.

	▲	hypfer an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I mean to be fair, with the business models, incentives, compensation, etc. being how they have been, why would you care? Why would you do the hard work when you can also just not do that? I mean I agree with "people are not suited for the job", however, I also feel like often, "the job is not suited for people". It's rot all the way down, essentially.

▲

NonHyloMorph an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"shame them in a positive way" Oh my. That's some HR type viciousness right here. (⌒▽⌒)

▲

kakacik an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> Shame works for me

> I'd forever be paranoid about it

Some folks like to work that way, but I don't think most do. This obsession for outward correct behavior, even if it works at the end (at least externally), doesn't sound like a recipe for happy inner life but maybe I am reading too much into that.