Does anyone have a better explanation than this article?
Does anyone have a better explanation than this article?
Remember, HN isn't exactly checking anyone's CV at the door. All it takes to post here is knowing how to fill out a web form. The culture here tends to believe the simplistic design somehow draws deep technical intellects like moths to a flame but it really doesn't.
There was a discussion here where a professor with a specialty on the underlying subject was 'corrected'/crowded out by very detailed comments that sounded cogent, had buzzwords in them but ultimately were incorrect.
Seeing that makes me wonder about the discussion here on topics I know nothing about. Vetted flair for subject matter expertise for users would help. I'm still interested in what a chip designer has to say about astronomy but it would make it easier to weigh the contribution.
A good reminder how IT departments need to provide solutions that actually work and are accessible to everyone. If not, "shadow IT" will emerge, rather sooner than later.
And Clinton was Secretary of State, not some low level clerk.
Joel Spolsky mentions a more charitable take on this from Ed Fries:
> Lotus had to fit in 640K. That’s not a lot of memory. If you ignore 1900, you can figure out if a given year is a leap year just by looking to see if the rightmost two bits are zero. That’s really fast and easy. The Lotus guys probably figured it didn’t matter to be wrong for those two months way in the past.
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/06/16/my-first-billg-rev...
Someone didn't read the 26 year old Webvan case study at CEO-school.
https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=26728