
Help me ask why you didn't just - psanford
https://blog.plover.com/tech/why-dont-you.html
======
carlmr
My take from personal experience:

Removing the "just" obviously makes it less condescending:

=> Why didn't you use sshd?

Removing the "you" could make it less personal:

=> Why was sshd not used here?

Removing the past-tense makes it more forward looking (the past can't be
changed, but people often defend their past decisions especially because they
are unchangeable, the future however is less threatening):

=> Could sshd be used here?

And to further open it up to criticism and add humility (which is important,
since sometimes the obvious standard solution doesn't scale/work/apply to the
use case):

=> Would there be any tradeoffs using sshd here?

This IMHO is the least-threatening and not too elaborate way to formulate this
sentence.

But one thing can make this even less threatening. Don't write in on the code
review for everybody to see, tell it to the person 1:1 in private and give
them a chance to look good to their peers. The old adage "Praise in public,
criticize in private" is still one of the most important things IMHO when
relaying criticism.

~~~
AmericanChopper
Personally I hate it when my PRs come back like this. I made a PR so my code
and my decisions could be reviewed and critiqued. If you have some criticism,
just tell me what it is and why you think that. I have learnt so much from
highly critical PRs, I hate to think where I’d be without them. Personally I
think it’s much more productive to create a culture where criticism is made
openly and without being taken as a personal offence. Rather than dressing it
up in a way that can often just come across as condescending, and without
always even providing the benefit that critical feedback would have to begin
with.

~~~
rkangel
I'm aware of an unofficial convention in some US government departments - if
you have a small round green sticker on your pass, then you are opting in as
someone who can handle un-sugar coated discussion.

It's a great system - you occasionally see someone pause momentarily to check
that everyone in the group has a sticker before saying "well, that was a
clusterfuck wasn't it".

~~~
zentiggr
I think on my sub, it was just assumed that everyone had a green sticker :)

------
isidor3
My go-to would be "Do you know if sshd would work?" To me, framing it directly
as a knowledge question, and to not appear as if you're coming from a place of
authority (unless you know both their problem and your solution both well
enough to solve it without running into edge cases, and how often does that
happen?). They either know or they don't, or potentially have a reason for not
trying in the first place. If they don't know and don't have a reason, it's a
simple "well, that's what I'd try next, it could make things easy if it works"
to get your suggestion out there, but you let them solve their problem ( _if_
it works...)

~~~
JMTQp8lwXL
Why not also explain why you think sshd could work, though? The recipient
might not understand the connection you're trying to make between the proposed
solution and their problem.

~~~
taberiand
Sometimes it's just a hunch, a feeling that maybe sshd or whatever would work
- the hope is they've already figured out that hunch and will be able to
clarify your thoughts before you have to.

I'd probably phrase it 'did you consider using X here?' sometimes prefaced
with 'maybe I'm missing something...'

------
reissbaker
The last two proposed options — "Naïvely, I would think that sshd would work
for that" or "So, I probably would've tried using sshd here. Would that not
work out?" — sound pretty reasonable to me. It makes it clear the implication
is that the questioner assumes that the problem is likely more complex than is
obvious on the surface and is curious, as opposed to passive-aggressively
implying the author is an idiot.

I used to work in infra at $LARGE_TECH_COMPANY, and while it's true that
_sometimes_ people meant the type 2 "I genuinely am curious" question, there
was often a deluge of type 1 "you're an idiot why didn't you do X" for
specific decisions that we'd made that made sense at the scale we operated at,
but where the problems we encountered with the "simple" approach wouldn't show
themselves at small scale (and thus most engineers wouldn't encounter e.g. in
side projects or if they'd worked at smaller companies) — especially because
these kinds of questions often arose when someone was frustrated and having
issues with something we built or maintained. It's not so much that
maintainers are overly sensitive with the "just do X" type questions; it's
that maintainers pattern-match against the large number of "you're doing it
wrong" versions of the question and the few genuine ones have a hard time
differentiating themselves. Either of the last two do a good job
differentiating themselves from the noise, I think.

------
teekert
I would feel offended if anyone would feel the need to go easy on me, just say
what you think. And if you are right I will be eternally grateful for being
taught a new efficient trick. Do I look like such a weak person to you that
you feel like you have to handle my self esteem with silk gloves? Thanks for
the insult.

And what is it with this 2 intentions? The third is the obvious correct one
where I'm not familiar with sshd or I just didn't think about it. Please
educate me. What kind of toxic culture propagates pieces like this text as
something of value?? Just say "Why didn't you use sshd?" Anyone mentally
pasting some kind of assumption behind that small sentence to bash themselves
was just raised wrong. I'm sorry this whole thing just annoys me. Making
things up in your head and getting offended by them. argh..

~~~
icebraining
> I would feel offended if anyone would feel the need to go easy on me

"go easy on me" means "condescend", so you're essentially doing the same as
the people mentioned: feeling offended because they perceive condescension
from the speaker.

> Do I look like such a weak person to you that you feel like you have to
> handle my self esteem with silk gloves?

> Making things up in your head

The phrase he came up with doesn't actually state that he is treating you with
silk gloves; that's an implication you're deriving (in your head), just like
those people are deriving another implication from the original phrase.

~~~
aerojoe23
I thought his first paragraph was just being illustrative. Like look how crazy
this gets.

I suppose now I'm deriving meaning in my head.

~~~
teekert
It's not illustrative, it's how I would feel. Maybe it's a cultural thing.
Something to take into account if I would ever work in the US. It would be
nice to have some kind of rule book then, I mean if people don't just assume I
mean well but get mad when I use the wrong wording means I would have to be
educated very well to function in such a group. I imagine such a culture is
pretty unwelcoming to other cultures.

------
twotwotwo
It's not only a phrasing thing.

The revised phrasings are better, but if someone's spent "a week or a month or
maybe years" on a problem, consider asking what _they_ think are the tricky
tradeoffs and so on and give them a minute or a few sentences or an email or
whatever to tell you before you launch into anything about your idea.

Not for politeness, but because if they're knee-deep in the problem they
probably learned something you don't already know about it. It may illuminate
why your idea wouldn't've made sense before you ask. You may get another,
better informed idea. You may still have the same idea but learn something on
the way there. It's a gamble worth taking if possible.

And, sure, if there's no time for that kind of convo, there are ways to
politely offer your intuition that X might have worked, and that can be a
shortcut to finding at least one thing that wasn't in your mental model of the
problem. But, if you think they understand the problem much more deeply than
you do, offering them a more-or-less open-ended chance to give you a download
of what they've learned is a smart move.

~~~
kevsim
Completely agree. All of the phrasings he proposes presuppose that the thing
he's suggesting makes any sense at all. Why not let the person take you
through the design/thought process and then, and only then, if you're still
left wondering why they didn't do X, ask. I guess in many cases you'll hear
the reason why they didn't pick it while they're taking you through their
thought process.

------
ajuc
"I'm probably missing something - why didn't you just do X?"

And honestly I think phrasing isn't that important - if you know someone for
months or years and aren't usually a dick - people won't automatically assume
the worst.

Also this may be cultural. I've worked with English people and with Germans
and the level of acceptable criticism and required disclaimers was very
different. My own nation (Polish) seems to be somewhere in the middle but
closer to Germans.

~~~
MaulingMonkey
> "I'm probably missing something - why didn't you just do X?"

I like to use basically this, combined with brlewis's suggestion to take
_them_ out of the phrasing, when I'm erring on the side of being approachable.
So maybe "I think I'm missing something here - why not use sshd?". If it's
awkward to take them entirely out of the equation, there's the royal company
"we" \- e.g. "why don't we use sshd?"

Some of Mark's rephrasings are rather over the top. "I'm not clever enough
[...]" whoa there, that's a bit much. You're either being sarcastic, or
beating yourself up way too much. "There must be a good reason why you [...]"
whoa whoa, they might not, and that's fine! There might be a good reason...
there might be a bad reason... there might be no reason... and all of those
are fine! I ain't judging! I've probably had worse reasons! I just want to
understand the problem space.

"I think I'm missing something here" admits to an extremely minor, low stakes,
inconsequential "mistake" on my part - the kind that we all make frequently
enough in passing as to not even really think of them as mistakes per se. I'm
not admitting to some moral failure, just implicitly asking for a minor bit of
assistance from my conversational partner to get over a momentary blind spot.
It's not judging either of us, the problem, or the solution.

Which all hopefully helps set the tone - for if they feel like _they 've_ made
a mistake because they didn't think of sshd and realize in retrospect that
"they probably should've". Because, like all of us, sometimes they _have_
overlooked the obvious... but that's perfectly OK - because, like I said, it
happens to all of us.

> And honestly I think phrasing isn't that important - if you know someone for
> months or years and aren't usually a dick - people won't automatically
> assume the worst.

Also agreed.

------
gfodor
A good way to get out ahead of this I didn't see mentioned is to just assume
the person actually chased down the path you're proposing, and ask them about
what happened when they did so. So for the example, "what happened with sshd?"

If the person considered sshd, this question will connect because it shows
that you grok their problem solving process, assume they are at least as
competent as you are, and you want to learn what surprises they encountered
that neither of you would have realized beforehand. If they didn't consider
sshd, this question doesn't seem to be likely to offend them since they will
respond by inquiring why you think that was a potential solution and hopefully
be prepared to learn.

------
22c
> What's the advantage of "this" over something like "sshd"?

I would typically phrase it this way, especially if "this" is something which
sounds like it'll be a lot more work than "sshd".

This is probably going to get you an answer closer to what you wanted to know
anyway. ie. you have already ceded that it's likely that "sshd" is too simple
of a solution, and now you want to know how this new solution (which you don't
know much about) is going to be better.

------
hjorthjort
The final suggestions are good, much better than "why didn't you just". The
problem comes when your initial thought is actually a good idea, and your
colleague could actually have saved some time. This happens a lot in the
interaction between senior and junior engineers. For those situations, it's
not great to be asking for an explanation on the spot, because then the
explanation is just "I'm an idiot/ignorant of that tool".

What's missing, I think, is a question that is not seeking explanation, but
improvement. You are not seeking justification of actions, you are identifying
an opportunity. This opens up for both an answer starting with "Aha, you might
think that, but actually..." and the question "Huh? What is X? How could it be
used here?"

Hence, I like

> Could it be made simpler by using `sshd`?

and

> Did you try `sshd`? This seems like it might be a good fit.

~~~
arberavdullahu
In interaction between senior and junior engineers those type of question are
made often and juniors should take it as how to grow themselves, but I agree
with you that asking about their decision first would make the discussion
better.

------
Edman274
Here's the suggestion: don't ask! What are you going to do with the
information? If you ask and the answers are _reasonable_ , then ... so what?
What have you meaningfully learned? You've learned that an existing solution
does not completely solve a problem.

Now you understand the problem a little better, and you understand the
shortcomings or deficiencies of a pre-existing solution a little better, but
you're signalling to the person you're asking that you're looking to second-
guess their judgment or wisdom before you even understand the problem that was
trying to be solved. Why didn't you wait until you understand the problem well
enough such that you'd be able to see (along with them) why an off-the-shelf
solution wouldn't work? Asking why a specific off-the-shelf solution wasn't
chosen is a way of signalling to someone else "hey, I don't understand the
problem very well but I'm sure that I have a better solution". So don't ask
why a technology wasn't chosen; ask questions about the problem domain until
you understand why - WITHOUT asking.

Here's the other scenario: you know for a _fact_ that an off-the-shelf
solution would've been a better choice than what someone else did. In that
case - guess what? Don't ask: tell. Don't patronize someone by saying "why
didn't <software> work here in a case where it obviously was a smarter
choice"; instead, have the courage to say "I think that a better use of time
would've been doing research and seeing if <software> was usable." Because if
you're trying to tell someone that they made a mistake by reinventing the
wheel, asking them why they reinvented the wheel rather than telling them they
did so will probably be seen as patronizing or dishonest.

Either understand why the first thing that popped into your head doesn't work
without having them tell you why that's the case, OR be so certain that the
first thing that popped in your head does work that you're willing to declare
that. Anything else is inviting people to believe that you're trying to
"stump-the-chump", so to speak.

~~~
kaelig
On large projects, it becomes impossible for anyone to understand how each
line of code works and what the best solution should look like. In such a
complex area, assertive code review comments could be counter-productive.

In most cases, showing curiosity and asking questions in code reviews goes
beyond educating yourself: it's also about providing "self serve" context for
future developers who need to understand why a specific decision was made.

This context can also, for example, prevent future developers from trying to
refactor or rewrite entire pieces of a program to follow "what first comes to
mind".

I'm curious to know about the kind of projects you work on and how you've seen
the approach of asking fail there.

~~~
Edman274
In the linked article, the quote that starts it is the following:

"Whenever you look at a problem somebody’s been working on for a week or a
month or maybe years and propose a simple, obvious solution that just happens
to be the first thing that comes into your head, then you’re also making it
crystal clear to people what you think of them and their work."

So let me ask _this_ \- do you believe I'm responding to the case of tiny code
reviews that happen daily with pull-requests, or do you think I'm responding
to the scenario the article proposes - which is when someone asks why an off-
the-shelf solution wasn't used after the implementors worked on their new
solution for "weeks or months or years"?

I am responding to the question in the article (or at least what I understood
it to be) and not to the more-common instance where this probably comes up
which is in daily code reviews. There is a difference in asking why someone
didn't choose X option when the amount of time they spent on a problem is one
day versus one month. I am responding to the one month scenario. I believe
code reviews happen more than once a month.

Is my response an understandable one?

~~~
kaelig
Thanks for answering, I see other folks had concerns similar to mine regarding
your comment.

I understand better where you’re coming from.

(Where I work) I find there is something to be gained by showing interest and
asking about the parts of the code I don't understand or would have approached
differently.

(my favorite thing is when folks preemptively comment in their own pull
requests to explain tradeoffs and design decisions before being asked about
them, or write comment blocks in the code to add useful context)

------
fefe23
I don't know about you, but if I talk to someone about a problem, the "why
didn't you just $FOO" suggestions are exactly the ones I'm looking for.

Because the tech environment has become so complex that there is probably a
simple API I could have used but I wasn't aware of it.

How about we stop assuming people are out to hurt us, and start assuming
everybody is well-meaning but they have social issues just like me? Just like
every other nerd in tech!

~~~
toopok4k3
There's a simple but subtle difference in "why didn't you just x" and "did you
try x".

The first one has negativity associated with YOU in it and feels like it
focuses on your past. The latter is neutral and it feels like it does not care
about the past, more like a suggestion for the future.

------
zmmmmm
I don't mind the phrasing "why didn't you just" too much, but the phrase "why
don't we just ... X" drives me crazy. The passive assumption that "just X" is
obviously better and simpler than the current idea under discussion is
insulting. Part of the problem is it lazily puts the onus on everybody else to
explain why the proposal is a bad idea at zero intellectual cost to the
proposer. eg:

 _Why don 't we just use a jsonb column and put all the attributes in there
instead of inventing a complicated table structure?_

My take on this is always: if you so lack understanding of the problem space
that you can't understand why everyone is discussing something complicated,
stop proposing solutions until you do. When you do understand that, come back
with your reasoning:

 _Although a relational structure is a better way to do this in general, I
think in this situation it isn 't necessary because the format of the data is
intentionally client specific and opaque to our code. We might be able to
simplify things a lot by storing it as a jsonb field_

~~~
rgoulter
> Part of the problem is it lazily puts the onus on everybody else to explain
> why the proposal is a bad idea at zero intellectual cost to the proposer.

This sounds like "ask vs guess culture" is at play.

As with the OP, I think context matters a lot. I can imagine environments
where it should be okay to ask questions without thought, or environments
where some understanding or consideration is expected before asking a
question.

What you describe does sound annoying: guessing a simple solution without
putting effort into understanding the problem (which everyone else
understands). And the opposite extreme would be only 'asking' questions only
for confirmation/verification of an answer.

------
soneca
My suggestion:

 _" My first thought would be to use X. What do you think of that?"_

It seems, to me, humble and asking for clarification if there are obvious
reasons for not using. An invitation to be teached. At the same time, if it is
a good idea it would be recognized as so (maybe with some awkwardness)

------
brlewis
"Why wouldn't sshd do the job here?" Take "you" out of it. The question is
about the problem and the solution, not the person.

~~~
k_sze
A slight twist to this approach:

"What if _we_ tried using sshd here?"

I think this would make it sound like you are on their side/on the same team,
and that you are trying to help, not trying to mock them.

~~~
Dylan16807
There's two parts to the problem. You don't want to sound mocking, but you
also don't want to come across as a doofus who thinks their ten seconds of
thought is automatically insightful, even as you're the twentieth person to
suggest turning if off and on again.

When someone has been working on something for a week or more, a naive "What
if we tried using sshd here?" fails that latter test pretty hard.

~~~
k_sze
Perhaps.

But if I'm the proverbial twentieth person to ask the same question, it's
probably a hint that it should be documented/explained prominently - maybe in
a README, maybe as a comment in the source code, maybe some other suitable
place.

And maybe it's just me. I'm a team lead and I have constant impostor syndrome.
I was airborne into an existing team of junior devs who had no real team lead,
but some of the devs know their stuff better than I do. E.g. I don't know
modern ES, TypeScript, or React. I can't write CSS for the life of me. I'm
mostly a back end Python/Django geek/Linux graybeard. I have since learned to
not be afraid to sound like a doofus. I just ask away when I'm reviewing code
and I don't understand something in modern ES/TypeScript/JSX/TSX/etc.

Like, if you are generally a nice guy, people you work with will eventually
(and rather quickly) figure out that's just how you ask questions and don't
mean any mockery.

~~~
Dylan16807
> But if I'm the proverbial twentieth person to ask the same question, it's
> probably a hint that it should be documented/explained prominently

If you're joining a project, or it's published, sure.

If you're just having a conversation you don't start off by skimming a dozen
pages of documentation. So put in a tiny amount of effort with your wording,
to show you realize they might have thought of this already.

------
jmartrican
Either they tried sshd or they didnt. If they did try it, then they have a
good response ready to go no matter how you ask. The issue here is if they did
not try it. The longer they have worked on it, the more gently I would make
the suggestion towards sshd. If they have worked on it for their whole life, I
wouldn't provide any help unless asked to and only limited to what they have
asked me to do. If they have worked on it for 10 seconds, it would seem to be
ok to quickly suggest sshd. For everything in between just be gentle. Maybe
consider pondering and prodding as to what they have tried and maybe do not
suggest sshd but some sort of encrypted TCP based protocol maybe one that is
readily available.... maybe they'll discover it on their own.

~~~
jrumbut
I've gone to this strategy of just not saying anything to avoid the problem,
but I know I have benefitted immensely when others have dropped a pearl of
wisdom straight from their fresh perspective so it saddens me.

I think the key thing is to establish a supportive and collaborative
environment where people feel safe enough to take a suggestion, knowing that
their good faith effort over the last several months is valued as a part of
the process that led to the mature and stable strategy of using sshd. If it
was worth it to spend 3 months plus 10 seconds across two developers to find
the best solution, and the best solution was found, declare victory and
celebrate that good outcome. A lot of times, you won't get the good outcome no
matter how you try.

If you don't have that, you're going to be spending more and more time
creating elaborate ways to suggest things by inception, and that's not good
for anyone.

PS like the author, I also use the word just to connote "solely or simply"
rather than "merely or trivially". I have learned others feel it has some
negative connotations, so I have restrained my usage of it.

~~~
pdonis
_> I know I have benefitted immensely when others have dropped a pearl of
wisdom straight from their fresh perspective_

Others who had worked with you extensively enough to have useful suggestions?
Or random strangers off the street? I'm guessing it's the former, since you
say:

 _> I think the key thing is to establish a supportive and collaborative
environment where people feel safe enough to take a suggestion_

But if all this is the case, the author of this article agonizing over what to
say and how to say it makes no sense. If he has already worked with these
people long enough to have established a "supportive and collaborative
environment", then he already knows how to make a suggestion to them that (a)
might actually be of value, and (b) will be taken in the spirit it's given.
But then why is he writing an article asking for suggestions on how to do
this?

In other words, while I agree with you that in the specific situation you
describe, making suggestions from a fresh perspective can be helpful, the
situation you describe can't be the situation the article is describing.

~~~
jrumbut
The author appears, to me, to be looking for a solution to a symptom of a
problem rather than at the problem itself.

The original question posed is basically innocuous, and is only made a problem
by the environment.

If one gets to the point of wondering how to offer help without setting off a
spiral of despair and insecurity, there are deeper issues that need to be
rooted out. I also claim, anecdotally, to have seen this sort of improvement
happen and think it is generally a thing that is possible to do, and isn't
some core part of the human condition (at least to the degree described in the
article).

------
dbtx
Have you tried "Have you tried x?"?

This follows naturally from "What have you tried?", from the "information to
include when asking for help", on which Q&A sites seem to agree.

It's rather innocent at face value and it leaves the door wide open for the
person to explain what went wrong when they tried, or why they opted against
it without trying, etc., without implying anything negative --except to a
really frustrated and/or rough-edged person who is determined to receive
everything in a negative way.

Yes there are a dozen mentions already for "did you try/have you tried" so
here's my grain of sand on that pile.

------
Ididntdothis
Last year I was on a project where we couldn’t get something to work despite
all efforts. Pretty much all managers walked by some weeks in and asked “why
don’t you just do X?”. Whenever I heard the J word I pretty much stopped
listening and told them “no problem. here is the code. Here is the server.
Just do it.”. It’s incredibly disrespectful to walk up to people who have
worked on something for months and then you use the word “just” in your
advise.

~~~
teekert
I think you would be a difficult person to work with if you get offended by
that one little word. I understand that it can be annoying to be asked
repeatedly but just work on an elevator pitch to explain why you didn't use X.
You might even earn some respect in the process. The way you act now will
"just" (sorry!) make people feel like that have to walk on eggs around you and
handle your brittle mood with silk gloves. Next time they will ask someone
else.

~~~
Ididntdothis
I am usually pretty patient with people and generally don’t get offended. In
this particular case we had worked very hard on that problem for a long time.
This project was highly visible so everybody knew what’s going on.

I think people (I tend to do that too) should think twice before giving
unsolicited advice and make sure they have thought about the problem for a
while and have something of value to offer. Otherwise it signals a lack of
respect.

~~~
teekert
Respect is such a culturally dependent thing though. I think it is more
productive and nice to just assume the other person only has good intentions.

------
lostdog
"What was your reason for not using sshd?"

That's my go-to phrase. It implies that I am looking to be educated, and not
that I think they messed up.

~~~
Dylan16807
It also makes them look like a giant idiot if they actually made a mistake by
not considering it. Maybe not the best thing to risk.

~~~
Ma8ee
But that is kind of unavoidable. When I do screw up, I rather find out by an
honest question, where I can be the one answering, "duh, I should have thought
of that!", instead of gradually realising that the only one that doesn't know
that I'm wasting my time is I.

~~~
Dylan16807
It's partly unavoidable, but you make the embarrassment far worse if you act
like it's so obvious that they clearly must have tried it, you don't even need
to ask.

------
projektfu
I’m just thinking about how in Medicine, lots of people would suffer if the
helpers had trouble asking the basic questions.

“Did you submit cultures?”

“Why did you choose to ignore the liver enzymes in this case?”

“Did you ask about a family history of X?”

To a large extent, becoming professional is about becoming less sensitive to
being wrong.

~~~
C0d3r
> To a large extent, becoming professional is about becoming less sensitive to
> being wrong.

I agree, but there's nothing to lose in trying to become a better
communicator, you're not responsible for other people's sensitivity, but you
are definitely in control of what and how you communicate.

~~~
projektfu
Yes but in this discussion it’s quickly become obvious that the listener is
responsible for assuming good faith on the part of the questioner, because any
phrasing can be interpreted as “I’m smart and you’re dumb.” Being professional
is having the maturity to listen to answers when you ask questions.

Now, in the case of unsolicited advice, it may just be the questioner showing
off. There’s no phrasing that will help make a person feel good that they were
used to stroke someone’s ego.

------
valw
Some programmers will ask you "why didn't you just" questions about something
you've worked on for weeks, months or years, not because they think they're
smarter than you, but because they never think about anything for weeks,
months or years.

~~~
aww_dang
If I am that interested in the problem/solution I am also interested in
discussing it. Answering the question straight and assuming good faith is a
good way to open up that discussion. Even if they don't understand, there is
still the chance that explaining it gives me a new perspective.

If I don't value interacting with that person, then I've already lost before I
start. Communicate for its own sake. Enjoy the journey or don't bother with
the destination. Expectations of being understood or being judged favorably
just confuse the issue.

I understand why this becomes an issue, but I don't think it is productive to
concern ourselves with such peccadillos. If these things become important, we
might be starting from the wrong place.

------
air7
When someone is not insecure, they won't take offense even if the speaker
meant "response 1" and if they are, even "response 2" would cause them pain.
In the end, one interprets other people's intentions based on what they
actually think (or fear) about themselves.

Because of that, if you are a sensitive person, working around other people's
insecurities is a difficult thing. I think that if you are trying to take care
not to cause the other party to take offense, then "including a ridiculously
long and pleading disclaimer before what should be a short question" is not
such a bad idea. You're treading potentially dangerous waters, who said you
should be able to go fast?

I often would say something like "I don't mean to be rude but I'm curios, why
does sshd not work here?" with a non-confrontational tone and a genuinely-
intrigued expression.

------
d--b
The problem here is that the author assumes that the person he is addressing
is a total moron for not using sshd, so he is afraid that his question is
going to be badly taken.

Most people when asked “why didn’t you just xxx” would answer in 3 ways:

1\. Oh shit, you’re right, I’m such an idiot... oh well...

2\. Because yyy

3\. I don’t know xxx, can you show me?

The issue is that people feel the intention behind your question because of
context (mostly what your relationship to that person is)

~~~
rbongers
I think it just depends on the person asking. I have known people who could
call you an idiot to your face and still come off as the nicest human in the
world, and people who could ask you to pass the salt and you would think that
they didn't know if you were capable of it. Some people just have a hard time
not coming off as condescending, but that says nothing of their intentions.

------
andrewfong
So how should I phrase a question or concern when I _don't_ think the other
party has already anticipated using sshd?

It's easy for even very experienced engineers to get sucked into a solution
that they don't realize is the wrong path until they've talked it through with
someone else. And that's not a sign that they're incompetent nitwits. It might
just be that no one ever told them about Obvious Solution X because everyone
assumed they already knew it. Is there a good way to basically say "why didn't
you consider using sshd and if you didn't because you just blanked or you
don't know what sshd is, that's cool, let's talk about it"?

------
Hackbraten
Ask an open question, preferably one that doesn’t involve the “why”.

For example,

> What made you realize that sshd wasn’t going to work for you?

Or,

> I‘ve used sshd for similar tasks; what’s your advice for me to get familiar
> with the differences?

This kind of question helps shift focus on the answerer and enables them to
tell their story. It’s unlikely for them to feel insulted if you convey some
degree of genuine, honest interest in what they have to say.

------
jstummbillig
How about "Why does sshd not work?"

You are hinting that it doesn't. You are not suggesting that you know it
should, or why, even if _they_ can't give you a good answer. You are also not
assuming that they don't know.

It's easy enough for the other party to come up with some mediocre reply to
save face. That allows you to further assess how perceptive the other party is
to receiving assistance. For example some version of "I tried that at some
point, didn't work" would probably lead to me backing off respectfully. Any
"why/how" question and we can take it from there.

------
kstenerud
"have you tried xyz?"

The problem with the other approaches is that they imply that you are judging
the person. This one only implies something that they may have missed.

~~~
swiftcoder
Unfortunately, if "xyz" is one of the approaches they _did_ already
try/dismiss, it still comes across as patronising.

~~~
kstenerud
Really? I've never considered it patronising.

"Have you tried x?"

"Yes, that's the first thing I tried."

"Hmm, how about y?"

"That too."

"Well that has me beat. Unless maybe you tried something crazy like z..."

"Actually, with a slight modification that might just work well enough for
this!"

------
bliep
Or just don’t get offended so quickly, this is just how people tend to speak
sometimes. Don’t implicitly add bad intent or insults when none were
explicitly made.

~~~
bartread
I think it's OK to expect that people in the workplace take responsibility for
improving their own social skills, which is really what this boils down to.

To be honest though, many times I think this kind of situation can be avoided
by talking through the problem with others at the beginning.

------
mrandish
"Can you walk me through what you've tried so far?"

~~~
caser
Open-ended, as opposed to a leading question (one where the solution is pre-
supposed).

------
BerislavLopac
My general approach has been to use someting along the lines of "is there a
reason for not using sshd here?"

Also, quite recently I had an experience where I used a quick solution without
thinking about alternatives; a colleague simply said "I worked on a similar
thing some time ago, and we did XYZ", which was not only better than my
solution but also prompted me to think about alternative solutions. In the end
I went for a third, arguably best solution, which I would have never thought
of if there wasn't for the colleague's comment.

~~~
joshuaellinger
I like this quote from a colleague. Talk from personal experience and just
state what you did or saw done. Add a value judgement on the past -- like " It
was very stable." \-- if you want. The suggestion to use X here is builtin and
you aren't claiming to know more about the specific application than you do.

------
lsiebert
I think this is one of those things that is going to vary cross culturally,
and trying to come up with a single perfect phrase that works well for all
situations, for all people, from all cultures is going to be impossible.

Plus how did you come to offer help? Requested, vs told to help by a manager,
vs offering your opinion off the cuff, vs have asked if they are interested in
your ideas. There's a difference between offering your help as a favor, and
requesting of them if you can share your thoughts too. That's all going to
impact your best approach.

One thing that might work is to ask them to talk you through what they've
tried, and pay attention. Even if nothing helps you help them, you are showing
that you value their thoughts and effort.

I might use "we" language.. "What if we tried sshd?"

I might even restate the problem to get agreement but without stating the
solution, and then build on that agreement "It sounds like you want to be able
to access this machine remotely in a secure way that lets you input commands,
right?" "Yeah" "So maybe ssh could work?" "Well it's behind a firewall since
it's an internal server so you can't ssh in" "What if we could log in securely
to a server behind the firewall with ssh from outside, and then ssh from there
to the machine you need to access?" etc etc. Getting people to agree
predisposes them to keep agreeing.

------
ianamartin
I'm acutely aware of this, and my pattern for phrasing things when I'm new to
a scenario I'm trying to help out with is:

"What happens when you try x?"

What very often comes next is a clear explanation of why this obvious solution
won't work, and often directs you right to the heart of the problem.

Every once in a while, you get an "Oh. I didn't think of that."

It's respectful, it assumes that person is smart and competent, and usually
gets you where you need to go to start thinking about the hard problem at hand
quickly.

------
rcar
My usual would be "the first thing that comes to mind is X". If they have
tried it, they know that I'm just throwing out ideas rather than calling them
stupid, and if they haven't tried it, it's a gentle enough nudge towards a
potential solution.

------
alanfranz
Framing the question in a proper way is interesting. By the way, I think
there's another common pattern, especially in the corporate/enterprise world:
the proposed solution is ACTUALLY better and simpler than the super-complex-
version that somebody is proposing; but:

\- At a certain point, the original problem was forgotten. Maybe the original
problem was "execute some commands on N machines". But initially, those
machines were a mix of operating systems, some of which would not offer an ssh
daemon. And another path was pursued. But, after a certain time, all non-ssh-
offering OSes were pulled, but the pursue of a different path remained.

\- Technology evolved in the months-or-years while pursuing a certain
solution, and the original pursuer either didn't know that, or he would not be
ready to abandon his efforts (sunk cost fallacy)

\- Sometimes, just looking from outside is a good way to find a good solution.

\- Sometimes, just trying to solve a problem for months or years lets the
solver to properly frame the problem, and enunciating a problem in a good,
concise, comprehensive way goes miles towards finding a solution.

So: sometimes people who ask things that way actually think that the solution
is stupid. But they shouldn't think the people trying to solving it are
stupid.

------
notacoward
For me, one question like this isn't too bad. Ten are. Then it becomes a
botched kind of Socratic dialog. In a true Socratic dialog, the _teacher_ (who
presumably knows best) controls the flow of explanations. In "why not just"
the learner wrests that control away while still expecting the teacher to do
all the work. It forces the explanation to take the form of an (unsought)
argument. I have several friends who routinely use this method to learn a new
area. One of them does it so consistently and aggressively, even after I've
called him on it, that he's now an ex-friend.

The killer combo IMO is "just" (setting up a default position) and "you"
(associating an initially assumed-inferior position with a person). That's why
phrasings like "why doesn't ssh work here" aren't as bad. They keep things
collaborative rather than adversarial. This becomes particularly clear with
repetition, with a series of "why don't you just" bearing a stark resemblance
to a legal cross-examination. It's better to avoid those two markers unless
you know that's what both parties are after (which is fine when it happens
BTW).

------
rbavocadotree
It's funny reading all the debate about different wordings because it totally
misses the point. The wording doesn't matter, only the delivery does. The
recipients's interpretation of the question depends on who is saying it and
how they say it. Whether or not they include the word "just" is irrelevant.
Any single one of the phrases mentioned can be delivered in a way that causes
offense or doesn't.

~~~
sampleinajar
Came here to say a similar thing. The reaction can say a lot about the
person's opinion/impression of you. It might be too much to try to correct for
other people's insecurities; however, if you find that a large portion of
people get upset by your phrasing, then it might be worth it to consider how
you present yourself in general to others. It might just be you.

------
_bxg1
I like to say "I'm curious why you didn't use ______". Curiosity comes with an
implied humility and a willingness to learn new information.

------
pdonis
The article leaves out the most important question: why do you want to ask why
they didn't just...?

Even assuming that your intentions are entirely good and you totally intended
only the author's response #2 and there was no element of response #1 at all
(yes, you can see I'm skeptical of such claims--why will appear in a moment),
the mere fact that you feel so compelled to ask why they didn't just...
implies exactly the opinion of them that response #1 makes explicit. Obviously
your own curiosity is so important that it outweighs anything else, and
obviously your curiosity must have some basis, and so on and so on.

In other words, the correct answer to the question the author asks at the
end--"What to do?"\--is: NOTHING. If they want your advice, they'll ask for
it. If they don't ask, then keep your trap shut. It isn't about you.

(I note, btw, that the article by Mike Hoye that this article links to makes
exactly the same point I just made--which raises the obvious question of why
this article's author apparently didn't grasp it.)

~~~
DoreenMichele
Someone may be genuinely interested in feedback. In such cases, you want to be
polite and respectful while still communicating that "This is my first
thought." It gives both parties room to maneuver and save face. That framing
makes it possible for them to reject the feedback without suggesting anything
negative about you (like "No, _you 're_ the idiot here!").

You may be genuinely trying to understand it yourself, in which case it's
going to be easier to comprehend what's going on if you can relate it to the
existing framing in your mind without offending them. It takes a lot of time
and energy to mentally move from "My first thought is X" to "How do I say this
in a way that elicits information without me sounding like I'm judging...etc?"
There isn't enough time and energy in the day for every single social
interaction to meet the standards for some kind of international diplomatic
mission, but you also don't want to just excuse outright rude behavior. It's
reasonable to explore your options if you as an individual run into a
particular social thing repeatedly so you can handle it not horribly without
being at the top of your diplomatic game every nanosecond of the freaking day.

Last, if you have enough education/experience related to X, you may actually
have a better answer at first glance. They might actually be interested in
improving it and open to your suggestions -- again, if you can share that
information without unduly stepping on toes.

Sometimes trying too hard to be polite and respectful and perfect is actually
antithetical to any kind of meaningful communication. Good social practices
have to be tolerant of a little friction while seeking to lubricate it so it
doesn't rub people the wrong way to an aggravating and problematic degree.

This is counter-intuitive. To genuinely connect socially/intellectually, there
will be _some_ friction. If there isn't _any_ friction, you aren't actually
connecting with people. But you don't want it to be excessively rough because
that's counterproductive.

~~~
pdonis
_> Someone may be genuinely interested in feedback._

 _> You may be genuinely trying to understand it yourself_

 _> if you have enough education/experience related to X, you may actually
have a better answer at first glance. They might actually be interested in
improving it and open to your suggestions_

If any of these things are true, you will either know them well enough to know
how to talk to them about it, or they will ask you explicitly for your input.
In either case, you will not need to write an article asking the entire
Internet for suggestions on how to talk to them.

In other words, I am not saying the things you describe cannot happen; I am
saying that the fact that the author of this article had to write it at all
means none of the things you describe are happening in the case he describes.
If they were, he would know it and wouldn't have had to write the article in
the first place.

~~~
DoreenMichele
Not everyone is equally socially astute. Some people aren't good at inferring
such things. Such people need to work at it to make their life work.

Even if you are innately good at it, you may not automatically know how to
handle it well if it's a new context in some way. This can include being a
foreign national or facing other cultural barriers.

The most socially astute people aren't simply "born with" such talents. They
work at it on top of whatever natural talents they are fortunate to have.

~~~
pdonis
_> Some people aren't good at inferring such things._

And my advice to those people is exactly what I said: if you're not sure how
to communicate what you think is a good suggestion, or how to ask a question
you're curious about, without giving offense, because you don't know the
people or their work well enough, then _don 't do anything_. That uncertainty
you feel is a clue: it means you shouldn't be doing anything at all. Heed it.

~~~
DoreenMichele
For many people, such advice boils down to "Just be a prisoner of your
limitations and don't ever try to overcome them or grow as a person."

I cannot fathom why you have such a big problem with someone using a blog post
to crowd source suggested wording to try to explore how to do X better.

~~~
pdonis
_> For many people, such advice boils down to "Just be a prisoner of your
limitations and don't ever try to overcome them or grow as a person."_

You are seriously misinterpreting what I said.

What I said applied to a very specific scenario, the one described in the
article: you have something you want to tell or ask people when you don't know
them or their work very well, and you aren't sure how to say it or ask it
without giving offense.

If you don't like the fact that the best thing to do in that situation is
nothing--don't tell or ask them--then you have an obvious way to change the
situation so that's no longer the only good option you have: _get to know the
people and their work better_. In other words, _connect_ with them, exactly as
you describe. Once you've connected with them, you will either know how to
tell or ask them what you wanted to tell or ask them, or you will have found
out that you don't need to tell or ask them any more, because you have found
out the information you originally wanted without having to.

I understand that connecting with people like this is very hard for many
people, particularly techies. It's hard for _me_. But that doesn't mean you
should try to avoid it, and I never said you should.

 _> I cannot fathom why you have such a big problem with someone using a blog
post to crowd source suggested wording to try to explore how to do X better._

Because he's doing it backwards. He's trying to tell or ask something
potentially offensive to people he doesn't know well, without trying to get to
know them better first. In other words, instead of asking how to do X better,
he should realize that he needs to do Y first, before even thinking about
doing X.

------
kentbrew
Avoid "why." Instead ask about "how" and you'll get lots of "why" for free.

"I'm trying to visualize doing this without using sshd and am drawing a blank.
It's probably something really basic I'm missing; would you mind telling me
how you did it?"

Key here is to be genuinely interested. If all you want is to slap the other
developer around they will know.

------
lordnacho
I've been in this situation many times before. The way to to it is to not only
ask, but suggest a possible reason:

"What's the issue with sshd? Does it not have an option to do x?"

By following with the potential issue, you are not saying "Are you retarded?",
either by omission or directly. You are leading the tone of the conversation
down the productive path.

------
sagebird
I think it is best left unasked.

If you care to know, you can take a day to think about it. If it is not worth
you thinking about it, then let it go. But if you care enough - Learn about
what they did, scan the source code, look at how the tool is used.

If you come to the conclusion that they made a bad decision - ok - keep that
to yourself. If you come to the conclusion that their solution actually is
better, mention it to them enthusiastically and build a bit of trust with them
by showing that you are willing to think and inspect, not just ask drive-by
questions.

If you see someone constantly re-inventing the wheel, then look for an
opportunity to discuss solutions before the next project begins. If you are
showing up only during presentations, then you are too late to apply your
knowledge. If the goal is to improve things and you are knowledgeable and
clever, you need to be in the brainstorming business, not the "embarrass this
guy during presentation" part.

------
krngrvr09
I'd say "Hmm, what about sshd?" or "Hmm, what do you think about sshd?" I'd
also say it's more about how you say it than what you say. If I were to use
the aforementioned questions, I'd come from a place of self-doubt and I think
which is exactly what "Response 2" in the article says it is.

~~~
amflare
I agree. I use "What about?" almost daily. It can either be a gentle
suggestion, or a request for information. Neither is aggressive, so it works
out both ways.

------
awinder
The problem is the prescriptive nature, i.e., being very tied to force the
"sshd" into all of these examples. You need to ask more questions leading up
to figuring out if sshd suggestion would even be applicable, and if you get
the point where you've done that, and you haven't heard sshd mentioned yet as
something explored, then that's the time to bring it up.

And I'll add, it's not condescension that's the big issue here, it's that
suggesting technologies before you fully understand a problem suggests a
specific level of naiveté that people are on the lookout for. I can exactly
place a person's technical problem-solving maturity level by how quickly they
get to throwing out technical solutions, because people that have been around
the block may have these ideas in their head, but they also know the questions
to ask to ferret out where the complication lies.

------
ChrisMarshallNY
If it's that sensitive, I'd probably start by spending extra time, trying to
figure it out without asking.

If it's a code review, then it's expected that hard questions be asked. I'd
remove the "just," and watch my intonation.

Chances are better than even, that it ain't that important, and not worth my
extra time.

If the engineer isn't that good, it will show itself in more obvious ways,
sooner or later.

I've come to value team cohesiveness. When you have a team of high-
functioning, self-confident, highly-intelligent, motivated people, it won't be
a smooth ride. Passions abound, and people will disagree; sometimes
vehemently.

Respect and cohesiveness are EARNED. If someone knows that I respect them,
then I can be a real jerk, and it won't damage our relationship (as long as it
isn't chronic).

I managed just such a team for a long time. When we finally disbanded, the
engineer with the least seniority had ten years.

The current tech industry is hyper-competitive. Everyone is competing against
everyone else. It's not enough to be "as good as" someone else. We have to be
BETTER than everyone else.

When the average stay at a corporation is 24 months, people don't get that
invested in a team. They are there for a fairly quick job. In and out. Don't
make eye contact. Don't lower your shields.

One of the important things about working in a team, is that other members of
the team watch how we treat others. If I'm mean to Joe, then Bob will assume
that I'm mean; even if I'm right, and Joe was in error. The emotional impact
will impart the lesson; not logic. He won't remember Joe as wrong; just me, as
mean.

There is no solution that can be achieved by a simple change in wording.

But that's just me, and my experience. YMMV.

------
tduberne
I ask this kind of questions rather often, and rarely have the problem of it
being interpreted as #1. Thinking about it, I think there are two things the
author missed:

\- tone of voice. Any of those can sound really snarky or very interested,
depending on intonation.

\- history of your interaction with that person. My colleagues (hopefully)
know of my tendency to brainstorm out loud, and that I am quick to accept
seeing limitations in my proposals. If you have an history of not saying much
and not accepting criticism, the initial sentence will come across very
differently.

Plus sometimes, the first idea of someone else _really is a good idea and was
not considered_ . This happens quite a lot where I work, where people have
very diverse backgrounds. Having people avoid saying "obvious" things is
really dangerous in multidisciplinary teams.

------
Icathian
My go to for this is "My first thought would be to use sshd here. I assume
you've tried that?"

~~~
ericmcer
Yeh or “I’m guessing ‘obvious solution’ didn’t work?” Either way any phrasing
that implies you view them as an intelligent person who may have slipped up vs
you just assume they are dumb will work fine?

------
cirgue
"What's the motivation to not do x?" is my personal favorite way to be asked
this, because there typically is a reason, and it's typically where the
thorniest parts of the project lie. It's a good softball question to get to
the non-obvious problems.

------
OrderlyTiamat
I like the way the author tries to dismantle this phrase, but it seems to me
there is no magical way to phrase the question and have it not be interpreted
however the other person percieves it. Ultimately, communication is a two way
street. One has to assume that the other party is working in good faith- if
you are 6workin in the spirit of cooperation, the phrasing doesn't matter that
much anymore, the positive meaning will come through.

That said, I liked the last phrasing in the article. It shows perfectly what
the question is: "this was my first idea, I can't see why it wouldn't work. Do
you want to try this, or have you already thought of it and is theres a reason
it's not working?"

~~~
atoav
What is interesting is that communication is at the heart of many things
unless you are alone — and many are completely unaware of this. E.g. driving
your car in traffic is quite definitly communication, as others have to “read”
your behaviour and interpret it. Good drivers are very concious about what
they communicate in which situation, bad drivers communicate completely
without knowing about it and are bad at reading others communication.

I think you should always think a little bit for the person opposite: Did you
give enough context? Is it ambiguos? etc.

------
ben509
You can put a lot of effort into crafting a way to ask a thing, and it'll
probably work in that specific instance, but it doesn't solve the broader
problem.

My working theory of "how to answer questions" is about making my thought
process transparent. And, especially, explicitly stating what information I'm
lacking.

"I'm looking at your requirements, and I see X and Y so my immediate
inclination is that I'd simply use sshd.

And if that doesn't work for you, knowing why can probably nail down what
would work."

The transparent thought process gives them an insight into why you're saying
the things you do.

And explaining what I need helps them move the discussion forward. It avoids
me being a brick wall of incomprehension.

------
DoreenMichele
"At first glance with what little I know about the project, my first thought
would be sshd. Please fill me in on the background here so I have more context
and can better understand the problem space and chain of logic."

~~~
LeonB
Yes! I’ve looked through these responses exasperated. This is the only one
that I agree with. The people who say “why didn’t you just” often have a very
limited understanding of the new thing, and naively reduce it to a problem
they do understand.

~~~
esotericn
To me, both responses are the same.

Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" comes to mind. You're saying
exactly the same thing but in a bureaucratic form.

Reading other posts here the message I get is that a lot of people work in
dysfunctional environments in which everyone's at each other's throat or
something.

My default assumption would be that obviously my colleague isn't being an
asshole...

~~~
LeonB
The majority of times people have said “why don’t you just...” to me the
answer is that if they understood what $thing was trying to do they wouldn’t
have asked the question. They’re not being “assholes” they’re just headed
toward it from a wrong assumption (they’re assumption is that they understand
what $thing does, but they don’t.) so my advice to anyone suggesting just do
$x is that they need to try to understand what they don’t understand about
$thing, don’t even worry about $x.

~~~
esotericn
Sure, so the answer is 'because I'm doing $thing and $x doesn't work'.

They're literally asking _why_.

If you take it as a statement i.e. 'just use $x' then that's a completely
different matter.

~~~
LeonB
It would've been easier to explain $thing without having to stop and consider
$x. Effort was expended for no gain.

------
vortico
"What benefits does your project offer over sshd?"

I use this because 90% chance the person has an answer ready for the exact
question. "sshd is more difficult to deploy in blah blah situation", which is
an emotionless answer.

------
sequoia
“Did you consider using sshd?”

“Would sshd have worked here?”

“I’ve seen sshd used in cases like this in the past–was that an option?”

Why didn’t you just use one of these phrases?

~~~
tinus_hn
Did you consider using one of these phrases?

Would one of these phrases have worked here?

I’ve seen these phrases used in cases like this in the past, was that an
option?

~~~
sequoia
That was the joke.

------
hanoz
There's no reason to be jumping straight in with "why" in this situation at
all, one can perfectly reasonably ask "have you tried using sshd".

Why doesn't the author just try putting it that way?

~~~
projektfu
He mentions that there are complaints about even that approach.

~~~
hanoz
Where does he mention that? I don't see it.

------
beaker52
The problem appears to me to be around the _assumptions_ that we make when we
use the phrase "Why didn't you just use x?"

Consider "Did you try x?". It's matter of fact. It offers them the benefit of
doubt whilst simultaneously giving them the the opportunity to be oblivious x,
without assuming one way or the other. Much easier to begin a conversation
with.

Speaking about facts makes conversations easier. In tech we're told "don't
just give your opinion, bring evidence" \- evidence are facts. The same works
here too.

~~~
jaclaz
Actually the problem in this kind of conversations is often the lack of the
"standard litany" initially:

[https://jdebp.eu/FGA/problem-report-standard-
litany.html](https://jdebp.eu/FGA/problem-report-standard-litany.html)

if - from the start - either:

1) sshd was mentioned as tried (detailing exactly how it was tested) but not
working

OR

2) sshd was not mentioned among the (several) attempts made

it would become perfectly acceptable to not reply mentioning ssh in case #1 or
"Did you try sshd? in case #2.

What commonly happens in real life is that sshd was actually used, in a wrong
way, and not mentioned, so when you - after having thought a bit on the
problem - propose the "Did you try sshd?" you are perceived as either
"obvious" or "condescending" anyway and you get a reply like "Sure I tried it,
it didn't work!", without any detail on how exactly it was used, so you also
exclude it as a valid possible solution even if (used correctly) it would
work.

------
rleahy22
"Coming into this with fresh eyes, my first thought would be to use sshd. I'm
thinking that might not have solved your problem though. Did you try that and
it didn't work out?"

------
eevilspock
He starts out presuming the problem is with the receiver or the words. He
never considers it could actually be him in a way he doesn't yet perceive.
This is evident as he doesn't even appear to get the gist of the mhoye blog
post that triggered his question.

> _" The more self-effacing I make it, the more I try to put in that I think
> the trouble is only in my own understanding, the more mocking and sarcastic
> it seems to me and the more likely I think it is to be misinterpreted."_

His trying so hard to be "self-effacing" brings to mind Shakespeare's line,
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

He considers the TEN different phrasings, yet never the straightforward and
humble "Did you ever try sshd?". All ten reflect a patronizing attitude, the
assumption that his immediate intuition is correct by default. The "naïvely"
one comes off to me as obnoxiously pseudo-humble.

Complex wordings aren't random. They reflect something of the speaker's mind
or attitude.

There is a good reason why many people love the way very young children put
things so simply, without mask or artifice. WYSIWYG.

I believe the author, Mark, has good will. But good will is not the same as
humility, nor does it give one self-awareness. Like a man who believes he
isn't sexist because when he, a man who's never been in a woman's shoes, looks
in the mirror he doesn't see any sexism.

------
at_a_remove
"For every problem there is a solution that is simple, neat — and wrong."

I start with the basic assumption that the person I am talking to has spent
more time thinking about the problem than I have, which is a good one because
I have just walked in. Therefore, if they did not do the Thing Which Is
Obvious To Me, there must be a reason for it. I try to work out what that is
and volunteer _that_ as "I'm guessing $reason played a factor?"

Once you begin treating a person as someone you have something to learn
something from, everything changes. It has been difficult to do this at times
but it pays off so frequently I have little reason to recommend against it. If
I have to ask someone on a help line for something, I will briefly explain
myself and ask, "If you were me, what would you do?" I watch in amazement as
someone who has been used as a speech-recognition front-end for a flowchart
brings expertise, insight, and judgment to the situation.

The reason I do this is because I have been asked "why didn't you just ..." so
often by people who are looking for the simple solution every time and exist
in this constant welter of disappointment that the world might be slightly
more complex than plugging things together tend to look at you in this
resentful, exasperated manner as if you, personally, are withholding the Easy
Way Out. I just do not want to do that to other people, having been on the
receiving end of it myself so often.

You will run into people who have overlooked the obvious but that will be much
rarer than you would imagine.

------
sudhirj
I say “what was the problem with sshd”? This gives the other person the
benefit of the doubt, and also compliments them on being rational actors who
obviously evaluated this already and are now going to report their findings.
If they haven’t considered it, they usually just say so, and if they have and
their concerns have workarounds or are incorrect I address the concerns
without making it personal. Or they might just right, and know something I
don’t.

------
godot
I agree that all of the versions the author listed are no good; they do sound
just as condescending or maybe even worse than the original.

For myself, in a similar scenario, I tend to say "Can we just...?" Granted
it's not enormously better, but I feel like using "we" (as a rule of thumb in
any work conversation too, not just in this scenario) always lightens it up
and makes it more like we're on the same team (which we are) instead of me vs
you. (And if you want to be even more neutral, omit the "just", and say "Can
we use sshd?")

Digging a little deeper though, the issue of whether someone takes you more
lightly or more aggressively comes down to how they perceive you as a person
(your personality) and what they already know about you. If you come across as
a friendly and funny person every day (through lots of other things you can
do), when you say "Can we just...?" it becomes easier to understand you as
well-meaning and saying in a tongue-in-cheek way "I'm an idiot, here's a
simple straightforward suggestion, probably won't work?" instead of "You are
an idiot, here's a simple straightforward suggestion, why didn't you think of
it".

------
theboywho
I had the exact same issue with my wife, my theory is that people with an
inferiority complex will suppose response 1, and I think that has to do with
them frequently exposed to people with superiority complex supposing 1 when
they give them feedback.

My take on this is to target the inferiority complex by lifting them up, i now
usually say:

I see you used X instead of Y, knowing you, I suppose this was not accidental
/ was deliberate and I’m now curious

------
rbongers
I like "what would happen if you used sshd"? (Not "tried sshd", that's
important). They will either tell you the outcome of what they already tried
or will be lead to the solution.

The only way I can think of this being misconstrued is "what would happen if
you used sshd? Or are you an idiot and you haven't even tried it yet?" But
that's a bit of a stretch. The reason I think this is different from the other
phrasings is that it presupposes that the person has already tried the
solution more than not. At the same time, it makes your ignorance clear - you
cannot say "when you used sshd" because you don't know if they have tried it
yet, but you ask them for the outcome knowing that they might've.

The downside is that for sometimes people might not pick up on what you're
saying if they don't know much about the solution because it's so indirect,
but that's the trade-off for favoring the other side of things. I think that
once you know they haven't tried it, you can be a bit more direct as long as
you're not condescending. Not that this is easy.

------
l0b0
What seems to work for me is specifying exactly _which part_ of the solution
you might want to replace and _why,_ phrasing it like a brainstorm idea rather
than a fully thought-out proposal: "Would it be easier to frobnicate if we
replaced the blarter with sshd?" This should make it clear that a) you're not
suggesting that the blarter feature set overlaps exactly with sshd, which
would be an astronomical coincidence, and b) you're focusing on frobnication
to the exclusion of every other axis along which you might measure the
usefulness of the blarter.

In my experience the responses are always productive - most of the time they
are happy to explain why the blarter is better at frobnicating or why some
other useful feature of the blarter trumps sshd. And once we have a dialogue
it's easier to introduce other brainstorm-y ideas. Conversely, in the rare
case where they realize that sshd is actually a good alternative they simply
hadn't considered they often instantly volunteer three other reasons why it's
more useful than the blarter.

------
cauliflower99
"Would we be able to use a simpler method - could sshd work?"

\- "We", rather than "you", puts the question / phrase into a team context -
ie. you are there with the other person to help, not to point fingers.

\- Asking the question at the end indicates that you are unsure whether you
are correct or not, while leaving yourself open to criticism, thereby
displaying humility.

------
beaconstudios
just assume they considered your suggestion and ask as if they did and must
indeed have a reason why it didn't work:

"so what was the issue with using sshd?"

you're assuming competence, and if they say "oh I never thought of that" then
you can prompt them to consider it - "might be worth a shot" or something like
that. Comes across less accusative I think.

~~~
maps
Yes I agree. A 'what is the problem with using sshd?' or similar seems valid
to me. It gives them a way to actually explain if there is a problem and if
not, oh that might work.

------
forrestthewoods
"Why can't you just" is a huge pet peeve of mine.

"Why can't you just" is particular frustrating when someone interrupts a deep
conversation. What they're really saying is "can you please stop your
conversation and focus your full attaching on catching me up to all the issues
you discussed 2 hours ago?"

Here's an alternative:

"Can you tell me about your problem?" Then shut up and listen.

And here's a slightly longer form:

"You've thought about this way more than me. I'd love to brainstorm with you.
But I'll need to catch up. <Listen. Listen more.> So why doesn't sshd work?
Ok, and why can't you foo? Oh damn. What happens if you bar? Dang. I don't
have an answer yet, but I am starting to understand your problem".

Odds are decent that someone will solve their own hard problem by using you as
a rubber duck. Odds are very, very low that you'll solve someone else's hard
problem by offering up the very first thing that comes to mind.

------
pdpi
The fundamental problem with the "Why didn't you just <solution>?" format is
that implies the other person knows less than you. Going down the self-
effacing route just goes from "I think I have the answer" to "even though I
don't know a lot about this, I still think I have the answer". It's actually
_worse_.

Instead, I prefer approaching the discussion as me catching up to the current
state of affairs. "What options have you looked at? Why haven't they worked?"
followed by "Ok, have you considered/tried <my solution>?" Both fixes the
subtext problem while actually giving you more information to work with — you
can now choose to offer the "obvious answer" or not depending on their
response, and potentially have a stronger argument for why it's a good fit
and/or some caveats about why it might not be a great fit (but still worth
trying)

------
zzo38computer
I disagree; "Why didn't you just use sshd?" is a valid question and can be
answered as such. Of course the answer might be "I don't know", but also there
might be an answer, and maybe they do know the answer and have a good reason
to don't use sshd; I don't know. That is why I ask. Then you can learn.

~~~
onion2k
Unless the person you're asking has specifically asked you for questions you
shouldn't approach every situation as an opportunity for you to learn.
Sometimes the situation is about other people, their work, and accepting what
they've done as a valid use of their time. Asking a question that could
potentially invalidate the effort they've put in, even if you think it's a
reasonable point to raise and you think you could learn from it, is just
incredibly selfish.

A key skill in communication is anticipating what the potential outcomes of
what you say might be in a particular situation. In this case, the question
_can_ be valid, but it can also be _completely_ the wrong thing to ask.

~~~
v0tary
Thank you for pointing this out - after reading the OPS article, it is the
first thought to mind. Maybe I missed it, but the premise of the article is
contextualized on the response rather than the originating presentation of the
problem. If the person isn't asking for your help, it can come off as
offensive when hearing remarks/responses like this; and as many point out in
the comments - there is no easy way to say it. This just leads to that person
internalizing in the future and less likely to seek actual help. This isn't an
insecurity, NO ONE wants their work invalidated. (and so many wonder why
workplace burnouts are common)

While the proverbial "There is no I in team" applies here, the real lack of
social skills is on the OP, not the person presenting the problem.

Re-phrasing aside, a simple, "Hey, that's an interesting problem. I may be
able help if you'd like" before stating the obvious solution will go miles in
the conversation and re-enforce the relationship between both parties.

------
robbiemitchell
"My first instinct is to use sshd. Have you tried that already?”

I use phrasing like that and "My knee jerk reaction is..." etc. intentionally
because (a) it's accurate context and (b) it allows the person to wave it away
casually if it's irrelevant. In any case, I find that the conversation remains
both polite and productive.

~~~
r-w
Why give anyone the opportunity to wave away your ideas? :) I don’t think the
other person should be respected at your own expense.

~~~
robbiemitchell
I mean "wave away" in the context of "Yes, I already tried that."

------
ups101
Shortest version: "Could you use X?"

Three advantages: First, studies show people like to say no more than yes.
This fits a no, perfect for the knee-jerk denial, but most would follow up
with a reason. As the reason is formulated, one may realise the initial
assumption is wrong. However, at this point the person is discussing with
himself. This is exactly what you want: The asker is out of the picture; the
parades are down.

Second, an answer in the negative does not reflect poorly on the asker, as the
question does not speak to preference. He may already be inclined towards a
no, but just want the reason for X not being the better choice. Hence, less
chance for a follow-up justification leading to a discussion.

Third, it merely establishes if X is feasible. Higher chance of finding common
ground when discussing feasibility without preference.

Lastly, it doesn't get much shorter than this. Less words is less skin in the
game.

------
godshatter
I guess I don't see this as much of a negative question as others seems to.
I'm one of those people that likes to work on more obscure solutions to things
just because they interest me. Might or might not end up with a better
solution than the common method, but I gain insight that I can maybe leverage
on some other problem. So the question "why didn't you just..." usually ends
up with me stating why I thought that solution was interesting and what I've
learned by avoiding the obvious solution. Of course, sometimes I simply didn't
think of the obvious solution, but you can't put yourself out there without a
little risk.

I don't tend to assume ill intent for questions like that. Someone saw the
problem, and proposed an obvious solution. That's just being helpful, even if
they start off thinking you're an idiot.

------
luka-birsa
What about:

\- Asking them why did you pick X? (here you might get an answer why you
didn't pick Y) \- Telling them that you tried Y and it worked for you.

So it's understanding their process and sharing your experience. I think in
the end you should have the engineer decide on his own.

In the end they might go with X anyways, so you'll need to react to that.

I've had an engineer going for X for 14 days, but every time we had a
discussion I've asked additional questions about X for me (and them) to
understand why going for X is a better approach. In the end he figured it out
that Y is a better approach. While it took a while, the engineering person in
the end figured it out and took the solution for his.

I've also had cases where this didn't work out, but in those cases I've put my
foot down saying you need to use Y to the person. It's also the case that
person is not with us anymore.

------
arketyp
Anyone ready to interpret the question as response 1 woud seem to me about as
unbearable to work with as a person asking the question and actually meaning
reponse 1. That's a very sad working environment and my Gordian knot solution
would be to try to avoid those collaborations altogether.

------
reportgunner
The whole angle of the author is wrong.

If you don't want the other person to take it harshly, tell them exactly what
you think. Talk about yourself and don't ask for an answer that you don't
know.

 _I wonder if you 've considered using XY. It seems it might be a good fit
thanks to the ZZZ property of XY._

------
013a
I sometimes start it with "I'm curious; why didn't you use sshd?" I think that
does a decent job of clearing up your intentions.

I also believe, as a general rule; don't use the word You. Compare "Why didn't
you use sshd" and "Why was sshd selected for this".

~~~
lstamour
I was about to suggest “I’m curious: what about sshd?” And maybe follow up
with a reason to use it or doubt it, such as “You could run remote commands
through it...” Which naturally leads to “but it doesn’t pass as easily through
firewalls as SSL, and key exchange is harder than a URL encoded secret...”
Essentially, take your suggestion and expand on it slightly, inviting further
conversation?

You could also just bring it up generically, such as: “In the sprit of an FAQ
question like ‘What about X?’ I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on how
this approach compares to sshd?”

~~~
amflare
I agree. I use "What about?" almost daily. It can either be a gentle
suggestion, or a request for information. Neither is aggressive, so it works
out both ways.

------
6gvONxR4sf7o
I find a general version of this to be hard. Someone with expertise who you
respect says something that seems idiotic. Intellectual humility suggests you
keep an open mind, but they essentially said "1+1 != 2." Maybe it's a
Chesterson's fence kind of thing and you shouldn't refute it before you figure
out why they said it instead of the obvious alternative. Or maybe you are sure
they're just wrong but want to tell them so without talking down to them. It's
very hard. "Doesn't 1+1=2?" "Have you considered that 1+1=2?" "Why aren't you
just using standard grade school arithmetic?" "JFC. 1+1=2 ya nincompoop."

Even being socratic (my preferred slow as hell approach) can sometimes border
being patronising.

------
tylerjwilk00
I disagree with the article premise.

If I say, "Why don't you just X?"

It's short hand for:

\- This is the first solution I thought of

\- I am sure you already tried this

\- Since you probably already tried it, why didn't it work?

It's about learning. I don't think most people are so fragile and insecure
that you can't ask them about their problem space.

~~~
rkangel
That's your (and my) shorthand for those meanings, and my intention in the
conversation, but based on a large sample over the years, that _isn 't_ how a
large percentage of people interpret it.

If 0.1% of people interpret a statement in a way that I didn't mean, it's
probably their fault. If 40% do, then that's my fault.

------
PaulRobinson
"What options have you already looked through?"

If you were expecting sshd, and they mention it and rule it out because of
reason X, you now have the start of a constructive conversation. "Oh wow, I
didn't know that" or "Ah, hang on, I fixed something similar once, want me to
see if I can dig out my notes?" are nice.

If you were expecting sshd and it doesn't show up, you could then offer "Had
you considered sshd or ruled it out at all?".

Also, ask them for the problem they were trying to solve, and offer
alternative takes on the problem, sympathise, and only go into alternative
solutions after asking them to describe the solutions they've tried.

This is really hard, and I'm still trying to get better at it after 20+ years
in industry.

------
LeonB
“This looks like a situation where I’ve used ‘sshd’ - but I might be missing
the big picture here.”

------
jmmcd
I can paraphrase the vast majority of answers as "why don't you just remove
the word 'just'?"

The _real_ issue is that if you don't know how to smile and be friendly and
respectful in your body language, minor rephrasings won't help.

------
lidHanteyk
Really, let's be honest; we want to show off how _we_ would have done it.
That's all. How about:

> That's an interesting solution! I don't know whether I would have thought of
> that. My first thought was to use sshd. Can I show you something?

~~~
kaelig
It's possible that this would be an okay tone to use toward a junior developer
or an intern. Could it sound patronizing toward a peer, or a more senior
developer?

~~~
lidHanteyk
Sure, if one needs to suck up to a superior, then one should suck the dick:

> I would have used sshd, because I am inexperienced and don't understand your
> approach. Could you help me understand?

------
Pxtl
I usually start with the statement that I'm having trouble understanding the
code. "I don't get it". But either way, it _is_ a criticism of the code if I
don't get it.

Because truly, that in itself is the failing. If there's an obvious fix for
the problem, and it's not obvious to the reader why an alternative approach
was chosen, then the developer either failed to use the obvious tool or failed
to make it obvious why they chose the alternate tool.

Because the next guy who has to fix bugs in this code might throw it out and
use the obvious tool, and if so the code needs better comments or other
explanation why that doesn't work here.

------
aazaa
> Whenever you look at a problem somebody’s been working on for a week or a
> month or maybe years and propose a simple, obvious solution that just
> happens to be the first thing that comes into your head, then you’re also
> making it crystal clear to people what you think of them and their work.

I've been successful with a different approach.

Ask "What happened when you tried X," where X is a simple option, instead.

It implies that you think X could have been tried, and opens the door for an
explanation for why it didn't work.

If X wasn't tried (and I am surprised how often it was not), then you find
out. No chance for misunderstanding, except from the most defensive types.

------
musicale
I kind of like "why didn't you just (use simple and obvious solution that
doesn't work for some reason?)" If there's a simple and obvious solution that
doesn't work and the reason it doesn't work isn't apparent, it's nice to know
why.

On the more malicious side of things, one of the more effective ways I've seen
people blast something to oblivion is "I don't understand how (your stupid
system) solves (intractable problem created by your stupid system.)"
Occasionally someone will twist the knife by prefacing it with "Maybe I'm
missing something here, but...."

------
sethherr
“What problem does this solve that existing tools don’t?”

Something that gives them an opening to explain why they went down the path
they went down. Bonus - if they didn’t actually think of using sshd, this can
lead to a gentle way of bringing it up.

~~~
sethherr
Or maybe just “what was wrong with existing tools?”

------
erikerikson
"Could sshd have solved this?"

The phrasings listed seem to bring in the other person's choice and thereby
create an oppositional/contrastive/comparative dynamic in to the statements.

I write this having struggled with this sort of thing.

~~~
gfodor
It's hard to ask this way without coming off the way a teacher comes off to a
student. If you're in a mentoring situation, this clearly works, but if you
are a peer or a superior, it's dicey without perfect tone and body language.

------
yihyeh
1\. "just" is less of a problem, "you just" presents more problem because it
asking about the person's motivation, and not the code/technical solution.
"Why didn't `sshd` used here?" will is a better question.

2\. Asking this question doesn't tell people what you really think. Better
question if it also followed by, "why" you think you can use `sshd`. "Why
didn't you just use `sshd`? From my experience/quick judgment/limited
understanding `sshd` is better/simpler compare to <suggested approach>,
because of bla bla bla"

------
FernandoTN
It is not what you say but how you say it. People are emotional and tend to
remember based on how something make them feel, not the phrasing of the
conversation.

You could hypothesize a scenario where the poorest and even offending wording
is used and as long as the person talking shows empathy, mimics and finds
common ground through it's body language and most importantly, regulates its
tone to avoid sounding judgmental. The receiver will find it easier to digest
and accept the message in contrast to hearing the perfect phrased message.

------
throwaway40324
After reading this, Its killing me not knowing what they built, used, or
implemented instead of using sshd. It would add much more context.

Is the author a Lead? Manager? Architect? On the same team, or department? A
direct peer?

All of this matters in order to better answer the main question presented in
the article.

Why wasnt more than one dev involved in discussing a design or possible
solutions before the work was performed? If that was the case, where was the
author when that happened?

Why didn't you just already know they weren't using sshd?

------
zaphar
The problem with the phrase is the inclusion of a presumed technology choice.
My topical approach is to dig into the details of their approach to the
problem. This gives there other person a chance to be the expert.

It also gives me enough information to determine if the knowledge gap lies
with me or them, in a fashion that makes it clear I am interested in their
point of view specifically. I don't think you can reword the single phrase in
a way that won't sound offensive in certain contexts.

------
WhereIsHopper
"What are the limitations that prevent us from using sshd?" This has the best
chance of being interpreted as Response 2, allowing the person to provide this
information.

------
Kye
"Why didn't you use [proposed x]": high risk of seeming like the beginning of
a tiring argument.

"I never thought about using [used y]": maybe not true, but sometimes it's
more important to be humble than right. You invite them to explain why they
used it, or ask what you would use instead.

The difference is the first comes with implications, while the latter beats
implications over the head with a shovel and invites the askee to help you
bury the body.

------
scarejunba
The problem isn't the asker. It's the answerer. The solution is to not to talk
to such answerers. Most people I worked with would phrase that "Why wouldn't
using just sshd not work?" And most people would answer that with "Yeah, we
thought of that but it won't because X" or "Oh shit, that might be it" or
"What's sshd?"

Well, it won't be sshd because everyone knows that. But you get it.

------
jitl
“Did you consider using `sshd`? Why didn’t it work for you?”

------
mkesper
The more self-effacing I make it, the more I try to put in that I think the
trouble is only in my own understanding, the more mocking and sarcastic it
seems to me and the more likely I think it is to be misinterpreted.

I think this a textbook example of the four sides communication model
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-
sides_model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-sides_model)

------
have_faith
> I was thinking about [the problem] and was wondering if sshd would also work
> [because of X benefit], what do you think?

I would probably phrase it something like that. State why you're bringing it
up (I'm trying to solve the problem, not just criticise your solution), assume
they have already considered it, ask what they think about your idea instead
of just offering advice about theirs, both options are still on the table.

------
sjcsjc
The approach I would use also works in the related situation where you're
trying to help someone fix a problem and you want to be sure they've tried all
the obvious things.

"I'm going to sound like a tw@t* saying this, so I apologise in advance, but I
have to ask anyway. X"

where X = "Did you try ..." or X = "Why didn't you use ..."

* change the expletive to whatever's appropriate given whom you're addressing.

------
jscholes
Okay, I have a question for the author:

Why didn't you just use a website layout which was easy to navigate and
understand for people using screen readers? Is it because it's not a topic
you've ever considered, or did you do research into it and just find the
documentation and available resources lacking? There is only a single heading
on the entire page, for instance. Happy to hear thoughts by email (in bio).

------
grahamlee
"Can you tell me more about the problem?" before proposing a solution offers
the humility lacking in the original question. Any rephrasing of the question
"why don't you just X?" still leaves you in the position of being arrogant
enough to assume you've come up with a better answer without learning the
context, so (to borrow a phrase) why don't you just learn the context?

------
epaga
Wow, this seems like there's a lot of insecurity going on (on both sides), if
we're putting this much thought into simply asking

"Did you try sshd?"

------
turc1656
To avoid the ambiguity between the two primary intents, I always phrase the
question as "I assume there was a reason you didn't [x]?" That puts any
possible idiocy on my end for not immediately seeing the reason [x] wasn't
done, while also giving them a chance to explain their thought process. And it
also gives them credit through implication that I assume they thought of it.

------
tsar_nikolai
You see someone struggling while trying to solve a problem, and you know that
–in your opinion– there's an obvious solution to that problem called [𝓍]. The
thing you're after, is whether they have considered using this solution.

Just ask them:

=> "Have you considered using [𝓍]?"

Either you will learn something new (why [𝓍] is not suitable for this
situation), or they will (there is [𝓍] that solves their problem).

------
NikolaNovak
I tend to use “How come you you didn’t use x?” Or even “how come X
didn’t/wouldn’t work?”, and let my body language and facial expression
indicate genuine curiosity,and maybe even perplexion at the scope of problem.
I don’t feel Author considered the non verbal ways of communicating intent.

“How come” feels slightly lest antagonistic then simple “why” but that may
well be regional differences

~~~
shantly
"How come" and just "why" coupled with fairly direct phrasing are a lot better
than most of the rest of the suggestions elsewhere in the thread as of this
posting, most of which seem highly passive-aggressive.

------
Communitivity
I try to approach every technical conversation using an Assumption of
Competence approach. This means I assume (a) the person you are speaking with
has a greater domain knowledge than you,(b)knew what they were doing when they
did it, and (c) applied that knowledge successfully.

I then ask questions accordingly. For example, "What would happen if we used
sshd here?"

------
invalidOrTaken
I don't think the answer lies in phrasing; the best approach I've found is to
say little and ask questions _around_ it.

------
harrisonjackson
Initially, I thought this was going to be a post about an internal dialogue
leading the OP to a more straightforward solution than they might have moved
towards. A way to K.I.S.S.

The lesson of _that_ article would be to pretend a coworker was to ask "Why
didn't you just ___?" and fill in the blank on your own. Repeat as needed.

------
ltbarcly3
I would just say "why can't you just use xxx". If they are moderately
competent, they will instantly say "xxx doesn't work for this because the abc
can't be compiled on this hardware", they'll have thought of it too, because
it's probably not just obvious for you, and now they have helped you get up to
speed on this complex problem.

I don't think you can use magic phrases, or avoid magic phrases, to manipulate
people into feeling one way or another about you. You aren't insulting them by
asking obvious questions, you need to hear the answer. If it took them 2 weeks
to get stuck and ask for help, it's going to take you at least a few days to
figure out why this is actually a harder problem than it seems. Avoiding the
'obvious question' because you think your colleague is too fragile to answer
it and think nothing more of it is far more condescending.

What if they didn't think of it? Either they are very inexperienced, so they
shouldn't be insulted by an expert providing expertise, or they are
experienced and will slap themselves on the head and laugh about it, or they
are an intolerable jerk, and who cares what jerks think of you?

~~~
r-w
> who cares what jerks think of you?

I do, as their coworker who has to put up with them!

------
ljm
Replacing ‘why’ with ‘how come’ turns a seemingly judgmental question into a
curious one.

I prefer to ask what they’ve already tried so far, though, instead of jumping
to an immediate diagnosis. At least then your ‘how come’ question can point to
a novel solution they may not have considered. Because you know what they
already have tried.

~~~
Kye
They read like synonyms to me.

------
A1phab3t
Ask “what have you tried already?”

If their answer doesn’t include sshd, give them the benefit of the doubt
anyway and ask “what happened when you tried sshd?”

To avoid any likelihood of sounding like a jerk, phrase your inquiry in a
manner that makes it clear you assume the other person is as smart as you.

------
ikeboy
"what happened when you tried sshd?"/"what went wrong when you tried sshd?"

~~~
hairofadog
This, but present tense, is my favorite. “What happens when you try x?” If
they haven’t tried it, they can say, “hmm, I don’t know. Let’s see.” If they
have, they can say, “it errors out” or “it sorta works but...” or whatever. In
my experience it comes across as curiosity rather than judgement.

------
r-w
Honestly, @carlmr’s answer is the shortest & sweetest of them all. The most
important thing is to avoid associating your idea with yourself and their
implementation with themselves. As soon as that happens, you’re opening
yourself up to a territorial interaction.

------
stvrbbns
Why didn't you just make that a poll or survey?

But seriously, we all might learn how to phrase that question better if we
knew which phrasing was generally preferred. I'd pick the last one myself: I
probably would've tried using sshd here. Would that not work?

------
mkarliner
This about the non verbal communications of tone and gesture.

No amount of rewording will substitute for a smile.

~~~
r-w
Not everyone knows how to use non-verbal communication, either. Hopefully most
of the people discussing this get that non-verbal is Plan A; and careful re-
wording is Plan B, for when Plan A falls through.

~~~
jmmcd
Not a chance, I reckon. My evidence is just the whole setup/scenario on the
blog post, and the fact that Ctrl-F "smile" only gives one result.

------
esotericn
I don't agree that the original question / statement is insulting or snarky as
the author seems to feel.

_Of course_ sometimes I'm going to miss something blindingly obvious; and
other times I just won't know a tool exists. You will experience this too.

------
ch
Honestly, if they aren't asking for help formulating a solution, they also
aren't asking for your suggestion to an alternative (even if you try to couch
it in terms of a question). So just don't ask and you won't have the issue.

------
kaelig
Here's how I have approached it lately. Would love to know what people think:

>My mind goes towards using X to achieve this. Curious to know if it's
something you've explored and how it might not be the best fit for this use-
case.

------
closeparen
I ask for the design document, and scroll to "Alternatives Considered"
(usually the juiciest part).

If it's not there, I'll say something like "I noticed you didn't discuss X
here, what was your thought process?"

------
jasonshen
My go-to here is pretty simple: "I assume X didn't work?"

This puts yourself in their shoes, imagines that they tried X and it failed
and you're not sure why without having to say all this "not clever enough"
stuff.

------
deepsun
"sshd may also work for that"

The trick is to turn question into a constructive suggestion.

------
holdenc
To better remove the criticism, add some honesty and objectivity...

"One of the first things I would think of, when trying to solve a problem like
this, would be sshd. But, I may not understand the full scope of your
problem."

------
rdiddly
Avoid the whole question of why they _didn 't_ do something; that's where the
criticism is coming in, and nobody actually gives the slightest shit about
that answer. Just say "Did you try...?"

~~~
baggy_trough
Nobody cares if they tried it either. Just say, "what about sshd?" or
something like that.

------
paulsutter
“I assume X didn’t work?”

This assumes the problem is more complex than it first appears, implies that
you’re still searching for another solution along with them. And in the
unlikely case it is the right answer, you can both laugh.

------
r-w
I love how this conversation is becoming a model of itself! People proposing
solutions in contrast to others, some taking their own advice and others
falling into the same trap O.P. brought up in the first place!

------
luxuryballs
You’d think this guy works in an adult daycare center, either that or I’m an
asshole. Why didn’t you just ask the question and not worry about how it comes
across instead of writing an article about it? :P

~~~
nothrabannosir
I’m happy somebody pays this much attention to what emotions they cause in
others. Communication with humans is hard, and people get it wrong every day.
The people who don’t realise this are either natural born communicators, or
rough to be around, in my experience. People accommodate rude colleagues but
it’s rarely pleasant. For the rest of us, this much introspection is what it
takes to decrypt the codex.

If you find yourself thinking this article is over the top, either you’re
lucky, or your colleagues are not :)

~~~
marvin
Just making an observation here that I haven't seen elsewhere in the thread --
this subject is more tricky in written communication and for people who are
less sensitive to body language.

If you're communicating in person and are above-average sensitive to others'
reactions, you'll be very likely to immediately pick up whether your "did you
try sshd?" was interpreted as criticism. Most people will react with a slight
tensing or a particular a change in facial expression or body position if they
interpret something as criticism. Then you can just follow up with "this
wasn't meant as criticism; I'm just curious".

If no reaction, then don't say anything; your intent came through fine. And if
they genuinely hadn't considered sshd and feel stupid because of that, that
would be the kind of almost-inevitable interpersonal discomfort that any
healthy adult would be expected to deal with in stride. If appropriate and you
wanted to be unreasonably sensitive, you could soothe the situation with "I'm
not familiar with the details of doing this in your domain, there's of course
the possibility there might be some unknown gotcha there".

Most socially sensitive people wouldn't articulate or think consciously about
this when it happens in person, it's just an inherent part of the unexpectedly
complex and quick back-and-forth of conversation.

Written communication is a subject in itself, many dimensions of communication
are lost when there is no tone of voice or body language. I almost think
people should be encouraged from childhood not to apply a tone of voice when
reading written communication, or ask if they're unsure.

------
daze42
Rephrasing slightly can get across almost the same suggestion with much less
chance for condescension: "sshd has some features that may be useful with what
you're wanting to accomplish."

~~~
David
To me that actually sounds _more_ condescending. The statement form suggests
not only that I thought of the right way to solve your long-term problem in 5
minutes, but also that I'm confident you didn't know about it. The question
form depends a lot on tone, but at least it admits that you might have
considered the idea.

------
dblotsky
The one I often go for is: “What is the reason you’re not using sshd?”

It implies that I understand there is a reason, that I don’t know the reason,
and that I’m ready to be surprised if indeed there is no good reason.

------
mlanting
Saying something like "Why can't you do/use X?" would be simple, direct, and
assumes the person thought of it and that there is a reason that they "didn't
just...".

------
loa_in_
For the listener it's a good idea not to base your own sense of being or not
being a blockhead on the opinions of people who don't know you past one or a
bunch of ideas you contributed.

------
bellBivDinesh
I like to use “what happens when you use sshd?”.

If they’ve tried it and there is an obvious response, that’s what they’ll say
and there was no faux pas.

If they haven’t tried it they will say so and the phrasing still holds up.

------
CardenB
“Why” is inherently accusatory and should be avoided. The question seems
insulting because of “why” and “just”.

Try saying “what is preventing us from us Hong sshd?”. It is less accusatory
and more inclusive.

------
petercooper
I'd probably go with something like "I'm not as involved with the problem
domain as you are, but sshd came to mind for me. Could it be an appropriate
way to go here?"

------
asynch8
I would just argue to not question why they haven't done something and rather
ask 'Have you tried sshd? sounds like something you could use, but maybe i am
missing something.

------
dchess
I usually go with one of the following: "Is there a reason you didn't do X?"
or "Could you use X here?" or "Have you considered using X?"

------
swagh
I'm not sure on what context you have all these meetings but maybe one radical
thought it this: you're having these issues because maybe your updates with
these folks are at a very abstract level. Coming from an academic background,
the reason for such an interaction would be the inability to comprehend the
complexities of the problem due to the level of abstraction it's being
presented at. If you lower the level of abstraction, you might have fewer such
cases. Though it's doesn't entirely answer your question, it might help you
with your conundrum.

------
pacaro
Can you add "why not sshd?" to the FAQ please

------
lintuxvi
Add another sentence. Preface with your actual reaction. The subtext can be
avoided better being explicit than being clever with your wording.

~~~
r-w
I mostly agree. But I think making it explicit that sshd is _your_ idea and
the implementation is _their_ idea does a lot to make both parties territorial
and perhaps oppositional.

I also prefer taking the altruistic approach in most cases. But it occurs to
me: if the obvious solution were the best one, would there even be a problem
to discuss? ;)

------
rco8786
I go with “is there any reason you didn’t choose X?” Or even better when the
context is appropriate: “Is there any reason WE didn’t choose X?”

------
gpsx
They say communication is X% non-verbal. Googling just now I got 93%. So
maybe, intentionally or not, it is more than just the words used.

------
drewm1980
Ask if they want feedback or to brainstorm new ideas before giving it. Don't
try to bake the feedback into the question itself.

------
kazinator
> _Naïvely, I would think that sshd would work for that._

> but again I think that suggests sarcasm

That's coming from that snooty little diaeresis.

------
dcanelhas
"I would probably have tried using sshd for this, do you think that would have
worked?" Is how I would have phrased it.

------
maniflames
'Is there a reason for not using sshd? It seems to be a great tool for the
problem you're trying to solve.'

------
Chris2048
I'd add my 2-cents here, but this comments section appears to have turned into
a bike-shedding/dog-pile..

------
undoware
in philosophy we say:

"Standardly, XYZ, but if I understand you, you're saying ABC, are you not?
What motivates this difference?"

Key points:

-identify that you are making an explicit formal comparison to a usual solution

-convey a charitable attempt at understanding ("the Principle of Charity"), and how far it took you

\- attempt to comprehend the problem being solved

~~~
r-w
But is the contrast between what is “standard” and what is actually used? Or
is it between what’s been informed by practice and what’s being suggested in
theory?

Perhaps presenting the listener as being “out of line” with some form of
expectation isn’t the best way to put them at ease. In fact, ideally neither
person should feel out of line in a mutual interaction like this.

~~~
undoware
Perhaps, but I don't speak for myself -- I'm describing a practice that is
well understood, like rules of the road.

------
Udik
"I banged my head on the same issue before for weeks/ months/ years and ended
up using sshd".

------
commandersaki
Have you considered sshd?

I think this has an element of tact because asking if it has been considered
means it may not have been.

------
csomar
Is it, really, that hard? I'm not sure why the OP can't get "himself" out of
the conversation.

> Did you use sshd?

Simple.

------
j7ake
"Is it possible to use something like sshd"?

"Would it also work if we used sshd"?

"Have you tried using sshd"?

------
sailfast
"Not knowing too much here, sshd comes to mind as an option. Is it worth
trying out?"

------
rebuilder
"You probably tried sshd, could you share what problems you ran into?"

------
tome
"Is there a particular reason that sshd doesn't work for this?"

------
lwhi
"I'm obviously coming at this afresh. Could using _X_ work?"

------
itronitron
3\. Why didn't you just use sshd? Now I have to learn something new.

------
seankimdesign
Why don't you just ask "Have you tried using sshd"?

------
vickyks
"Have you considered using sshd in this case?"

------
ummonk
"Wait, why couldn't you use sshd?"

------
omarhaneef
Oh, I feel like I know this one:

“What happened when you used X?”

------
mehrdadn
Would _" Would sshd work?"_ work?

------
tangus
I would have tried sshd. What's the catch?

------
sol_invictus
"How did you try to solve this?"

------
Aardappel
"How does it compare to sshd?"

------
JoeAltmaier
"Did you consider using xxx?"

------
aappleby
"Sshd didn't work?"

------
amp108
"Can you use sshd?"

------
clwk
Assuming you eliminated sshd…

------
dimman
”ssh?”

~~~
r-w
i.e., “Or not?”

------
tlarkworthy
Was sshd considered?

------
quickthrower2
Related comic relief: [https://xkcd.com/1831/](https://xkcd.com/1831/)

------
kerkeslager
I'm reminded of Keep Your Identity Small[1].

As a society it seems like we're moving more and more to a model of
conversation where the onus is on the speaker/writer to communicate in the
most obsequious manner possible to avoid offense, while the listener/reader is
allowed to interpret what is said/written as offensively as they want.

It's certainly a kind thing to ask "Could we use SSHD here?" instead of "Why
didn't you just use SSHD?" But if someone says, "Why didn't you just use
SSHD?" I think the person hearing that question has some responsibility to
take the question at face value, and not read an insult into it.

Ultimately, the speaker/writer and listener/reader are supposed to have the
same goal: to solve the problem in the best way possible. Maybe SSHD is a
better solution, and if it's a better solution to use SSHD, then we should use
SSHD. That's the entire point of asking the question in the first place: to
try to discover if SSHD would be a better solution. But if the person hears
"Why didn't you just use SSHD?" and concludes "They must think I'm an idiot",
then how are they going to handle hearing "We should use SSHD instead."? I
think it's reasonable to expect adults to be able to take this sort of
criticism without feeling hurt or getting defensive.

Someone so married to their own work/ideas that they take polite criticism of
their work/ideas as a personal attack can't be an effective member of a team,
and since they'll always feel under attack for every mistake they make that
gets corrected, they will be miserable to boot. This thought process doesn't
represent reality: just because you used the wrong tool doesn't make you a
stupid person or a bad engineer, and just because someone thinks you used the
wrong tool doesn't mean they think you're a stupid person or a bad engineer.
I'd go so far as to call this a mental disorder; it certainly fits the DSM IV
definition[2].

Smart people and good engineers make mistakes: a big part of what makes
someone smart and a good engineer is that they actively seek out people who
catch their mistakes.

So sure, strive to communicate in a kind, compassionate way. But also strive
to be confident enough that you can take criticism of your ideas and work
without taking it as an statement about you, or your value as a person or
worker.

[1]
[http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html)

[2]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3101504/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3101504/)

------
FussyZeus
My go to for this is to say "I'm guessing $solution didn't work." Because then
you're supposing a solution that most likely the other person did already, and
you're communicating that you'd assume they'd already thought of it, and in
the odd event that they didn't, they can just say "Oh, I guess I didn't think
of that."

That said, whenever I walk into a scenario where someone's been plugging away
at a problem for a good length of time, especially when it's someone I trust
and know to be competent, almost invariably the answer is yes, they did try
it, but asking in this way often then illicit the person to explain what went
wrong. And after a few rounds of it we've eliminated a number of the more
obvious solutions that didn't work, and I'm now up to pace and can try and
provide better ones.

------
odkamkfn
"You should have used ssh." In a friendly tone, of course.

If the people you work with are triggered by this and don't push back in an
equally friendly tone - you have bigger problems than linguistic ones.

