I fear it is the same with anyone who mentions “ISO compliance” and how we will “fail our audit if you get caught” as a reason not to do something.
I have never seen these prognostications come true. It really seems like it’s just a way for naysayers to rain on peoples parades, or appeal to authority as an way of stopping people from doing things when really they just don’t like them.
It leaves an extremely unpleasant taste in the mouth and it’s an absolute must to probe this kind of thing when interviewing candidates.
> It really seems like it’s just a way for naysayers to rain on peoples parades
Or you know, i’m not going to die to maximise your profit. You go right ahead and circumvent sane and safe working practices as long as it is only your life on the line.
You turned my point around. I’m not talking about a random colleague forcing a peer to do something unsafe.
I’m talking about a random colleague seeing their peer wanting to do something and their reaction being “I don’t think you should do that because of a contrived reason which an auditor will say is against security / safety best practices.” Except they don't know this – their just making stuff up to be disruptive, show-off, sound-clever, boost their esteem, etc.
Bystanders whose sole contribution is to think of reasons not to do something — without taking responsibility for getting stuff done — are net-negative strong no-hires.
I have never seen these prognostications come true. It really seems like it’s just a way for naysayers to rain on peoples parades, or appeal to authority as an way of stopping people from doing things when really they just don’t like them.
It leaves an extremely unpleasant taste in the mouth and it’s an absolute must to probe this kind of thing when interviewing candidates.