> ...but they don't know how good their own people are.
Trust. Easily lost, hard to win and all that. If you don't actually trust those you manage you're not really operating at your best, let alone bringing out the best of your team.
It's a humbling experience tbh, requires putting your faith of success in other people, which in my experience is harder to teach (and is often learned through tough failures) than any kind of computer skills.
One of the students in my middle school put it into beautiful terms. One day, they say "You know, the TV in your forehead?" as they put 3/4 a square with their fingers onto their brow (like a "C" shape) I still get chills thinking of the phrase sometimes, it just was so understandable and approachable for us 6th graders.
Mine defaults to a TV in my forehead, but with a little nudge, I can move it out it into it's own 3D space that I can view from inside or out. The level of detail is still the same, weak in my case.
> But maybe it just looks that way because it's difficult or impossible to really perceive the full extent of how living in a non-DLT world is affecting our behavior.
We don't live in a 'non-DLT world though, DLT exists in this world right?
Sorry I agreed with your previous comment and then the mention of DLT lost me so I'm trying to understand the context I'm missing.
It exists as an idea, but we're still in the irruption phase and are decades from maturity. So it hasn't yet had much of a transformative effect on existing institutions, behaviors, relationships, etc.
I think this video highlights as a leader being the 'bad guy' in a meeting because they are demanding excellence to a specific vision/goal and their subordinate's output isn't meeting their expectations.
There are no personal attacks, just critiques on the thought process, output and plan (or lack of planning), all of that is fair game. The dev(?) even admits at ~25:40 that they should be taking notes and fixing what is pointed out.
There's a bit of passive aggressive hierarchy conflict at play but it doesn't go that far IMO. Tone mostly goes back to relaxed ... could be friendlier but alas.
Dying is terrible, but there is definitely a difference between being surrounded by loved ones and being all alone or among strangers.
"Everyone dies alone" is one of those things that is sort of technically correct, but has absolutely nothing to do with what people mean when they talk about dying alone.
Yes, I watched my mother die (of cancer). I was standing in a circle holding hands with her and 3 or 4 of her best friends. On a sunny day in a house with 180 degree ocean view. They scattered her ashes on the ocean.
My dad died (also of cancer) 3 years ago last week. Didn't have a view of the ocean or anything fancy like that. But at least we got to be there for it.
Dying is terrible, but there is definitely a difference between being surrounded by loved ones and being all alone or among strangers.
I don't know, dude. My dad died, but I'm not even sure he knew we were around him. He had been in a coma after a stroke for a couple of weeks at that point. The same goes for folks that just die in their sleep - I'm not sure it matters. I hope they weren't actually lonely, but I wish that for lots of folks.
I agree with you, but most I've met would prefer to set expectations with a private office. Preferably with a door and social contract to leave alone unless needed.
"I notice that if you have the door to your office closed, you get more work done today and tomorrow, and you are more productive than most. But 10 years later somehow you don’t know quite know what problems are worth working on; all the hard work you do is sort of tangential in importance.
"He who works with the door open gets all kinds of interruptions, but he also occasionally gets clues as to what the world is and what might be important.[...] But I can say there is a pretty good correlation between those who work with the doors open and those who ultimately do important things, although people who work with doors closed often work harder. Somehow they seem to work on slightly the wrong thing - not much, but enough that they miss fame."
Yes. But unfortunately, most of us aren't researchers, we are code monkeys, paid for contributions to company's project - contributions that mostly require concentration, not cross-domain research thinking. Note that when Hamming talks about working on "right" vs. "wrong" thing, he's talking about practical, mundane stuff vs. ground-breaking, world-class research. Not many of us here are paid for the latter, and as much as we do it, we probably do it outside work setting.
Even though, an "open-door" office is still infinitely better than no office. You get to focus in between visits, and the visits are less frequent simply because the other party needs to lift their butt and walk to your office.
Trust. Easily lost, hard to win and all that. If you don't actually trust those you manage you're not really operating at your best, let alone bringing out the best of your team.
It's a humbling experience tbh, requires putting your faith of success in other people, which in my experience is harder to teach (and is often learned through tough failures) than any kind of computer skills.