Recent searches
Search options
There's an utterly ridiculous "study" out from Stanford about "ghost engineers" which are reportedly engineers who do nothing at companies.
Pray tell, what flawed methodology did this "study" use?
It assessed code changes made by these engineers, not by lines of code changed but by "simulating a panel of 10 experts to evaluate each commit"
This fatally flawed study does not account for:
- management & planning
- research to unblock work
- collaboration with other staff
- helping other staff
Like, once again, actually writing code is a small part of an software engineers actual job.
That's like assessing structural engineers on the basis of calculations done 
A lot of time is spent in communications, planning, and helping others.
Honestly a shame that a prominent software engineering podcast would actually run with this drivel.
@thisismissem I was once on a team where an absolute champion decided he would be the face of the team. He volunteered for every meeting (and there were so many meetings) so that everyone else could get things done. He was a leader.
They fired him. Not enough code committed.
@thisismissem@hachyderm.io@samir yeah, exactly. I've been fired before for not writing code fast enough (and then subsequently left tech for a year), which was on a mythical man month project with little to no design or feature documentation that I was expected to completely rewrite because the other engineers couldn't make heads or tails of it. I got 80% of the way towards a working application too.
@thisismissem It’s a classic story, isn’t it? I’m sorry it happened to you.
@thisismissem @samir oof, been there. I’m sorry 
@thisismissem @samir Metricization and KPIs do not reflect problems solved, but mix that with absolute arseholes of managerial disposition and you have the perfect recipe for HR bullshit.