https://sandimetz.com/blog/2016/1/20/the-wrong-abstraction

* DevOps * Microservices * SOA * ACID * Observability

Semantic diffusion, dilution, and drift are endemic in tech because terms are so frequently co-opted by opportunists who want to find a way to sell the concept as a product.

What is interesting is that the first sentence is undermined by the second sentence, which is fairly reasonable compared to the first.

First, yikes.

Also, I'm quite curious about how productivity was measured here.

For a (successful) software business, the work output of developers is highly productive because the marginal cost of selling another copy of the software is so low.

SaaS delivery models may result in somewhat higher marginal costs compared to non-SaaS distribution models, but I'd be surprised to learn that it makes developer work the least productive component of the SDLC.

So, I understand why this example feels particularly illustrative of the value of transactions, many-if-not-most financial "transactions" can't practically rely on this kind of atomicity for the kind of financial operation depicted.

While it may seem like a small thing, I think authors would do everyone a favor to stop using the "banking transactions, obvs" example.

We build complex systems and environments that alienate and marginalize massive groups of people and then, rather than recognizing that as a failure of the system, we frame the problem as one of individual responsibility to adjust.

But, the system probably feels like it is still working working well enough for the folks running the WSJ to continue their support of it, so we get articles like this.

If commercial real estate in general loses value, the value of these assets is also reduced, which will eventually be reflected on their balance sheets.

Even in cases where the real estate is leased rather than owned, the future rents owned are liabilities that are also a part of the companies' financial reports. If the demand for commercial real estate goes down, they won't be able to fully offset liabilities by subletting or selling their commercial real estate, which will show up as losses, write offs or write downs.

There are certainly perceived benefits to management and/or related to real estate interests, including but not limited to: easier observation and suppression of employee organizing, different legal exposure profile as fewer people are casually creating business communication that may later be sifted during legal discovery, propping up commercial real estate investments, etc.

At this point, I haven't seen a single attempt from any company to offer such a rationale.

We can reasonably infer that such policies are not rooted in any evidence-oriented analysis.

Imagine you had a 5 increment rating system that was 1–5 stars. Then, to interpret the data, someone decided that 2-,3-, and 4-star ratings were all equivalent.

TL;DR (of the problem): customers from a single country—and only that country—were (sometimes) unable to checkout on an e-commerce website and, after months of trying to sort out the issue, the solution turned out to be very facepalm-worthy.

Anyone working on a sponsored visa has a very short period to find a new job, or they have to leave the country.

Unemployment insurance maximums is below minimum wage in some states (e.g Arizona). In Washington, where I live, it's higher, but would barely cover the typical mortgage payment for an experienced software engineer.

The lack of universal healthcare means that anyone who uses medical services regularly (or has family that does) may end up having to navigate whether or not to find an exchange plan or spend most of their unemployment benefits on COBRA.

Biggest challenge I've seen is with stalled advancement, particularly for people with 10+ years of experience.

That said, those impacts are less severe (for ppl like me) these days as recent layoffs are more broadly recognized as resulting from executive and management failures.

That said, the general lack of a useful social safety net in the US can easily lead to chaos for US-based employees who are laid off.

What the author describes is the effect on a solid senior engineer working in a terrible organizational system for a not very skilled or savvy manager.

Such managers (and directors and VPs) are common, even in the top tech companies. They may occur less frequently in those companies, but skilled, savvy managers are much rarer than excellent engineers, so the dysfunction described continues unabated in all companies.

Pay and benefits are reasonable. They seem to be in high demand in my area (Pacific NW) and the work is physical without being so grueling that it destroys one's body.

That's not necessarily the same thing as a shortage of workers who have a particular set of skills.

The difference is usually related to social conformity, particularly deference to authority. Employers prefer workers who, when asked to work late, work weekends, or work on ethically murky projects will do so with relish (or, at least, without objection).

There may be a shortage of those.