The discussion revolves around the nature of risk, expertise, and safety in various technical and vocational fields, particularly in the context of software development and DIY projects. A central tension exists between the perceived need for caution and guardrails versus the desire for efficiency and the capabilities of experienced practitioners.
The Role of Experience and Risk Assessment
A significant theme is how experience influences the perception and management of risk. Some argue that true experts, while aware of dangers, are adept at mitigating them, even to the point of removing safety features for efficiency. Others contend that experienced individuals are often more aware of risks, not less, leading to a heightened sense of caution.
- ChrisMarshallNY initially suggests that experts, like arborists, might remove safety guards from their tools for efficiency: "If you watch an expert arborist (tree man) at work, you’ll notice that they’ve removed every single safety guard from their chainsaws." He posits that this is because they "respect their tools."
- However, this is met with skepticism. cinntaile counters, "You can say that about everything that has some form of guardrails. It goes faster without them. That doesn't necessarily mean it's the right decision to remove them." The user also highlights that people often change their minds after an accident, indicating a failure to properly assess risk beforehand.
- pm215 adds a nuance: "It might alternatively be an indication that they can't properly assess the risk and the outcome afterwards.... (More likely both: we are as a species absolutely terrible about assessing low-probability risks.)"
- jiggawatts shares an anecdote about chainsaw users: "I've repeatedly heard the anecdote (to the point that I suspect it's now data) that inexperienced users of chainsaws are terrified of them, experienced users are comfortable with them, and very experienced users are even more terrified of them."
- closewith directly disputes the initial premise about arborists: "I've never seen an expert arborist remove any safety feature from a chainsaw and they'd be off site in a heartbeat if they did. You're imagining a scenario to support your opinion, no basis in fact."
- Jedd offers a specific example of a removed safety feature on chainsaws: "What safety features are they removing from their chainsaws to speed the job up? I would imagine the spark arrestor is the first and least dangerous 'feature' to be removed by regular chainsaw users." Jedd explains that the spark arrestor can impede the motor and is bothersome to clean or replace, leading many to remove it as a "calculated risk."
The Value of Modern "Safe" Languages and Guardrails
Conversely, some participants emphasize the benefits of modern, higher-level languages and the safety mechanisms they provide, arguing that they reduce errors and the need for tedious manual checks.
- ChrisMarshallNY shifts his perspective later in the discussion, stating: "I've benefitted from modern "safe" languages." He contrasts his past experience with low-level programming: "I cut my teeth on things like Machine Code, ASM, and ANSI C. I don't miss them, at all."
- He elaborates on the advantages of newer languages: "Nowadays, I write primarily in Swift, and I absolutely love not testing for leaks, anymore."
- cinntaile questions this shift: "How does this support your original position? Now you're saying you want the guardrails, I don't get the point you're trying to make." This highlights the apparent contradiction in ChrisMarshallNY's stance on safety features.
The Nature of Software vs. Physical World Dangers
A distinction is drawn between the severity and type of accidents that can occur in software development versus physical trades. Software errors, while potentially impactful, often have less immediate and catastrophic physical consequences.
- roenxi points out the difference in consequence: "Nasty accidents with a chainsaw are in a different league of damage for the person involved compared to, eg, accidentally deleting a database or upsetting a manager. A software engineer is all but guaranteed to walk away from deleting a DB with their limbs intact."
- ChrisMarshallNY counters that software errors can still have significant "life-changing ramifications." He recalls his days writing "hardware-interfacing software" where "you can have some really kinetic bugs."
- withinboredom offers a different perspective on database deletion, suggesting it points to a "bad catastrophe management": "I've seen databases accidentally deleted in production ... we just restored from a backup losing only a few ms of writes. This stuff happens; sure it causes downtime, but it shouldn't have any real ramifications."
- ChrisMarshallNY reiterates the importance of good process and risk management but also notes the more tangible risks he has faced: "I have blown up $40,000 receivers, though. Hard to restore from a backup."
Rules, Judgment, and Organizational Dynamics
The discussion touches upon organizational rules, company policies, and the tension between following them and exercising individual judgment, especially for experienced personnel.
- Aeolun comments on company rules: "Rules exist to constrain engineers with bad judgment, not to bind the ones with good judgment." He expresses a preference for fixing problems immediately rather than adhering to slow review cycles, provided no critical damage is done.
- withinboredom, from an engineering manager's perspective, advises against knowingly breaking rules but suggests that simply breaking them and apologizing is often easier. The manager humorously disavows the advice, attributing it to a hypothetical drunken prank.
- franktankbank's brief remark, "I think he's happily retired," seems to be a lighthearted jab at one of the participants, possibly implying their advice is out of touch with current pressures or that they are no longer in a position where such decisions have severe personal consequences.