- Feature Articles
- CodeSOD
- Error'd
-
Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Admin
No, he doesn't.
He sounds like he actually cared about the interview he was conducting. Do you want to be on the other end of a phone interview in which the guy or gal is clearly not paying attention? Do you want to try to interview someone while someone else is intruding into your personal space -- not that most people get that much of it, a cubicle isn't exactly a palatial office suite. Trying to concentrate on the interview in order to be fair to the person being interviewed while having someone rummage through your pictures would be incredibly distracting.
Asking once for the person to leave is fine. If one doesn't have the ettiquette to understand that "hey, he's conducting an interview.... Interview... you know, the thing where someone's financial fate might be on the line? Where their employment status is being determined? That kind of important life activity... so maybe you *shouldn't* bother the guy when he's trying to conduct the interview?" If the person lacks the etiquette or sensitivity to get not LEAN OVER him while he's trying to conduct an interview, it's not surprising the guy got tense about it.
That doesn't make him sound like a psycho at all.
That much said -- I might have said "give me a moment, please" to the person on the phone, put them on hold, turned to the person invading my space, and said something like "Hey, I'm doing an interview now and trying to concentrate. Do you think you could come back later or when I'm not working to look at the photos?" Of course, the atmosphere at work has a lot to do with it. If it's full of people who lack basic understanding, then no wonder the interviewer got angry. I can image how irritated I'd get if I made it clear to someone that I wanted them to get out of my space because I was working and needed to concentrate and they said cheerily "No problem, I won't talk to you" -- argh, just the sort of cluelessness that makes one throw a photo across the room. ;)
Admin
Uh, yeah, it does.
Sounds like the type of person who bursts in with a semi-automatic rifle.
Admin
What's really scary is that people like Yojimbo are so trusting.
Interviewees (particularly VB.NET programmers) are some real loose cannons who need to be dealt with at a distance.
It only takes a second for one of them to snap...
Admin
No. People, who get angry and show it, have working valves that let's their steams get out before it's too late. I would be more worried about the silent ones who never seem to get annoyed or angry about anything even when provocated. They are more likely to cross the final line one day.
Admin
Any studies to back that claim up? Some people have hobbies outside of work that let them release stress. And it's not as though work should be stressful, most people don't work in fields where it is life or death. Maybe those people who aren't getting angry realize that it's just work.
Admin
I find your ideas intruiging and wish to subscribe to your newsletter :)
Admin
Since we're on the topic of "crazy" programmers...let me know what you think about this.
Back in the late 90's, I was working with a recruiting company and one lady in particular. She was really nice and everything and seemed like the type of recruiter who would follow through. So I'm at home one day, and I hear her leaving a message on my answering machine. After she leaves the message, a couple minutes go by, as I consider the message she left about a particular position. I call her back up to talk to her about it, and the first thing she says is, "Wow! That was fast. Do you screen your calls or something?" I answer "Yeah, sometimes" and she responds with "Oh man, that's creepy." Then there's this awkward silence on her part. I try to jumpstart the conversation because I really want to discuss the position. We eventually get past the whole "screening" thing and at the very end of the call (just when I think things are cool) she says "You know, actually I don't think you're the right candidate for the position. I'll keep looking for you." I knew then and there that I would never hear from this recruiter again. And I'm 100% sure it was due to my "creepy" screening tactics.
What do you guys think about this?
Admin
I guess she really finds it creepy that there are people who let their answering machines take their calls and listen in without picking up the phone. To a lot of people that really feels like screening.
Can't blame you for being disappointed of her, but neither can I blame her for the feeling of being "screened."
Admin
That is screening. The question is: why does someone find that "creepy"? I've always found it to be a common practice.
Admin
IMO there is nothing wrong about this "creepy screening". Sometimes you just have better things to do than dropping whatever you have in your hand and running to the phone, just to hear "sorry, wrong number". But maybe they were looking for someone who would live, eat and sleep with his cell phone in range, always ready to take an important call.
Admin
<FONT face="Courier New" size=2>it's kind of rude ask about the circumstances surrounding why somebody returned a phone call quickly. would she have thought it creepy if he had said "i was taking a dump, didn't feel like talking to you during that?"</FONT>
Admin
When I had an answering machine I screened my calls all the time. I didn't and I still don't see a problem with it. However, after getting the kind of reaction that you're describing here more than a few times, I found it's easier to make up an excuse than it is to waste 5 or so minutes explaining to the person that, yes, you screen your calls, no, that doesn't make you a freak, and no, it doesn't mean you don't think very highly of them. Instead, just tell them something like, "Sorry, I just missed your call," or, "I was in the other room and couldn't make it to the phone in time," or, "Sorry, hearing *ring* doesn't give me enough information to decide whether or not I want to stop the important things I'm doing to respond to what might very well be a telemarketer or someone with nothing important to say that I dislike talking to, as is obviously not the case with you. I apologize for not having your keen powers of perception. Yes, I'm being sarcastic, you stupid bitch."...wait, scratch that last part.
Admin
I for one doesn't get this at all.
I mean, I do get what you mean, these people were not "within the box." But I also get another thing. This topic is kind of symptomatic to the rest of the postings on this site. Obviously IT-recruiters are unable to recruit the right people for the job, or there would be no posts on this site...
Or in other words, I'm sure the Jed's and others of this site all wore a business suit to their interview, knew how to shake hands, and not to get overly excited. You obviously need to look with better eyes than that. If you go for appearances only, then yeah, you'll hire Jed.
I always thought companies wanted to hire people that could do the job, and as far as I've been able to tell, none of the people interviewed in these scenarios were intervieweing for a position as sales-representatives, CEO's, or any other position where appearances mattered...
I do understand that you need to hire people with some skills for group-work, but I am also fully aware it usually will have to be a compromise. Some of the most brilliant people out there have strange habits, even problems cooperating with other people, and they will end up at companies that can harbor them, probably earning these companies huge ammounts of money...
I'd say every single one of these interviews (even Nah'mean) rather points to faliure in the companies ability to look past appearances and extract what really matters: the applicants ability to get the job done.
So what if Nah'mean wont be fun to be around on the coffee break? Will he be able to finish the task in time at required quality or not? So what if he's got a cocky attitude? Does his attitude stand up to his skills?
On a side note: I'm sure there are articles describing experiments where people have been made to act in all kinds of strange and irratic ways when faced with a board of 5-10 people there to examine them... and I'm sure the Anglo-Saxon working environment, and relations to your boss is equivalent to that situation as well, so it probably reflects the real environment the applicant will be working in very well... Can't say I'm dying to go work in US or UK any time soon... Nah'mean?
Admin
That "cocky attitude" is going to hurt the morale of all those he interacts with. And, unless this programming position involves completely solo work [doubtful] then he will be interacting with others. This will have an impact.
Furthermore, people that can't conform to simple conventions that are expected of them for a business setting [like dressing a certain way] are more likely to make their own rules. They may not have a picture of the entire business and think that doing something they are assigned is not important and choose not to do it. Sloppy attire reflects attitude.
Admin
<FONT face="Courier New" size=2>what a crime.</FONT>
<FONT face="Courier New" size=2>false.</FONT>
Admin
A crime? No - but if I am paying you, I expect you to take orders.
And no, that's not false. I overstated the fact and should have said, "Sloppy attire often reflects a poor attitude."
I get the feeling that whatever I post, you're going to disagree with simply because you're so immature. Could you instead regale me with stories of great arguments that you've had on the Internet? As you may know, I find those stories fascinating.
Take care!
Admin
Taking orders will only last so long...then the guy snaps one day.
Admin
<FONT face="Courier New" size=2>personally, i'd prefer to have people work for me that could make the best decisions on what needs to get done independently. they'd also get bonus points for pointing out inefficiencies and double their score if they propose alternate plans to improve the business. sure, you can run a great business on drones and that works well for certain industries, but for software development, it seems like a good idea to pay attention to the developers instead of telling to do arbitrary and stupid things.</FONT>
<FONT face="Courier New" size=2>yes, you're too insecure to admit you made a simple mistake. it's ok, it happens to the best of us.</FONT>
<FONT face="Courier New" size=2>that's so not true!</FONT>
Admin
Isn't saying "I overstated the fact" acknowledging that their was a mistake in my wording?
As for your diatribe on what you want out of software developers - yes, I want people who will speak up when they think there is a better way. On that note, I want people who understand the chain of command and that there are certain things you do just because that's the way things work. Wearing shorts and a dirty t-shirt to an interview tells me that someone doesn't understand some basic conventions. What else do they fail to grasp?
Admin
It would be cool to refer to yourself in the third person in an interview.
Admin
<FONT face="Courier New" size=2>i think all conventions suck. especially dragon*con.</FONT>
<FONT face="Courier New" size=2>the chain of command will soon be an obsolete business concept, anyway. the only reason it's still around is because for whatever reason, intelligent monkeys have an affinity for taxonomy. while that was pretty useful to get us all out of the trees and into cities, this era must come to an end if we're to advance as a species. it could start by dropping useless conventions that no longer apply in the modern world.</FONT>
<FONT face="Courier New" size=2>the day we stop to listen to the wino in the park is the day we grow and move forward as a civilization. taxonomy is literally causing us to de-evolve, driving us into smaller and smaller boxes. "i'm a member of this box. i drive around in this box. the box i live in is located in this box." change this mentality, and we'll all see some real progress.</FONT>
<FONT face="Courier New" size=2>a convention like "i do what the boss tells me to do, no matter what" should be replaced with "i'm cooperating with this group of people to make us all succeed - how do i best contribute myself to make this happen?" the burden of wearing a tie to impress someone rests entirely with the observer "i am going to let my opinion of this man be governed by the noose around his neck or the quality of his cufflinks, or i am going to make the best decision?"</FONT>
<FONT face="Courier New" size=2>about once a week, i talk to this guy named copper john. he's a crackhead that wanders around my neighborhood and makes jewlery out of thrown out copper wire he finds on the street. most people think people like him should be shot on sight. they feel like he's a blight on their boxes. what they don't realize is that they can learn from copper john what it is like to try and live simply in an urban environment. he has wisdom and knowledge that most people will never acquire based on his situation. most people wouldn't argue all copies of burrough's _junky_ should be destroyed. he offers a compelling account of what it's like to be a heroin addict, and this can be understood without jabbing a needle in your arm.</FONT>
Admin
"Sloppy attire often reflects a poor attitude."
How do you know that ? Do you have statistics ? What criterion do you use ? Wearing shorts ? Wearing T-Shirts ? What level of sloppiness translates into a poor attitude ? Are clean T-Shirts OK or are all T-Shirts bad ? If they are bad, exactly how much is that reflected in the attitude ? What degree of "insubordination" or "subversion" does the wearing of a T-Shirt translates into at work ? If you have 2 programmers, and both are rather good , but one can write sophisticated algorithms involving recursion , dynamic programming, multithreading and the other cannot, but could learn with time , will you hire the least skilled of the two because of his clothing ? Do you have any statistics as to the success of this strategy when compared to the opposite strategy?
Also, concerning what you said about accepting to abandon a part of your individuality to feed your children, enable them to choose their college and have good time when you retire, I cannot but agree about the "feeding your children" part. If your children are in danger of starving, then I 'd even justify that you steal, let alone abandon a part of your individuality. I have some reserves about the two other items, though. I think that being present for your children, following their education closely, making up for the shortcomings of the teachers at school when necessary, are a much better way to ensure that they will go to a good college and be successful there. About retirement, frankly I find your argument invalid. I care for my parents who are old, and I know the state of their health would not allow them to travel extensively : My father has had a triple coronary artery bypass surgery, and suffers from congestive heart failure, and my mother has diabetes and osteoporosis.(her bones are extremely fragile now). How do you know you'll still be healthy (if alive at all), when retirement age comes, so you can profit from your savings ?
Admin
<FONT face="Courier New" size=2>retirement is such a lie. i want to retire 7-8 times in my life, for shorter time periods. i'd be an idiot to wait until 65 and then try to climb mount kilimanjaro.</FONT>
Admin
It's not my fault your father has genetic defects and a penchant for cheeseburgers.
By your "logic", there's no reason to ever fill up the gas tank in your car. Just put enough in it to get to where you're going right now. You're invalid, moron.
Admin
Absolutely wrong. It's only going to get worse. People are now more than ever on an ego trip to "feel like they're somebody". They want to be tiny little dictators with total control over 4-5 people (their immediate workgroup). It's really sad to see these "managers of men" abuse those under them. And it's all done just to feel important. So there will always be a chain of command, with wannabe dictators running the show (or thinking that they do).
I have complete sympathy for the downtrodden. But I wouldn't elevate the "wino" to the wise-and-honored status of intellectual guru. If he was so wise, why is he a drunkard in the park?
You are using drunks and crackheads as your rolemodels. Do I even have to comment on this?
Admin
You are all communists! Every one!
Admin
I never claimed it was.
Er, not exactly. By my logic, if you decide to go from New York to Buenos Aires by car, you don't only judge the feasibility of your trip by whether you can afford the amount of fuel necessary to do that. You judge the feasibility of your trip by taking into account the risks you might face and that prevent you from getting there: possibility of accident, of theft, of borders closed because of political tensions,of disease, of lack of ability to cope with tropical weather. Your reply shows that you consider the probability that one's health will limit one's ability to travel at retirement age as negligible, and the fact is that statistics do not seem to support your opinion : True, the average life expectancy in the US is 77.2 years, and retirement age is 65, but the most frequent causes of death are heart disease and cancer, and the average age at onset for heart disease in the US is 65 (60 for men, 70 for women), and average age at onset for cancer is less than 65 for most cancers. Statistics clearly seem to indicate that your confidence of being in top shape at age 65 might be enviable but not necessarily justified.
Admin
Is that a criticism or a compliment ? [;)]
Admin
I need some advice.
I work with this guy and his title is "HTML author". He's been with the company for many many years and has authority simply because of his seniority. He has no programming skills to speak of, unless you count copy-and-paste Javascript from the internet. The problem is, he dominates all of our meetings. We have a team of hardcore VB.NET developers and this HTML guy is the odd-guy in the bunch. He will stop programming discussions with irrelevant comments like "That won't affect my blink tag will it?" And we have to address his concerns because of the seniority issue. He has been known to have a lot of clout with upper management and we suspect that he's even been the cause of some of our best developers getting canned. (2 top-notch developers were fired last year and the firings happened right after a major argument between said HTML author and developers. Coincidence? I think not.) Anyways, let me stress the fact that this guy has no actual programming skills. In a subtle way we quizzed him about his programming knowledge and it basically amounts to the creation and maintenance of HTML tags. And we even believe he is not familiar with the more advanced elements of HTML...such as image maps.
That was the background. On Friday, I got into an argument with HTML author. He wanted to "check my code" so it wouldn't cause conflicts with his deployment of a new hyperlink. I asked him if he knew enough about VB.NET to be able to "check my code". This really upset him and he basically starts yelling at me about the fact that he's been with the company for so many years and that it only takes a word from him and I'm history. Naturally I responded in anger and I accidentally said too much. I asked him to consider if he didn't have his present position who would hire him? Apparently this was the last straw. He stormed off and yelled back with "Recruiters have my phone ringing off the hook!"
I wasn't sure if I should have laughed or what. It should be interesting to see the fallout on Monday.
Admin
This kind of relates to the "Whassup Dawg" handshake thing.
I came in one day and said "Sup Baby!" and my boss got mad. He said it was okay to say "Sup" but not "baby" because "baby" is sexist and we could get sued for sexual harrassment.
Just thought I'd share.
Admin
No way... a suit on someone who dosn't normally wear one is obvious (they *look* uncomfortable) and it gets me thinking that maybe there is some misrepresentation going on.
Personally, I dress up only as far as I ever would actually going into work, which for me means docker type pants and a button up shirt...
I've foun that if I get disqualified because I havn't dressed up further, I likley don't want to be there anyway.
Don't forget, as an interviewee you are evaluating the company as much as they are evaluating you.
Admin
You can believe that if you want to. But the reality of it is that you are there to massage the employer's ego and grovel for the position.
Admin
Why would I have to retire at 65? The statement I made was that by sacrificing little things now [oh my god - wearing a suit! I can't wear a t-shirt? Oh no!] I would make more money. Even someone such as yourself can see that this would lead to an earlier retirement age. Surprisingly, you didn't make that connection on your own.
Admin
I couldn't resist:
"Disco Stu Doesn't wear suits, Nah'mean?"
Admin
<FONT face="Courier New" size=2>when did i call them my role-models? my only role-models are the big flying space hexagon and the minature schnauzer.</FONT>
<FONT face="Courier New" size=2>also, when you ask why the guy is in the park drunk, you underscore my point.</FONT>
Admin
When Nortel laid me off, I decided I would not work anywhere that required a suit for the interview. Took me 30 days to find a new gig, and I'm still there four years later.
Admin
that's freaking hilarious.....something i would say....
Admin
Even someone such as myself can see that you are not considering the risks. Just as you can't guarantee the state of your health 35 years from now, you can't guarantee the state of your finances 35 years from now, especially if all what you have is your salary. Inflation, bad stockmarket (if you own stocks), can all negatively affect your savings. So, your sacrifices *might* lead you to an early retirement , but nothing is guaranteed (Just compare the purchasing power of one dollar in 1970 to the one of today) . Closer to us, I know plenty of programmers in the 90's who thought they could retire in a few years. Alas... About the sacrifices, you know very well that the suit and the T-Shirt are the tip of the iceberg. It is pretty significant if someone will not hire you as a programmer because you wear a T-Shirt at work. It means that conformity to a certain corporate culture is more important than hiring the programmer of highest ability. Don't get me wrong, this could be a very rational behavior on the part of the management, if IT is not their bottom line, and for some reason they must maintain a strict discipline in the company. But it also means that the programmers life won't be very nice there, and if your programming work isn't important enough that they consider letting you work in tShirt, it is unlikely that it will be important enough to give you a stellar salary. On the other hand, if your work is not only programming, then it's a different story...
Admin
So I was just getting out of the USAF and the transition assistance office had set me up with some interviews.
The first one was at the headquarters for a regional bank. I go in and they have me take this "test" which had like 300 words and I was supposed to indicate how angry or sad each word made me feel.
Pornography
Guns
War
Sodomy
Etc.
So after going through this I thought they were a little suspect. Then the interview starts. Now I have been doing UNIX communications programming (sockets, doors, streams, etc) for like 10 years before this. It turns out that the position was for Win32 crap for some app that scanned canceled checks into a database. So I try to escape:
Me: Well, I was really looking for something on UNIX
Guy 1: And then we take this image and load it into a SQL server
Guy 2: This is a great place to work, we have a new building
Me: So, listen guys I was really looking on UNIX, I've done some Win32 stuff before and really didn't like it.
Guy 2: And you get your own parking slot
Guy 1: And from the SQL server it is read by....And then...
Me: This really doesn't sound like something I'd like, I appreciate the opportunity...
Guy 1: Then the customer can access it remotely...
Guy 2: We're planning on splitting off from the bank, then Fridays will be casual days...
Me: Hey, listen it's getting late...I should be going...
Guy 1: But the coolest thing is...
Guy 2: The manager over all of us is a real nice guy...
Me: You know the whole y2k thing? It's my fault! I didn't have room to store the other 2 digits! And I refuse to fix it!!! I am the anti-coder!!! (Ok, I didn't say the anti-coder bit.)
Guy 1: Um...
Guy 2: So, do you want a tour?
Me: No, I want to leave.
Dan
Admin
<FONT face="Courier New" size=2>on the scale of angry to sad? for a bank? that's bizarre.</FONT>
Admin
Must be a troll - the first is clearly illegal.
Admin
The entire "lets be as politically correct as we can" thing these last few years is really getting tiring.
Sexual harassment is when you verbally or physically intimidate a person to the point of a pr0n flick.
Have people's hides thinned so considerably or is it the lawyer-effect coming in hard nowadays?
Admin
Can they actually ask you to do such a test? I think here in the Netherlands this falls under psychology and all the attached rules and codes of honour associated with said profession.
Admin
Without a chain of command, who makes the decisions? Do you really want to call a big meeting and get the opinion of every person in the group before making any decision? For smaller groups that might work just fine, and at really small development shops, that is probably close to how they do things. But as soon as the group gets to be larger in size, it seems to me that having no chain of command would lead to a big ugly mess.
In the perfect world it would be as you say; everyone would have the desire to work their hardest individually so that the entire group might prosper. In the real world people are much more selfish and there are going to be conflicts. Without someone with the authority to stand up and say, "Listen! All y'all shut up! Were going to do X in Y manner, and that's that. If you do not like it, I'm sorry. Perhaps you should leave to find another group with which you're compatible," I wouldn't think much would get done in the face of such conflicts. Heck, even if we're back in the perfect world, saintly and unselfish people are still likely to disagree at some point about what's best for the group. How does one resolve the conflict without some sort of chain of command? A game of paper-rock-scissors? A fight to the death?
For me at least, the convention isn't "<font face="Courier New" size="2">i do what the boss tells me to do, no matter what</font>," but rather, "The boss is paying me well to sit in his building to use his equipment in an effort to make his company some money. If the boss tells me to do something, I will do it so long as doing so is ethical. Otherwise, I cannot do for the boss what he wants me to do, in the way he wants me to do it, and thus he has little reason to keep giving me money."
Please know that I'm being sincere with this post...I'm not trying to be sarcastic or contentious.
Admin
Sorry - in reference to the poster who claimed he'd ask "are you a communist?"
Admin
<FONT face="Courier New" size=2>he or she who is designated the oracle. this person wears a big purple snood and saunters around the building doing whatever they want for a week. if the group determines it was a successful oracle, the snood is passed along without incident, always to the left. in the event of a failed oracle, the person's jugular is sliced in a beet field.</FONT>
<FONT face="Courier New" size=2>no cohesive software team should be larger than five people. if it is, then the setup falls in the category of "business that produce nothing but keep paying their workers to be consumers" - look at what happened at delta. not only does the law of diminishing returns applies here, but also the snood passing cycle is more or less aligned with the changing phases of the moon, and this pleases tyr.</FONT>
<FONT face="Courier New" size=2>i do not see anything wrong with the weekly oracle method.</FONT>
<FONT face="Courier New" size=2>you essentially re-worded, but said exactly what i said. ethics. pshaw. what a spectre of the mind. you born on a farm, boy? there are no ethics in the house of disco, all the people flaunting their zoot suits and cocaine. there is every reason to continue to pay you money, even if you refuse to launder cash. they won't wait on you. the party keeps moving if you're going to work the weekend. i'm not jesus so i can't make the blind see, but it's pretty obvious that we're all living in a giant ponzi scheme, but in reverse.</FONT>
<FONT face="Courier New" size=2>ok, look here. there's substantial evidence out here that indicates time is malleable. otherwise, they wouldn't have put walt disney's head on ice. in the future, rich people exhaust the possibilities of their endless wealth and do nothing more than live in endless mardi gras. but the system is not sustainable. eventually, they discovered that enough debauchery could send people back in time. karl marx spoke of 'the primitive accumulation of capital' but cleverly side-stepped the issue, perhaps because he wouldn't have known anything about peyote. how did the rich get there in the first place? do you think all the bullion and colonial riches created wealth? nein. they came from the future. they realized that if you keep the wealth out of the hands of the people by getting them to buy stuff, then they wouldn't be in the future mardi gras and get sent back in time. it's quite accidental, really. but the reverse ponzi scheme must continue because the fewer people who realize wealth is a state of mind and not being surround by ipods, the fewer people who get to back in time. walt disney's head on ice is excellent proof of this. he was a very disturbed and troubled man - on the one hand, deeply religious, and on the other, wealthy. he knew about the cycle, so he had his head put on ice to witness the end of days - or when the cycle collapses on itself and time loses meaning.</FONT>
Admin
So, on which side of Ragnarok are the WTF coders?
Admin
<FONT face="Courier New" size=2>this is an idle question.</FONT>
Admin
I live in Oklahoma, so of course. I mean, hell, we just computers a year or so ago.
Admin
Sorry. Been there done that. Putting in some extra effort for a "finishing sprint" for a trade show or a release is one thing, but anyone who sets up an engineering organization on the basis of a zillion extra hours is a jackass. Good engineering managers are adept at measuring the output of their process. Poor ones measure how many cars are in the parking lot over the weekend. Hours-driven managers are the bane of software engineering for one simple reason. Someone who is focused on hours is not focused on true costs of mistakes and does not understand the fact, backed up by copious research in the field, that the relation between cost and time-to-discovery in correcting a software bug is exponential. So much better to not introduce bugs in the first place. Hours-mongers only know how to show beta versions, not how to ship in the long term.