I just raised my amount donation because of this blog post. Thank you Thibault for this wonderful website and chess server.
With your statement you confirm me, probably without being aware of it.
I understand that what I wrote is difficult to understand.
You describe "He is" - and I say "To speak of WE and to mean ME is a huge mistake." (Caesar, Napoleon and the like are credited with so much hubris).
Let me try.
1. again it is attached to a person. (Hubris) - the "we".
He himself said he was a developer - What then? Which hat is he wearing? - It does not matter, but certainly not both (that would be fatal).
2. if he is a developer - his opinion is irrelevant anyway (we explained)
3. even as CIO, CEO, or whatever it would only be relevant (I wrote in certain cases) if Lichess is doing so badly that you have to reorganize it.
Again his statement was "WE don't want these featues!" That obviously a bad mindset no matter what role he has. Bad because if Lichess is not a redevelopment case, it reveals poor management and lack of direction.
Correct would be "WHAT FEATURES should it be? How should we prioritize the features? By what criteria? etc."
Moreover, the key question remains "WHY?" Do we want (power) or MUST we (remediation) reduce features?
This should be decided by a team and even if we want to, the user should play the core role, because otherwise you "disappear" Chessbase is a good example of management-driven mistakes here.
If he had written,
"..Top management would like to add more features only in exceptional cases because.... "
OR
"As a developer, I don't want to..."
I would be fine with his contribution.
@Layu said in #39:
> @Mann-ohne-Namen
>
> But Thibault IS top management.
>
> (Not to mention that it’s silly to think that top management always knows better than the guys actually working with the code...)
>
> I did not understand the AI comment either. Modern ‚AI’ isn’t millions of lines of code. It doesn’t really make sense to bring it up in this context.
I understand that what I wrote is difficult to understand.
You describe "He is" - and I say "To speak of WE and to mean ME is a huge mistake." (Caesar, Napoleon and the like are credited with so much hubris).
Let me try.
1. again it is attached to a person. (Hubris) - the "we".
He himself said he was a developer - What then? Which hat is he wearing? - It does not matter, but certainly not both (that would be fatal).
2. if he is a developer - his opinion is irrelevant anyway (we explained)
3. even as CIO, CEO, or whatever it would only be relevant (I wrote in certain cases) if Lichess is doing so badly that you have to reorganize it.
Again his statement was "WE don't want these featues!" That obviously a bad mindset no matter what role he has. Bad because if Lichess is not a redevelopment case, it reveals poor management and lack of direction.
Correct would be "WHAT FEATURES should it be? How should we prioritize the features? By what criteria? etc."
Moreover, the key question remains "WHY?" Do we want (power) or MUST we (remediation) reduce features?
This should be decided by a team and even if we want to, the user should play the core role, because otherwise you "disappear" Chessbase is a good example of management-driven mistakes here.
If he had written,
"..Top management would like to add more features only in exceptional cases because.... "
OR
"As a developer, I don't want to..."
I would be fine with his contribution.
@Layu said in #39:
> @Mann-ohne-Namen
>
> But Thibault IS top management.
>
> (Not to mention that it’s silly to think that top management always knows better than the guys actually working with the code...)
>
> I did not understand the AI comment either. Modern ‚AI’ isn’t millions of lines of code. It doesn’t really make sense to bring it up in this context.
Yes, it makes sense in this context.
What is called AI is not AI anyway, but is based primarily on mass data analysis.
And these are very well based on billions of lines of code, so that it could come to mass data.
The further development generates further lines of code - only with the difference that no developer knows anymore what is actually written there. In short: Control is lost.
The connection is therefore even bigger than you suspect.
@Layu said in #39:
> I did not understand the AI comment either. Modern ‚AI’ isn’t millions of lines of code. It doesn’t really make sense to bring it up in this context.
What is called AI is not AI anyway, but is based primarily on mass data analysis.
And these are very well based on billions of lines of code, so that it could come to mass data.
The further development generates further lines of code - only with the difference that no developer knows anymore what is actually written there. In short: Control is lost.
The connection is therefore even bigger than you suspect.
@Layu said in #39:
> I did not understand the AI comment either. Modern ‚AI’ isn’t millions of lines of code. It doesn’t really make sense to bring it up in this context.
@Mann-ohne-Namen
Except for the fact that user ideas aren't that good either. User ideas are good QOL, but listening to them too much and your app becomes bloated with features that get rarely used.
Lichess is a small team, they made a decision not to add too many gimmicky things, and it's working for them (lichess is still growing).
Also, AI is not mass data analysis, it's not based on billions of lines of code, and it's irrelevant to the discussion.
Except for the fact that user ideas aren't that good either. User ideas are good QOL, but listening to them too much and your app becomes bloated with features that get rarely used.
Lichess is a small team, they made a decision not to add too many gimmicky things, and it's working for them (lichess is still growing).
Also, AI is not mass data analysis, it's not based on billions of lines of code, and it's irrelevant to the discussion.
> With each new line of code, we're adding maintenance burden for the years to come. Compatibility with the rest of the site, with the mobile app.
One might think that having the mobile app in the first place added a lot of maintenance.
Anyway, all this is well and good,but when will we get bughouse?
One might think that having the mobile app in the first place added a lot of maintenance.
Anyway, all this is well and good,but when will we get bughouse?
@Mann-ohne-Namen
But mass data does not automatically imply mass lines of code. With or without ‚AI‘ involved. What the hell.
@mango-in-my-teeth
As far as I know, the mobile app is a partly independent project by a different (team of) developer(s). It‘s ‚just‘ a frontend, they cannot by themselves add new features that require changes to the backend. And they have to adapt to backend changes on their own (which is why the app sometimes breaks after big updates). Thus Thibault doesn‘t get more work not matter what they do there. In an ideal world, of course, which it never is. Apparently he does consider their needs too.
But mass data does not automatically imply mass lines of code. With or without ‚AI‘ involved. What the hell.
@mango-in-my-teeth
As far as I know, the mobile app is a partly independent project by a different (team of) developer(s). It‘s ‚just‘ a frontend, they cannot by themselves add new features that require changes to the backend. And they have to adapt to backend changes on their own (which is why the app sometimes breaks after big updates). Thus Thibault doesn‘t get more work not matter what they do there. In an ideal world, of course, which it never is. Apparently he does consider their needs too.
I agree. Simplicity is way underrated. Nowadays too much focus is on "output" and "throughput" and whatever else measure of churn, essentially. Change for its own sake, to seem busy.
Everything comes to one point - MONEY. The developer can create a copy of che$$.c0m and just make the subscribtions for free. You can't say me this is imposibble but it costs so much money. "WE" don't want free che$$.c0m we just want a regularly updated lichess that listens user needs. I don't want a team called "WE" sitting on chair sayin "I have my own needz bro I don't care lichess".
> As far as I know, the mobile app is a partly independent project by a different (team of) developer(s). It‘s ‚just‘ a frontend, they cannot by themselves add new features that require changes to the backend. And they have to adapt to backend changes on their own (which is why the app sometimes breaks after big updates). Thus Thibault doesn‘t get more work not matter what they do there. In an ideal world, of course, which it never is. Apparently he does consider their needs too.
> As far as I know, the mobile app is a partly independent project by a different (team of) developer(s). It‘s ‚just‘ a frontend, they cannot by themselves add new features that require changes to the backend. And they have to adapt to backend changes on their own (which is why the app sometimes breaks after big updates). Thus Thibault doesn‘t get more work not matter what they do there. In an ideal world, of course, which it never is. Apparently he does consider their needs too.
> The higher the usefulness/cost ratio, the more likely we want to invest in that feature -
For instance, changing the "send" button (in the inbox) from round to square obviously has an extremely small cost, and also a high usefulness. It was literally hailed by public demand.
For instance, changing the "send" button (in the inbox) from round to square obviously has an extremely small cost, and also a high usefulness. It was literally hailed by public demand.
Bereits die Tatsache, wie sich die Diskussion zerstreut zeigt, dass der Urheber seinen Titel sehr schlecht gewählt hat.
Vielleicht war es auch nie als Diskussion gedacht, sondern nur als sprechblase? Denn es macht ja ohnehin keinen Sinn mit einer Gruppe Blinde über Farbgestaltung zu diskutieren, wenn mir diese einfache Allegorie gestattet ist.
Vielleicht war es auch nie als Diskussion gedacht, sondern nur als sprechblase? Denn es macht ja ohnehin keinen Sinn mit einer Gruppe Blinde über Farbgestaltung zu diskutieren, wenn mir diese einfache Allegorie gestattet ist.