Good analogy explaining intents vs transactions

Investing @Sfermion | innovation maxi | JPEG enthusiast

https://paragraph.xyz/@alexgedevani

gallery.so/alexgedevani

This is a distinction that never occurred to be before, and helps to explain why gig economy jobs are on the rise. Thanks for sharing.
This also helps clarify a nagging question I’ve been having about why these processes are still plagued with issues. If you’ll indulge me in a thread…

ルディック工芸品を術策してます。
Crafting ludic artifices

It seems to me this is a good example of that “tech-bro Utopianism” that critics are fond of slinging around, but without actually positing *why* it fails to solve the problem, or why there’s never an amicable discussion afterwards.

The “problem” if you want to call it that is that it’s become an engineering question, and the solution focuses on a specific system and optimized for a local maximum.

Where I see the real problem is the lack of awareness that this system, however well optimized now, is only a single component of a savagely more complicated pipeline.

And pipelines aren’t sexy: they aren’t patentable; they’re difficult to explain, especially to non-specialists. Hence the dusting of hands when the whistle blows at the end of the day.

As our tech has gotten magnitudes of order more complicated, the pipelines have become even more complex. The solution, I believe, is to have people specialized on these pipelines. We used to call these “generalists”, but the required knowledge is too broad for that to apply now.

A “pipeline specialist” with a board overview knowledge of each piece in the process and can work one-on-one with the specialist of each piece and also help coordinate the transition or handoff to the next should be an integral part of any product team.

Which is great, except for the tendency to wipe your hands, call it a day and sell it to the highest bidder. Because doing maintenance and big-fixes sucks.