We are now pausing before moving on to dessert. I have received several wonderful presents from my wife. Including "The CAT of GLORY", 3 ties and a Terry Pratchett book.
![]() | ![]() |
goofball does london
![]() | ![]() |
This is Tottenham Court Road tube station. So many people. Are they struggling as much as me? Are they happy sad? Now muslims like Jacko? Crappy jobs? Married? Gay?
Again, through the wonder of technology you can't see the incredible shades of red that were in this sunset. Yes that white blur of sky was red in real life. I think the phone just picks a colour and goes with it.
So, once again, I am finding myself in a situation where I am being asked to do work which is detrimental to the company asking me to do the work. I often run into this problem in mid-large size companies I work for where the political environment / desire to impress shareholders produces requirements to build functionality on top of dangerously built systems.
Usually these requests are motivated by either (1) a desire to honestly tell shareholders and investors that "the system" is being extended and new functionality is being added, or (2) a manager is focused on being able to tell their superior that they are extending and enlarging existing systems. Usually these two things go hand in hand.
In this case, the code which makes up the system being extended is of such poor quality that in adding to the code base, we are increasing the size of the inevitable job of replacing everything we are doing. For this reason, I feel that what I am doing is morally questionable.
The pragmatic approach to these problems is to bury my head in the sand and accept that this is "someone else's problem." Of course, I think that this approach is largely responsible for the recent collapse of so many banks in this city. I do not know what to do - I'm trying to stick to my word and complete my contract, but it's a bit of a moral quandry.
Just out of a meeting discussing a painful modification to two systems. It's painful mainly because the company is using one of the systems to do something it wasn't designed for, and it's the kind of problem experienced by every large company (and most small ones) I've worked in. At the end of the meeting, I asked the business person who has been with the company longest why we were using the system to do something it wasn't intended to do and was told "Because we're !*%#, and that's what we do."
Now, you would think that when so much money is on the line, somebody's head would be on the chopping block for having made the decision to use the product in the first place. Concievably, you could trace things back to some decision made two or three years ago, and find out who was the force behind such a disasterous decision. However, once again, the spectre of outsourcing raises its ugly head. When asked "why did we do this?" the answer inevitably ends up being, "Well, this isn't how we specified for it to be done. [That other company] just implemented it this way." To which my question would be, "Who signed off on the work received from that company?"
Of course, it's all a moot point, because the company ultimately answers to the shareholders, who aren't interested in such ins and outs. The shareholders just want to know how we're going to make money in the next quarter, and how many expensive employees we have.