Every time I see those I also see the lesson - count your maintenance costs. It is a nice artificial water channel, yes, but will the city have the money to run it, clean it, supply water, etc.?

Of course I know that the original (real estate) developers did the cost analysis, but when you see those abandoned places - very much objectively you can conclude that they made an error. A miscalculation, or an error in judgement.

--

Back to software I think scope creep causes many problems: the team loses focus, can be demotivated by delivering the features no one needs, etc. - all real and serious problems. But ultimately it is the ever growing maintenance cost that has a real ability to annihilate all team capacity.

Everything we build, however high-quality it is, needs to be maintained and all projects should include this into their "run" phase budget. And growing maintenance costs only aggravate other scope creep issues.

--

And that's the tragedy of being the engineer/engineering manager/CTO even. Exactly like the post says, you don't get "promoted" for stuff you reject to do. I had countless occasions of successfully convincing product teams and boards to abandon or rescope the project, and although I am convinced it did good for the companies in the end - the engineering department ends up being a buzzkill :shrug: . I cope with it, but it never really settled with me. If anyone has the answer to how to approach this in a healthy way I am very much interested in your experience.

- llms let us build exactly what we want fairly quickly nowadays, or at least a prototype and

- being able to build these features (or separate products) quickly is exactly the trap

> It’s the same test I keep applying when picking the right problems to solve — does it make the boat go faster?

Who knows this though? It's rarely engineers. Product often has a good sense within their lane. Leadership usually (at good companies) is mostly aligned, with some nuance depending on who's speaking.

It's a good sentiment but rarely a single person's decision.

As I said, I see these pop up and I'm usually annoyed because what new take could someone bring at this point, but I read them every single time :p

The next best thing is to rapidly build the crappiest thing that kind of works. Being a little bit bad on purpose usually helps. Getting trapped in clean code and test coverage ideological hell is precisely what we want to avoid.

I've found that the more aggressive you make your time constraint, the less likely you will wind up committing to some kind of engineering decision that ruins the whole pie.

If the 90 minute rapid prototype doesn't make sense, you didn't waste that much time. It's a lot easier to prove things to stakeholders this way too.

I've turned multi-month product roadmap expansion packs into single day tasks by building the right things at the right times in order to discover what not to build.

Before they add any new UI element, they first look for something they can remove.

Self-promotional link: https://killthehippo.com/

As an engineering leader you’ve got to advocate for it against product/design all the time.

When you are flooded by requests, predicting the right priorities and managing the Gantt is crucial.

Customer satisfaction is your priority as consultant, but wisdom is even more valuable, if you can apply it.

If you are building a product the user already knows, that might not be difficult.

We work in the sleep space, where everyone expects a hypnogram and a sleep score. Even though these things don't actually tell you anything real. They are of little value to most people, but that is the expectation.

I’m not building space elevator.

One time it was user profile avatars that took a site down. I work in line of business software, nobody needs avatars.

The most important decision is what limitations and constraints you are prepared to accept. There are always limitations and constraints but they are rarely identified up-front.

The most difficult, hard-to-revert decisions are those related to hard constraints imposed by the systems and/or data you have to rely on. Maybe it's not physically possible to obtain the data you need to solve the problem you need to solve for the price you need for it to be viable. Maybe you need to be able to process large files which may take many hours to complete. Or your input data grows father than you can process on a single CPU core. Or the security requirements of a particular piece of data means that you can't efficiently connect it to some external piece of data as you need.

- one of my latest ideas was to handle spam calls on my android phone

- the way i wanted to do this is to have an app pick up the phone call automatically everytime and ask a bunch of user defined questions

- for example, caller: hi i am angel from XYZ spam company

- audio streams through the app with an LLM processing every word and it asks back "who are you trying to reach?"

- caller doesnt answer in 30 seconds or wrong answer. call dropped automatically and the phone is not even ringing yet

- caller says ABC and the autoresponder immediately asks the next question

- "what is the password to reach abc"

- caller doesnt answer or gives incorrect answer within 30 seconds and call is dropped immediately

- caller gives correct answer and now the phone starts ringing

- obviously the questions are set by the user and it ll change from user to user

- imagine by biggest disappointment when I found out from the r/androiddev group that the permission to actually audio process a phone call is simply not available unless you root your android phone. Its a no-go even on the iphone

- Even if you do root the phone, I haven't gotten a conclusive answer from anyone either on reddit or even here on HN so far on the feasibility of implementing such a feature

- Thank god I did not burn 100 hrs into this