#wroBookMark
#CharlesWasson #SysEng
http://se.asee.org/proceedings/ASEE2012/Papers/FP2012was181_589.PDF

it makes strong arguments how important System Engineering #SE, I'll go with #SysEng is to deliver a system or product on time and budget.

#SysEng #wroBookMark
got myself a 😎 book
ISBN 978-1-118-44236-5
System Engineering Analysis, Design, and Development: Concepts, Principles, and Practices (Wiley Series in Systems Engineering and Management) by Charles S. Wasson
published by https://www.wiley.com/

How do people in #devops / #syseng stay motivated to work on personal projects? I love my job but at the end of the day I’m usually pretty exhausted.

Found my Halloween costume for this year!

#DevOps #SysEng #SysAdmin

Configuration is not a set of toggles, it's not a YAML file.

Sometimes it's more applicable to configure the system by switching out elements and rebuilding.

It's great that software engineering has developed amazing facilities for text-based configurations, but often application of those is supreficial and lacking.

#syseng #it #configuration

In this long-toot: a recipe to detect and deal with "anagram-bullshiters" even if you don't know anything about the problem domain within which they're trying to sell you something.

I noticed that #haskell people and #science people are giving abstractions specific names that are nouns. Sometimes semantic: "functor, bifunctor, lens, prism", sometimes borrowed: "monoid, magma", sometimes of loose semantic power: "monad, joker and clown".

Or was it clown and joker?..

#java people and #engineering people love abbreviations. Just today whilst studying #syseng, I got tripped up by "StRS vs BRS vs SRS". Not because I can't tell stakeholder requirements from system requirements or business requirements, but because I simply got lost in the abbreviations.

But I observed an interesting thing: when you ask a haskeller to explain a monad, a lens or a bifunctor, it's very easy to call #bullshit: they won't be able to give you a concrete answer (no matter how long or #eli5-esque), while engineering bullshiters have that fallback of just spelling out an anagram they learned and explaining it word by word. This is a red flag, but maybe a person is simply bad at explaining or defining stuff?

What I suggest to be able to determine if you're facing an anagram-bullshiter or not is to ask these questions:

1. How would one use XYZ?
2. In which situations is XYZ applicable / usable / optimal?
3. What are the alternatives to XYZ and in which situations are they applicable / usable / optimal?

Even if you know nothing about problem domain, you should now have a reasonable amount of information to determine if the person is pretending to be more knowledgable than they are.