←back to thread

On Building Git for Lawyers

(jordanbryan.substack.com)
162 points jpbryan | 6 comments | 14 Nov 24 15:48 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
apozem ◴[14 Nov 24 17:11 UTC] No.42138365[source]▶
This person is 100% correct that git will never see adoption outside the tech industry.

My partner worked as a veterinarian for several years, and it was fascinating to see how vets use computers. These were brilliant people - I knew three who did literal brain surgery. But they just had zero patience for computers. They did not want to troubleshoot, figure out how something worked or dive deeper. Ever. They didn't care! They were busy saving the lives of people's pets.

It was a good reminder there are many smart people who do not know computers work and do not care to. A good startup acknowledges this reality.

replies(5): >>42138722 #>>42138786 #>>42140065 #>>42145128 #>>42159805 #
deprecative ◴[14 Nov 24 17:39 UTC] No.42138786[source]▶
I find this excuse depressing. We live in the age of computers. If you don't know how to use one you shouldn't be employed where they're necessary. Rather than making a dumbed down workforce we should be building people's skills up.

Git for normies already exists even MS Word has document versioning. If they cannot be bothered to use the software and technology they need to then they should be unemployed.

replies(7): >>42138938 #>>42138943 #>>42139014 #>>42139055 #>>42139096 #>>42139858 #>>42141616 #
1. jasonpeacock ◴[14 Nov 24 18:02 UTC] No.42139096[source]▶
> We live in the age of automobiles. If you don't know how to use one you shouldn't be employed where they're necessary. Rather than making a dumbed down workforce we should be building people's skills up.

FTFY ;)

Computers are just another modern convenience. We need to be making them more user friendly and safe. Nobody wants to spend all their time learning, maintaining, and fixing their computers any more than they want to do that with their cars.

They should just work, without surprises.

replies(2): >>42139586 #>>42142364 #
2. xx_ns ◴[14 Nov 24 18:41 UTC] No.42139586[source]▶
I mean... yeah? If you do work using cars daily (delivery driver, cab driver, etc), you should know how to use one. Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?
replies(1): >>42141134 #
3. jasonpeacock ◴[14 Nov 24 20:57 UTC] No.42141134[source]▶
As a daily driver of a car, I don't need to know how it works. I know how to _use_ it - get in, turn it on, drive.

Who cares if it's electric or ICE, how combustion or regenerative breaking works, why you need to balance tires, how to change brake pads etc. I take it to the mechanic (IT Department) and they do magic, then give it back to me.

Same for computers. Why does the user need to know about USB 2 vs 3, memory, disk space, multi-threading, ad blockers, etc. Turn it on, use it, and send it out to be fixed when it doesn't work.

replies(2): >>42141250 #>>42151527 #
4. Teever ◴[14 Nov 24 21:09 UTC] No.42141250{3}[source]▶
I bet that the maintenance costs on vehicles/computers is inversely proportional to their operators understanding of how they function.

If you hired a driver which would you rather hire, the one who knows which grinding sounds that a vehicle makes are good/bad or the one who just keeps using it with disregard for the grinding sounds because it isn't currently inhibiting their ability to drive?

5. deprecative ◴[14 Nov 24 23:23 UTC] No.42142364[source]▶
Yeah, if you can drive your car or put fuel in it and you need to drive for your job... Guess what happens? You don't have a job.
6. deprecative ◴[15 Nov 24 21:46 UTC] No.42151527{3}[source]▶
You're abstracting the complexities down to a granularity that strawmans my contention.

If you cannot operate the vehicle you need to do your job you don't have that job. I'm not saying that people need to be experts. I'm saying if you cannot learn the tools needed to do your job then you shouldn't have the job.