The front is a gap. Where do you want to take me?

The front is a gap. Where do you want to take me?

Wu Yu

Taiyan Network Studio

 

I am afraid of common sense violations.For example, our upstream data source has two ports. One port is responsible for real-time data of consecutive persistent connections, and the other port is responsible for temporary historical data of transient connections, that is, the data request can be completed quickly, and then the socket is closed. Before requesting data, you need to send a logon message, but it is clear that there is only one port to receive the login message, and the other does not need to send the login message.

I need to make an important decision accordingly, so I asked the relevant developers: Which port needs to send a logon message?

He confidently replied to me: the port requesting historical data.

I am about to crash, which is too common sense. Transient Connections cannot remember which user receives data on another port. I followed the question: Are you sure?

The other party then replied: I'm sure!

I had no way back, so I had to explain the cause of my doubt and hoped that he could explain my confusion.

His answer is still simple: I remember it!

 

This brother is a little straight.Such expressions as "I remember" and "I think" should be more personal opinions than objective facts.In the language environment at that time, what I needed was objective facts, because I had to make an important decision accordingly. He can say that I have to look for a document to confirm, but he cannot tell me a message that he thinks is right but is actually wrong.

I asked him "Are you sure?" and asked him whether his confirmation is true or not. He answered "I confirm" and confirmed that he remembered it.

I finally understand that objective facts are confused with personal opinions in his semantics. On the surface, he is presenting objective facts. In fact, he is talking about his personal opinions. My fear is that if I make decisions based on the information provided by him, the entire team will die badly.

Another colleague said with a smile that we are talking about chicken and duck ".

 

The conclusion of another story is the opposite. A long time ago, some end users failed to log on, and users with specific networks experienced problems in a concentrated manner. For example, Netcom users in a certain region concentrated on this issue. This problem is hard for O & M colleagues. Network instability cannot be controlled by us. My confusion is that competitors who provide similar services have not heard of such problems. The key point of this violation of common sense is that everyone's technical skills are almost the same. Why have you never heard of such problems in other companies?

In fact, the outcome is not complex, and the O & M cannot solve the problem, but it must be solved by software developers themselves. However, the developer gave a special explanation. The general idea is that when a user logs on, too many messages are sent to 0.

I cannot understand this sentence. There is a communication protocol for login. How can there be too many requests from 0? Too many. How much more? I feel that an exception occurs when the login message is parsed in some cases, so the server initiates an active shutdown, causing the user to be kicked out and taken offline.

My understanding of this explanation is: first, we should not pursue this matter further. Second, he is describing objective facts in his personal opinion.

 

The first is to treat personal opinions as objective facts, and the second is to blur objective facts into personal opinions. However, in any case, decisions made based on this will be miserable.

I once asked a colleague to dynamically switch the data source, that is, when the upstream provides multiple peer-to-peer data sources, we can choose one dynamically. Colleagues who developed the results said that the memory pool had an out-of-bounds error. As a metaphor, I usually watch the program cctv1. The TV is normal, but today I watch the program cctv2. As a result, the TV suffers from electric leakage. To be honest, I can't see any inevitable connection between them, which makes me feel like I am in violation of common sense. According to this idea, it is true that "Everything is possible.

Another thing is that we need to submit the data to the upstream, and the result is not submitted successfully. I checked the cause with the developer. I asked, is the checksum correct? He said that this algorithm is provided by others. He told me that he was not responsible for this. I will ask again, is the data range for verification correct? He answered according to regulations. I asked a lot in turn. In short, he has no responsibility, but in violation of common sense, many companies have already completed this job. How did people succeed?

 

How can we distinguish between objective facts and personal opinions?

According to the above statement, it must be a gap. When I got to the front of the ditch, I secretly wondered: Do you want to go to the ditch?