Agreed. I also think the collaboration, pitching, review bits have been heavily design theater for awhile. I'm not saying it was the designer carrying on the charade, but the product team generally. Those steps all really happen only for the final implementation to be a frankensteined fraction of what was discussed. I'm not saying anything remotely like we should be more respectful of the designer's effort, I'm saying there's so much wasted and unused design work. I'm saying you could cut that out of the process and you'd get a very similar end result. That end result might be bad (perhaps it would help to be more respectful of the designer's efforts), but it's the same either way.

The requirements are so unstable—the product team has few strong beliefs—that they change the next day. And then again every few days after. Hopefully, the changes are small enough that design isn't full resetting each time, but it's not rare to have big changes. The entire project gets swapped not infrequently. What eventually slows the changes is the engineering deadline and the fact that the developers need to start. But the slow drip of product requirements means whatever time budgeting went to design shrinks. And whatever time went to engineering is eaten into such that now the design needs to be something that can be built in half the original amount of dev time. Each day the designer takes at this point eats into that window and so it's dictated by what can get built.

I don't think that has to strictly be viewed like an entirely bad outcome, but for what it is and how it's accomplished, you could just cut the design part out. Besides, you're going to iterate later, right? Right?

>I also think the collaboration, pitching, review bits have been heavily design theater for awhile. I'm not saying it was the designer carrying on the charade, but the product team generally. Those steps all really happen only for the final implementation to be a frankensteined fraction of what was discussed.

Absolutely. A chance for middle management and C-levels to bikeshed inconsequential bullshit and feel like they're doing something.

>That end result might be bad (perhaps it would help to be more respectful of the designer's efforts), but it's the same either way.

Can't be that worse than the slow to load, 50MB for a page, flat design full of wasted space shit redesigned every year or so to follow the new stupid trends that we're getting for the past 15 years

In the same way that the "worse" a speaker is at communicating the more likely something gets lost, the same is true the "worse" the audience is at listening or paying attention or understanding. Both ends make the connection. This will be easy to read as calling the audience dumb, but that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying the ability to understand involves trying and the audience has some control over successful communication much like the speaker does. They can sit with the idea for a second longer before responding, learn and pickup (or ask about) whatever gap they have if they’re not up to speed, or in many cases just listen without distraction.

Conversations have various power dynamics where one person may have more of the burden, but it is far from always a speaker pitching something to someone who isn't inclined to it. Peers leave hallway chats regularly having “aligned” on two different things. Lots of things we’re talking about are actually complex and simple communication will effectively be miscommunication.

I think we’ve moved too far to broadly attributing confusion to weak speaking. It can certainly help to keep polishing and reworking your words to overcome worse and worse listening habits. That can take one very far, but it doesn’t change that we’re making the bar higher and higher and therefore more messages/ideas dissipate into air.

I haven't used Notion the last couple of years either, but there was a multi-year period where someone at each of the companies I was at would champion it, convince someone high enough to transition the team to it, and it would slow the team down so much. There was a joke at one point amongst coworkers that it might not be bad subterfuge to get someone hired at a rival in order to introduce Notion there.

Anyways, I think Notion has a learning curve that is a little longer than one expects. I can believe that with some dedicated learning time I could be turned into a believer. But I also distinctly had the impression that it was one of those things where it saved a ton of time for a few narrow-visioned people (the people who championed it), but added meaningful time to everyone else's. Those people were largely project managers or operations folks, and transitively the leaders they reported to. It heavily threw the switch towards "legibility" over reality.

It's like when someone new to a messy project, creates a spreadsheet, and says, "Let not overthink this, everybody just fill in your project details in your row". If your work, which you are the expert on, doesn't fit nicely into the person's columns, it's not easy for you to fill out. Meanwhile, the person who created the spreadsheet, gets what looks like a neat and orderly answer to everything. All the messy things—which are or at least have in them the correct status of the thing—will be masked under a clean and simple, but rather incorrect, thing. That spreadsheet will also travel far specifically because it's neat and therefore portable. There aren't a bunch of "it depends" in it.

I will speculate that Notion has had more than one minute to fix it.

I would guess that we don't know because we don't interact with it at all and this would have us interact with it. No doubt that few people would really study very hard or that this would suddenly make everyone experts, but I suppose having to deal with it a tiny bit might lead to a tiny sense of the mechanics or scale. Like when you have to sit through the airplane safety talk, my guess is most people are still just going to thrash around over seats in an emergency of maybe ask each other what to do, but I guess people now know they're supposed to wear their seatbelts or that there's a mask in the ceiling? And you also probably do get a few more citizen experts than you had before.

Still, yeah, as an experiment it doesn't seem likely to work. There is probably something to putting people a little closer to the action though.

This concept exists outside of engineering too. It's captured in the more negatively intentioned: ““The best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer". In user research, it's a much better signal when people correct you than when they agree. Politeness is easy—especially under the circumstances (power dynamic of you paying them, they only half care about your work, people generally want to be nice/agreeable, etc.)—such that you should be weary of it. Similarly trying to get real project goals or real requirements or real intentions from a PM or a boss, who may well be hiding that they there isn't much vision underneath things, is the same. The problem is that as productive as it is for developing the team's thinking, it will (1) probably come off as unproductive and challenging because you're slowing "progress" and (2) saying dumb wrong things makes you seem dumb and wrong. But per the concept, even when you do have the foresight to question, you're not allowed to just ask.

I hadn’t heard of brushing, but you might also be a bystander for a different common eBay scam. Seller sells to Buyer, but ships something different to another address with the same zip code. I think eBay may have since fixed part of this, but the deal was that all the tracking info would show that the seller shipped and delivered something of the right approximate weight to the buyer (because USPS would only share/confirm info accurate to zip code level).

The thing that makes it less likely is that the buyer and seller had multiple transactions together which is uncommon for eBay. And also if the stuff you got was expensive. Maybe buyer really just put the wrong address and neither side can do much to get the item back once delivered?

I got hit with that exact scam recently as a buyer, and I can tell you eBay has not figured out how to mitigate it yet. I purchased an expensive item from the seller. He sent some token thing to a different address in my city in the same zip code and provided me (and eBay) the tracking info. Item was delivered, and all eBay knows is "item sent to zip code X was delivered" so it was marked as delivered. I submitted a dispute, which was pretty much instantly closed with "Seller provided proof of delivery." I contacted UPS who happily provided me the actual address the package was delivered to. I escalated through eBay's support channel and offered to prove that the delivery was not to my address but they didn't care or want to know the actual delivery address. Finally, after a few days, eBay got back to me with a form letter saying I would be refunded because the seller's item was "lost in the mail," which was total bullshit, but at this point I didn't care since I got my money back, but the scammer probably kept the money too, so I guess eBay is eating these costs.

I got scammed once where the seller didn't even ship anything, but just came up with a tracking number for my zip code that had already been delivered recently. Took weeks of back-and-forth with customer service to get a refund. They had listed the item in a category that doesn't have the money-back guarantee (which I had no idea was a thing)

"Better to just not think about it" feels like the majority sentiment and a lot of people's path to their own (albeit less) success. We’ve got lots of modern phrases like "don’t listen to the haters" or "you do you" or things like imposter syndrome to support it.

I'd add (not saying you said otherwise) that marketing bad ideas well isn't quite the same as good communication. I guess a funny thing is that the more naive or blind or optimistic one is, the more one might wiggle their way out of some definitions of “liar.” If they're good at lying to themselves, maybe it doesn’t count as lying to others.