Sound logic and incontrovertible evidence

The techniques are hardly obscure

There are some things I like about the work I do that could be irritating for others who may not understand the intricacies of the technologies at play. On occasion, I get a report suggesting the system is not working, which is understandable from their perspective.

What irks me is when technical people refuse to be technical by not reporting the issue with observational and the crucial detail necessary to pinpoint where the problem might be. There are so many parts to the system which needs to run in order, from it beginning through it failing during any number of visible processes and probably at the end.

The detail is revelatory always

Along with this are chatty logs, a real-time journal of activities that one expects these technical users to be able to review, but for their disinterest or some other thing. It does not make it fun when you find that people put in no effort.

In any case, you review the situation and pinpoint with incontrovertible and documented evidence of what the issue is and how it arose. The solution should not have to be dictated to any other expository verbosity, it should be obvious as it is bright sunlight, but no, they hesitate in disbelief and then expect you to embark on an unnecessarily timewasting rigmarole of trial-and-error, which I just can never have the time or patience for.

Once the case is closed, that’s it

Once the situation is proven, that is the end of any analysis, I am not in the business of make-belief or magic, there is qualitative logic to what we and my engineering background cannot be diverted towards the esoteric for either entertainment or conviction.

Sometimes, I wonder, if I were a lawyer using the law of evidence, whether anyone who suggests a hypothetical line of discourse once I have closed my case. I think not. Take it as it is except if you can present better evidence. On that, I am up for the challenge and ready to learn something new.