this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2025
1297 points (99.6% liked)

Programmer Humor

27104 readers
4173 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Apparently a page from an internal IBM training manual. Some further attempts at source it

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ruuster13@lemmy.zip 150 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And when computers make all management decisions, let us not forget that managers told them to do so, lest we forget whom to hold accountable.

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 25 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

You know shit only flows downhill right?

[–] MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net 91 points 22 hours ago (1 children)
[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 13 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I think what they meant is nobody in management cares if someone wants to hold them accountable

Bit it's a nice picture, yeah

[–] scathliath@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

I don't know, they all sure hate Luigi for some reason.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 3 points 2 hours ago

Probably not fans of Nintendo or something

[–] Salvo@aussie.zone 95 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Managers aren’t being held accountable for their management decisions either.

“Oh, I sacked our entire workforce and sold all the company assets, so the figures will look amazing this month.”

“Oh, the figures are down this month, a golden handshake!? Thank you very much.”

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 4 points 9 hours ago

It depends, though.

There are cases where parts of a struggling company is worth less than the sum of its parts. At that point, the fiscally prudent option is to sell it off, either in one piece or multiple pieces. There are plenty of cases in American corporate history where the best option is to cut losses and leave a market.

That being said, I'm surprised that private equity is still allowed to be a thing given the massive disparity shown in how a lot of financial disparity in how a lot of private equity companies run their companies against their fiduciary responsibilities to their companies' stockholders and bondholders.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Most industries management fails upward. Definitely true in Pharma.

There are CEOs with a 20 year string of development failures, but they bring "vast experience".

[–] xxce2AAb@feddit.dk 78 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ah, from back when people still had critical thinking faculties in good working order.

[–] raman_klogius@ani.social 48 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Back when tech is still dominated by hippies and not fascists.

[–] GrabtharsHammer@lemmy.world 51 points 23 hours ago (1 children)
[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 23 hours ago

At the time the computers were kinda newfangled and they tolerated some hippies over there in research.

The business part, well, yeah.

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 26 points 22 hours ago

That's not how you would describe IBM at any point in its existence.

[–] thinkercharmercoderfarmer@slrpnk.net 24 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

This is as good an excuse as any to break out the ol' IBM corporate songbook

Tech has always been suits at the top, hippies at best an annoying necessity because they know how to actually operate the machine.

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

"Back in the day", IBM was all suits the entire way up and down the ladder. They were considered the company for 1960/70s button down dress code.

The hippie types were at MIT hacking on DEC machines.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 11 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

IBM in 1979 was the polar opposite of hippie or liberal. You're thinking of later, younger outfits, Pirates of Silicon Valley types. IBM was white shirt, black tie, solidly stuck in their ways.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 55 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Reminds me of Woz’s old saying “Never trust a computer you can’t throw out a window.”

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That became easier with phones huh.

[–] lauha@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes, really easy to throw cloud out the window

[–] msage@programming.dev 3 points 14 hours ago

With clouds it's easy, they are already outside the windows.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 33 points 9 hours ago

Executives today:

This means if we put AI somewhere in our decision making, we can no longer be held accountable.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 31 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Isn't that exactly why they do use them for management decisions?

[–] InputZero@lemmy.world 12 points 7 hours ago

Yup!

"I'm sorry but your contact is terminated because our management software designated your position as redundant and unnecessary. It wasn't our decision to let you go, but it was our decision to begin using that software and it was our decision to program it to try to fire as many employees as possible, but it's not our decision and therefore we can't be held responsible. Goodbye."

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 22 points 7 hours ago

Since when are managers held accountable? Is this new?

[–] sundray@lemmus.org 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I can only assume the very next slide said, "But having a computer make battlefield targeting decisions is A-OK!" /s

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago

It's just a little war crimes, it's ok it's ok.

[–] kingofras@lemmy.world 18 points 22 hours ago

promptly

Very meta

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Let's be honest though, most managers, maybe ~60% could be replaced by AI. If you want evidence, think of anyone who goes to meetings, and those who go to meetings all day element 90% of meetings, at minimal. Those jobs shouldn't exist. They are what people like Bezos/Musk believe should not exist.

Now, how does one get from being nothing, and never being in meetings to being someone making money... You can't, unless you know someone. AI is an "American Dream" killer

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 23 hours ago

Well that’s the exact reason these people are so horny for AI.

https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-era-of-the-business-idiot/

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Heikki2@lemmy.world 13 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

As a US citizen, this logic need to be applied to corperations. The C_Os make all the decisions for the company, the Campany should not be held as responsible for the shitty actions of its Board. The Board should be held accountable for the companies actions be required to served by all the C_Os. I say served, I mean fines and prison time ,in all cases, as a fine is paid personally by the person and time is served aslo bu the person.

I know fine are just a temporary for "legal fo .a price" fine should be paid to hut them so Retirement accounts are taken, future earning are taken, income from salary+bonus at time of infraction are taken, and close loops of off shore accounts

[–] Rooster326@programming.dev 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

Agreed except you better not touch my extremely meager retirement account for some shit the CEO did. I will go full uno bomber.

[–] Heikki2@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

Thats where the legislation can put the lawyer talk in to address it is the personal accounts of the C_Os

[–] Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca 12 points 7 hours ago

TBF Management can barely make any management decisions either...

[–] saltnotsugar@lemmy.world 9 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Thou shall not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.

[–] funkajunk@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago

Try to stop me.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 9 points 15 hours ago

This is sad, not humorous

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

That's the neat thing, you can deny accountability by blaming the computer's decision

[–] InnerScientist@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

A COMPUTER CAN NEVER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE

THEREFORE A COMPUTER MUST ~~NEVER~~ MAKE ~~A~~ MANAGEMENT DECISIONs

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

The computer can't be held accountable, but the programmer and operator can.

I could go on a whole thing about mission rules and command decisions here, but I'm sick of typing for the day.

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 5 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

So when is Musk getting held accountable for making a literal US funded Nazi waifu bot

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] borth@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 hours ago

But a computer works for "free" so "not being held accountable" is even better!!

[–] criss_cross@lemmy.world 5 points 23 hours ago

Sorry can’t hear you as AI brrs over hiring applications and performance reviews

[–] the_q@lemmy.zip 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MalReynolds@piefed.social 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Again, weapons without human in the loop needs to be against the Geneva convention, yesterday. Or articles of war , something. This is a tractable problem, that needs attention, now, It will not end well and can actually be (mostly, by honorable armies) fixed.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›