This marks the inaugural entry in the Thought Snippet series, where I intend to share my thoughts or archive ideas encountered from various sources. I have a profound love for writing and expressing ideas; however, my essay writing skills are not as refined as I would like them to be. Consequently, I find it more beneficial to jot down my ideas in the form of snippets gradually, allowing me to practice writing small paragraphs and enhance my skills over time. It is essential to note that the ideas presented here are my own and do not reflect my status, university, or company.

First Idea: The system is broken. Should we break it?

This idea has lingered in my mind for quite some time, finding its way into this snippet. Many people express dissatisfaction with the perceived flaws in various systems, advocating for a "revolution." Examples include criticisms like:

1. The education system is broken; why measure a person solely by their grades? Why should entrance exams/SATs define one's future?

2. The software engineering interview process is broken; whiteboard coding interviews seem irrelevant to actual software engineering tasks.

While I agree with certain aspects of these arguments (such as the limited significance of grades and the mismatch between interview processes and real-world tasks), my stance on the question "Should we break a 'failed' system?" can be encapsulated in the following two pictures:

A "handball" (personally, I don't think it's a handball, read more in the appendix) by Perisic when the score was 1-1 between France and Croatia in the World Cup 2018 Final.

Soccer players complain about the referee's decision after he gave France a penalty.

Applying the logic of breaking the system: "The system is broken, we shouldn't conform to it." Croatia could have quit the match right away; it was unfair for them, especially since the two teams were drawn in a World Cup Final Match, and the decision significantly impacted the outcome (France eventually won 4-2).

While the idea of breaking the system might be tempting, I find it extremely harmful and counterproductive. My studies in Software Engineering have taught me that there is no such thing as a "perfect system." Humans are flawed, so expecting perfection from a system built by humans is unrealistic. Despite efforts to ensure fairness in soccer through technologies like VAR, the decision from the referee in the final match of the 2018 World Cup is considered one of the most controversial. Given this example, expecting a perfect system is pointless; it cannot exist in the real world. Instead of complaining about the flaws or refusing to conform to the system, the best course of action, in my opinion, is to first accept it as it is. Borrowing some wisdom from Einstein, "Learn the rules of the game and then play it better than anyone else." After understanding how the system operates, we can then work on improving it gradually. That, to me, is the most effective framework when pondering the question "Should we break a 'failed' system?"

Sunday morning with a cup of coffee during lockdown,

Ted Vu

Appendix:

[1]: To support my argument, I found the official handball rule from FIFA, which states:

"The VAR can ‘check’ the footage in normal speed and/or in slow motion, but, in general, slow-motion replays should only be used for facts, e.g., position of the offense/player, point of contact for physical offenses and handball, ball out of play (including goal/no goal); normal speed should be used for the ‘intensity’ of an offense or to decide if a handball was ‘deliberate.'

In short, it must be a deliberate action, and if you saw the match, Perisic did not even see the ball; he was covered by a France player.

Official FIFA 2018-2019 Rule