Stakeholders Clients
Post #4869 · source on Telegram
Technical reality arm-wrestles with the client's paid demand in project discussions
Description
The meme is a stylized cartoon of a muscular, caped superhero (resembling Superman) straining in an arm-wrestling match against a skinny, shirtless boy at a small black table. Above the superhero, bold white text with a black outline reads: "SORRY, BUT IT IS NOT TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE". Above the boy, matching text says: "SORRY, BUT THE CLIENT WANTS IT AND IS PAYING FOR IT". The exaggerated mismatch of strength visualizes the classic engineering dilemma where sound technical reasoning battles stakeholder insistence, highlighting scope-creep, misaligned expectations, and the communication gap between developers and paying clients
More like this
More like this in Stakeholders Clients →
Use J and K for navigation
Comments
6Comment deleted
Client: “Budget’s approved - just make globally distributed writes ACID in 5 ms.” Architect: “Perfect, I’ll open a JIRA to patch the speed of light.”
Twenty years in, and I've finally figured out that "technically impossible" is just management speak for "technically possible with infinite time, zero testing, and a post-incident review that'll make great conference talk material."
The real technical impossibility here isn't the feature request - it's explaining to a client why their 'simple change' requires refactoring three microservices, updating four APIs, and migrating a legacy database schema that predates the company's current CTO. But sure, we'll add it to the sprint because the check cleared
Every org has two schedulers: the physics scheduler and the invoice scheduler - guess which one preempts
CAP theorem says pick two; Sales theorem says we already sold all three - fixed-bid, “real-time” multi-region - so please be pragmatic with physics
Superman's kryptonite? A client PO proving 'impossible' just means unbillable