A misfeature is specifically a feature that's just bad, while verschlimmbessern can happen with everything that nobody would call a feature (insert something about xkcd 1172). But yeah, it's pretty close
I do think it's part of many people's vocabulary. It's a bit informal. And it's not a word you use every day. But it's definitely a word that gets used when the occasion calls for it, just like the related verb "verschlimmbessern."
"Enshittification" isn't the same thing. "Verschlimmbesserung" is when you try to fix a loose connection in a power cord and then no electricity flows at all, or when you try to fix a bad haircut with a trimmer and the haircut ends up looking even worse, etc.
It's certainly used - not in the top 100, but if the situation calls for it, it's not unexpected.
There's a big difference between enshitification and "Verschlimmbesserung". The latter has the intent of actually improving things, while the first is making things knowingly worse for profit.
Enshittification is when the perpetrator intentionally does make a product worse, like locking previously free features behind a paywall with a firmware update, or covers components of an electric device with some goop to make it unrepairable.
Verschlimmbesserung is when the perpetrator has good but ultimately misguided intentions. For example, so middle manager might think that replacing but buttons on a vacuum cleaner with app integration adds value, but ultimately it's replacing something simple, boring and reliable with an overengineered solution that causes more problems than it solves.
There is some overlap between the two: someone could make make a Verschlimmbesserung even though he knows no one wants the change, but he can pad his resume with it. In general I'd say enshittification leans more towards malice, while Verschlimmbesserung leans more towards incompetence.
> Verschlimmbesserung is not widely used these days in Germany.
Value is now only _extracted_. Place the acquired good into the press and smash it until all but the faintest essence remains among the mash. The squeezings are bottled and saved to pay for future _extractions_.
Companies like Valve can continue largely unshittificated because they are private. Once that is no longer the case, all our game rentals will be squozen away from us.
I looked 'squeeze' up in the (paywalled) Oxford English Dictionary [0]. The are numerous variant forms including 'squoze' and 'squozen':
"Also 1600s squeez, squeaze, squease, squese, 1600s–1700s squeese. Also with dialect preterite and past participle 1800s– squoze, past participle 1800s squozen."
The OED cites quotations from the 1930s, 1870s, and 1860s that include 'squoze' and 'squozen', for example ‘Orange?’ repeated Waitress No. 1. ‘Do you want it squoze?’ in the Baltimore Sun, 1 Sep 1931.
I think Gabe is an example of how you can stop at absurdly rich and still make your customers happy. The enshittification is only necessary to go beyond absurdly rich.
I think there’s two separate things here that you seem to be conflating - absurdly rich and unethical. I’d argue Newell is mostly the former; though many or most billionaires align on both those metrics.
He could have gotten $5bn ten years ago (for great justic... quarterly results) and then have his lunch eaten by Epic and GOG. He clearly doesn't understand how to do current year capitalism.
Yes? Read about their water rights lobbying and lobbying against plastic recycling regulations. Our descendents have to deal with Coca Cola’s externalities. You can’t see these second order effects immediately, which is understandable, but coca cola is massively extractive.
It's actually a verb, "Verschlimmbesserung" is the substantivization.
Base: verschlimmbessern
Present conjugation: I verschlimmbesser[e], you verschlimmbesserst, he/she/it verschlimmbessert, we verschlimmbesser[e]n, you verschlimmbessert, they verschlimmbesser[e]n
無 (the question cannot be answered because it relies on unmet prerequisites)
"Verbesserschlimmung" isn't a word in active use & depending on how it (theoretically) were to enter use, its meaning might vary. It could enter usage with identical meaning, or it could mean the opposite: a change intended to worsen things that made them better. It's a bit like "inflammable".
(Also: this is why I pointed out it's not formed according to the agglutination rules that apply for concatenated nouns in German. For those, the meaning can be logically derived. This is a portmanteau, those don't quite follow rigid rules.)
(German) Words do not work like that. First, it's called 'schlimmer', so -> "Verbesserschlimmerung". Second "schlimm" is positiv, while "besser" is the comparativ, so you need to swap these too: "schlimmer" and "gut".
Also the genesis of the word works like this: "besser" -> "bessern" -> "verbessern" -> "verschlimmbessern" -> "Verschlimmbesserung" (better -> becoming better -> making better -> making better towards a worse state -> same, but as noun) So you append to the beginning, while keeping the existing prefix. If you want to end up with "worse" at the end, you need to start with it too. "schlecht" -> "verschlechtern" -> ??? But then "gut" doesn't fit, because that implies an absolute, that "schlimm" does not.
Note, that "schlimm" does not plainly mean "bad", that's "schlecht". It also contains the notion of pity, guilt and impotence. That doesn't really exist for the opposite.
"updowngrade", funnily enough, I would understand as having the (IMO misunderstood/wrong) meaning you're trying to give to "Verschlimmbesserung" in your post here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49483585 (making some parts better and some other parts worse.)
That's not what "worseprovement" conveys to me, you can worseprove a single part, intending to make it better, making that same thing actually worse by the very same change.
It works, but regression is broader. If I'm not mistaken, a regression can also happen without human intervention. Verschlimmbesserung is active. Someone actually tried something and made it worse.
How about "bloat". Something that doesn't need to be there, and it would be better if it wasn't, but it was typically added with some misguided "good intentions". Bloat.
This also applies to changing something. If it was perfect, and you changed it, and now it's not perfect anymore, then the work itself didn't need to happen, and was therefore bloat.
Most work is bloat. But we have tied continued existence to work (mostly -- we mistake work for value), so we've made infinite bloating appear mandatory.
As an aside, most of the human psychology (assumptions, beliefs etc.) is also bloat, and similarly benefits from debloating.
Interesting. By this definition, a poorly chosen algorithm is also "bloat", which doesn't seem right to me.
I see bloat mostly as "unnecessary dependencies." Things which, if you removed them, the product would improve.
e.g. importing a whole library for what could have been a simple function.
If something justifies its "weight", then it's not bloat. It's functional.
But there's also "feature bloat." If a feature or change doesn't need to exist, or makes things worse, then it's bloat. If you removed it, the project would improve.
It‘s „bear service“, and context is slightly different. You do bear service to someone, and Verschlimmbesserung is on something. Both signal intent to do something good, but doing bear service is an act of screwing up while doing that, no prior condition required, and Verschlimmbesserung is the outcome of such attempt applied to something that was ok before.
German here. A "Verschlimmbesserung" is something that makes one part better and another part worse. If it only makes things worse you don't need a German word for it, you can just call it worse.
For things that were intended good, but ended up bad, there's an English idiom: the path to hell is paved with good intentions.
I still agree with parent’s definition more because it also covers the ironic, sarcastic case, as well as the inherent ambiguity of the word ‘besser’. Plainly put, ‘better’ for who?
If you just say it as a logical series of making it worse while making it better you miss that the intention of the ‘better’ is the first place wasn’t even the intention to make it better for the user.
„Verschlimbesserung” is what your spouse thinks about each of your improvements to the home automation setup, or, indeed, the whole idea of home automation.
Office 2003 is a terrible example, office is a product that deliberately makes one part worse on each "upgrade" so that the consumer has a reason to upgrade to another release.
Video quality is bad, there are probably better ones but it has english
subtitles. The idea here is basically the guy tries to improve something,
but in the end kind of causes the whole room to become devastated. That's
kind of Verschlimmbesserung: meaning to do well, but failing to do so and
causing more harm than good. (Also in the comments people connect this to
Friedrich Merz; the guy is really losing popular support by the minute
now. Just recently where he was unhappy how real people ask him critical
questions.)
It's not totally clear from the examples given, but I feel like in some cases these changes aren't a genuine effort to improve things. They're just a sort of cycle of changing things to chase fads or look busy.
If a startup could have been a 100 line PHP script, instead of 50 microservices, then you wouldn't be able to work on it for the next 10 years, and hire 5 of your buds from school.
100 comments
[ 1.5 ms ] story [ 35.6 ms ] threadThe opposite is the more interesting word though: hit bug. A bug/mistake/fuckup that turns out to improve the software.
Verschlimmbesserung is not widely used these days in Germany.
"Enshittification" isn't the same thing. "Verschlimmbesserung" is when you try to fix a loose connection in a power cord and then no electricity flows at all, or when you try to fix a bad haircut with a trimmer and the haircut ends up looking even worse, etc.
I probably haven’t used it once in the last 15 years and have heard it maybe twice.
Source: lifelong German speaker
Source: Lifelong Prime
There's a big difference between enshitification and "Verschlimmbesserung". The latter has the intent of actually improving things, while the first is making things knowingly worse for profit.
I'd like to use "Schlimmprovement" for elevated communication.
Enshittification is when the perpetrator intentionally does make a product worse, like locking previously free features behind a paywall with a firmware update, or covers components of an electric device with some goop to make it unrepairable.
Verschlimmbesserung is when the perpetrator has good but ultimately misguided intentions. For example, so middle manager might think that replacing but buttons on a vacuum cleaner with app integration adds value, but ultimately it's replacing something simple, boring and reliable with an overengineered solution that causes more problems than it solves.
There is some overlap between the two: someone could make make a Verschlimmbesserung even though he knows no one wants the change, but he can pad his resume with it. In general I'd say enshittification leans more towards malice, while Verschlimmbesserung leans more towards incompetence.
> Verschlimmbesserung is not widely used these days in Germany.
Yes, it is.
I do like the sound of Verscheissification.
As Picard said: Enshitify! (Apologies to my Trekkie friends.)
That already means "prank".
> Verschisserung
"Schisser" means coward.
Companies like Valve can continue largely unshittificated because they are private. Once that is no longer the case, all our game rentals will be squozen away from us.
"Also 1600s squeez, squeaze, squease, squese, 1600s–1700s squeese. Also with dialect preterite and past participle 1800s– squoze, past participle 1800s squozen."
The OED cites quotations from the 1930s, 1870s, and 1860s that include 'squoze' and 'squozen', for example ‘Orange?’ repeated Waitress No. 1. ‘Do you want it squoze?’ in the Baltimore Sun, 1 Sep 1931.
[0] https://www.oed.com/dictionary/squeeze_v?tab=forms#21076314
(don't answer that, it does exist because people make shitcoins for everything: https://phantom.com/tokens/solana/4CF8Ek5DEiYtP1YuqomDdhkeSc...)
Base: verschlimmbessern
Present conjugation: I verschlimmbesser[e], you verschlimmbesserst, he/she/it verschlimmbessert, we verschlimmbesser[e]n, you verschlimmbessert, they verschlimmbesser[e]n
Past/perfect: verschlimmbessert (e.g. "it got verschlimmbessert")
Imperative: verschlimmbesser[e] [the e is optional] (e.g. "don't verschlimmbesser that!")
[ed. made some adjustments]
"Verbesserschlimmung" isn't a word in active use & depending on how it (theoretically) were to enter use, its meaning might vary. It could enter usage with identical meaning, or it could mean the opposite: a change intended to worsen things that made them better. It's a bit like "inflammable".
(Also: this is why I pointed out it's not formed according to the agglutination rules that apply for concatenated nouns in German. For those, the meaning can be logically derived. This is a portmanteau, those don't quite follow rigid rules.)
Also the genesis of the word works like this: "besser" -> "bessern" -> "verbessern" -> "verschlimmbessern" -> "Verschlimmbesserung" (better -> becoming better -> making better -> making better towards a worse state -> same, but as noun) So you append to the beginning, while keeping the existing prefix. If you want to end up with "worse" at the end, you need to start with it too. "schlecht" -> "verschlechtern" -> ??? But then "gut" doesn't fit, because that implies an absolute, that "schlimm" does not.
Note, that "schlimm" does not plainly mean "bad", that's "schlecht". It also contains the notion of pity, guilt and impotence. That doesn't really exist for the opposite.
Doing something large, inventing a bunch of metrics, and showing that you improve on those metrics does.
Via https://dict.leo.org/forum/viewUnsolvedquery.php?idThread=49... and https://dict.leo.org/forum/viewUnsolvedquery.php?idThread=16...
That's not what "worseprovement" conveys to me, you can worseprove a single part, intending to make it better, making that same thing actually worse by the very same change.
There's no reason to coin a new term at all, nor chasing this idea of using long German word as a replacement.
This also applies to changing something. If it was perfect, and you changed it, and now it's not perfect anymore, then the work itself didn't need to happen, and was therefore bloat.
Most work is bloat. But we have tied continued existence to work (mostly -- we mistake work for value), so we've made infinite bloating appear mandatory.
As an aside, most of the human psychology (assumptions, beliefs etc.) is also bloat, and similarly benefits from debloating.
Article discusses qualitative aspects a la "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
I see bloat mostly as "unnecessary dependencies." Things which, if you removed them, the product would improve.
e.g. importing a whole library for what could have been a simple function.
If something justifies its "weight", then it's not bloat. It's functional.
But there's also "feature bloat." If a feature or change doesn't need to exist, or makes things worse, then it's bloat. If you removed it, the project would improve.
Unless I'm mistaken, Russian has a wonderful idiom for this: "bear job"
For things that were intended good, but ended up bad, there's an English idiom: the path to hell is paved with good intentions.
[0]: https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/verschlimmbessern
If you just say it as a logical series of making it worse while making it better you miss that the intention of the ‘better’ is the first place wasn’t even the intention to make it better for the user.
> etwas in der Absicht, es zu verbessern, schlechter machen > > https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/verschlimmbessern
"Making somewhere worse with the intention to make it better".
Better is the enemy of good.
Old Italian proverb: "il meglio è nemico del bene"
Shakespeare, King Lear: "Striving to better, oft we mar what's well".
That's not the same at all. The idea there is that if you try to make the best, you will stop advancing towards good, not that you will worsen it.
Hmmm. So, the literal transation would be:
"Verschlimm" - worsen, negative, step back. "Besserung" - improvement, getting better than before.
So, I would translate it as "an effort to improve something but actually making it worse in the process".
There is an old video clip in german about this, actually; I think it was from Loriot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dhj1xhv3rZI
Video quality is bad, there are probably better ones but it has english subtitles. The idea here is basically the guy tries to improve something, but in the end kind of causes the whole room to become devastated. That's kind of Verschlimmbesserung: meaning to do well, but failing to do so and causing more harm than good. (Also in the comments people connect this to Friedrich Merz; the guy is really losing popular support by the minute now. Just recently where he was unhappy how real people ask him critical questions.)
That's largely a function of incentives.
If a startup could have been a 100 line PHP script, instead of 50 microservices, then you wouldn't be able to work on it for the next 10 years, and hire 5 of your buds from school.