[jules]

Argument #1 does not really make sense, since by repeatedly applying the same logic it implies that engineers will work an infinite number of minutes each day. A variant of this argument that I've often heard is this:

"My decision to take the plane does not negatively impact the environment, since the plane would fly with or without me in it."

[creyer]

The point I was trying to make is that for engineers you can't do a simple math from minutes to productivity. The interruptions are big productivity killers, but all engineers take voluntary breaks. A break helps productivity, but there is a limit, above that it harms. The same with the interruptions, some might help, too many will not.

[zaphar]

A break the engineer chooses is chosen and is unlikely to interrupt flow. An interruption caused by the tooling is not chosen and is more likely to interrupt flow.

Tooling cruft also increases the startup cost of some tasks. Where the amount of pain you will experience trying to do it may inhibit your desire to dig in.

The author was generalizing he wasn't assuming perfect accuracy. But in an engineering organization the size of Twitter the productivity gains of a dedicated tooling team add up fast. Much faster than you might think.

[Lawtonfogle]

I could see people seriously agreeing with the plane argument.

I think to spin it even worse, replace it with some sort of group crime. I joined the riot, because there would be a riot with or without me. I join the drive by shooting, because there would be a drive by shooting with or without me.

I think that would have less people agreeing with it than the plane argument.