Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dasanman 2839 days ago
Oh my god yes. Actually we should work 6 days a week, imagine how fast the new Iphone would come out!!
2 comments

Have you considered what would happen if we added meth to the drinking water? People wouldn't sleep and could work twice as long!
Do you want reavers? Because that's how you get reavers.
I thought we had already five that by making coffee mainstream?
Did we just seriously compare coffee to meth?
not the greatest source but still informative

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150220083916.h...

I wouldn't doubt this idea has come up at least once in some shareholder meeting.
It does. I think apenwarr has a good outlook on this:

"maybe we can just have the engineers work weekends or something? Well, I think most of us know that's a losing battle. First of all, even if we could get engineers to work, say, on Saturdays without any other losses (eg. burnout), that would only be a 20% improvement. 20%? Give me a break. If I said I was going to do a talk about how to improve your team's efficiency by 20%, you wouldn't even come. You can produce 20% more by hiring one more person for your 5-person team, and nobody even has to work overtime. Forget it.

https://apenwarr.ca/log/?m=201712

If only hiring 20% more people would mean 20% more efficiency we would have a lot fewer problems.
Sure, but there are a lot of efficiency killers to look for before you need to worry about individual hours worked.

Adding 20% more people doesn't make the software come out 20% faster because:

1) Multiple people need to work on the same critical section of the code, and then there are merge conflicts. (Or people disagree on the design, or refactoring becomes a higher priority than doing what users want, etc.)

2) People work sloppily and omit relevant tests, only for someone else to have to re-discover the bug, fix it, and write the tests (trading productivity from one person to another).

3) People work on the wrong tasks, adding 20% more technical debt but not fixing 20% of the highest-priority bugs.

4) People take 20% less responsibility so you end up with "someone else will handle that (where "that" is usually documentation, monitoring, deployment, or anything else not explicitly captured in your list of bugs/priorities).

It is very interesting to me how internal software development often fails (I'm sure I've been the point of failure before), but software development CAN scale. I use AWS, for example, and I'm sure their software engineering teams are messing with products/features that my team uses. But they don't make me 20% slower. Ultimately, overly-tight coupling gets you every time. But on the other hand, too much isolation can also be a problem (time spent overengineering). If you find that balance, you can scale your team infinitely ;)

Didn't they use meth during WW2 on the russian front?
Is it a good thing?
I'm pretty sure parent posts are sarcastic.