4 ms·

> Under what circumstances is working 100+ hours a week optimal? I can think of quite a few actually. Building/updating life critical systems come immediately

> Under what circumstances is working 100+ hours a week optimal? I can think of quite a few actually. Building/updating life critical systems come immediately to mind. Security vulnerability work, in the same vein. I would say the opposite. If someone is working on critical systems where literal life and death is at stake, I want them rested and at full mental capacity with the ability and time to think through repercussions to choices they make.

AndrewKemendo 10y ago
Agreed generally. I think the rub is where you get systems that are so specialized that you can't throw bodies at them. The Apollo missions are a great example of this [1]. So while it would be ideal to be able to have 3 shifts that work on the same project or codebase, to get the desired speed you need, in practice generally only a handful of people can manage the complexity. [1] http://www.airspacemag.com/space/apollos-army-31725477/ http://www.airspacemag.com/space/apollos-army-31725477/
- will_hughes 10y ago
  I'm not suggesting throwing more bodies at a problem is a solution, it's often not. Apollo is a good example of artificial deadlines pushing development effort. What would've been the impact of pushing back? A launch delay? Okay, maybe a considerable delay. No life was in jeopardy by pushing it back. It was all political (and maybe some orbital mechanics too). Similarly for folks working on life critical systems today - sure, $Company might launch their new thingy sooner, and perhaps nobody dies as a result of shitty code getting shipped. But a week or two's delay is probably worth it. If you're responding to an emergency - that's an entirely different situation. Maybe everything's on fire and you're losing money hand over fist or someone's life is actually in danger - sure, fine, work the stupid hours to solve the immediate problem.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
There's a reason that airline pilots are forbidden to work too many hours. Should doctors not have the same kind of rules?

AndrewKemendo 10y ago

Agreed generally. I think the rub is where you get systems that are so specialized that you can't throw bodies at them. The Apollo missions are a great example of this [1]. So while it would be ideal to be able to have 3 shifts that work on the same project or codebase, to get the desired speed you need, in practice generally only a handful of people can manage the complexity. [1] http://www.airspacemag.com/space/apollos-army-31725477/ http://www.airspacemag.com/space/apollos-army-31725477/

will_hughes 10y ago
I'm not suggesting throwing more bodies at a problem is a solution, it's often not. Apollo is a good example of artificial deadlines pushing development effort. What would've been the impact of pushing back? A launch delay? Okay, maybe a considerable delay. No life was in jeopardy by pushing it back. It was all political (and maybe some orbital mechanics too). Similarly for folks working on life critical systems today - sure, $Company might launch their new thingy sooner, and perhaps nobody dies as a result of shitty code getting shipped. But a week or two's delay is probably worth it. If you're responding to an emergency - that's an entirely different situation. Maybe everything's on fire and you're losing money hand over fist or someone's life is actually in danger - sure, fine, work the stupid hours to solve the immediate problem.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

There's a reason that airline pilots are forbidden to work too many hours. Should doctors not have the same kind of rules?