5 ms·

"what you're saying is that where you work everybody has 2 desktops, 2 laptops and nobody would raise a brow if you wanted another?" I work on a 3000 node supe

"what you're saying is that where you work everybody has 2 desktops, 2 laptops and nobody would raise a brow if you wanted another?" I work on a 3000 node super computing cluster doing heavy duty Machine Learning and signal processing and a lot of funky (and classified) hardware, and yes, no one would blink if I wanted two more machines (or a 100 more) - as a matter of fact we recently did a million$ + upgrade of the hardware on my say so, so yeah everyone on this project gets all the hardware they want ;-) Looking around I see (my personal system, doing mostly rendering and reports) 7 quad core machines, three 27 in monitors, 2 laptops, both Thinkpads. I (literally) only have to ask to get more machines. "Excuse my patronizing - you are around/under 25 right?" Patronizing is always inexcusable and rude, and snark appropriate on reddit isnot so valued on HN, but I don't mind at all. When you say things like that you just make a fool of yourself in public, go right ahead. :-) And as for my age, I am closer to 40 than 25, so perhaps you just need to try again? ;-) EDIT: (btw "paper towels" != "toilet paper". You missed the reference This which wrt the benefits cuts in 2004which included stopping towel supply(later rescinded) - I confess I am only guessing the towels were paper. ;-) from mini msft (I heard from a friend in MS, but mini is an online reference) "Should have just done the towels and called it a day!" - Lisa Brummel, May 18th 2006. You know, one moment of reflection: the circle is now complete. My second post to this blog was on July 6th, 2004. It was right after an impromptu employee meeting with Ballmer and Gates and as part of that, Mr. Ballmer justified the unfortunate recent benefit cuts, the main two points of ire being the towels and the ESPP revamp. Now, two years later, we're getting our towels back. Has it always just been about the towels? (Possible book title flashes through my mind.) It's not like we're sweaty work-out animals always in need of a shower and fresh towel. No. What riled us was the bone-headed way the towel cut-back was handled, explained, and justified. It truly made us wonder just who are these people in charge and just who do they think they are leading? The towels became the symbol of poor leadership. That and the office-supply hide-and-seek. Someone should send Ms. Brummel a golden towel award. I'd like my old ESPP back, too."

kenjackson 16y ago
That sounds very cost ineffective. I'd be more productive with a personal helicopter with landing pads in various locations with an oncall pilot... but the productivity benefit is probably not worth the cost. All organizations need to be cost efficient... unless you're a govt agency or contractor. In which case being cost INefficient is actually rational.
- plinkplonk 16y ago
  "That sounds very cost ineffective." What specifically sounds "cost ineffective"? 3000 node clusters? That is a tiny cluster as clusters go. 7 quad core machines? Two ThinkPads? A million dollars on one-of-a-kind hardware? You my friend, have zero clue in this. Since you have no idea what the specific cost benefit analysis on this project is that statement is built on nothing but your prejudices. I grant that it may "sound" ineffective to someone with no experience working on such projects. If I were to blather about whether a drug development proposal (something about which I know next to nothing) is "cost effective" without even looking at the financial documentation, I'd come close to what you are doing with that statement. "I'd be more productive with a personal helicopter with landing pads in various locations with an oncall pilot" In the right situation, expensing a personal helicopter would be trivial. What is "cost effective" depends on the derived benefit. Applies to startups too. The cost depends on the benefit derived not on what the raw materials cost. So (fwiw, I could care less about convincing you) It is not really "cost ineffective". Machine/networking etc costs on this project are trivial compared to the total budget (spent on other resources) and (much) more importantly the derived benefit. (just making up an example since I can't talk about what this project really does) If you were able to decrypt, and classify (in the Machine Learning sense) all enemy communication in real time, how much is that capability worth to a nation? Worth spending a few millions on? Not every project in the world has the financial structure of two guys in a garage coding up the next silly web app. Iow you are talking about "unknown unknowns" with nothing to back up your conclusions. Amusing but not really relevant.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
    - plinkplonk 16y ago
      I see you are making up scenarios where people randomly order new hardware and that too every two weeks just for the hell of it. My assumption is that we are all professionals who won't do crazy things like that on our employer's dime and are talking of what hardware we require to do our jobs well. nostrademons's reply above provides a good justification for a laptop, for example. No I can't justify helicopters (which was something you injected into the conversation). But I can justify some bandwidth on a satellite, say, and a few other things. Whatever it takes to do my job well. And I can also imagine some jobs ( a general in charge of an invasion say), where the cost of a helicopter on call would be so small in the overall context as to be non noticeable. The point is "cost effective" is always in reference to the overall context. "you clearly don't work in the same space as virtually anyone here, much less a company like Microsoft." I never said I did. And in my gp post I was responding to a sneering question as to whether (specifically) I could justify an extra machine or two where (specifically) I work. I quote "So what you're saying is that where you work everybody has 2 desktops, 2 laptops and nobody would raise a brow if you wanted another?" Guess what? That's right. Nobody would twitch an eyebrow let alone raise it. Now wrt Microsoft specifically, even if MS were to give every single developer an extra laptop it cost much less than one of their VPs takes home as an annual bonus for doing nothing in particular. If Google can give their devs a MacBook Pro MS certainly can. (well, not a MacBook maybe but a top of the range Windown laptop). Without blinking. "how much is that capability worth to a nation? A fair bit of money. Although you clearly don't do that, otherwise you wouldn't even suggest it on HN. :-)" Yeah that was a made up example. I explicitly identified it as such. I was just trying to demonstrate that what is "cost effective" depends on what you are trying to do. 1 $ maybe too much money. Or a million dollars may be a drop in the bucket. It all depends. I do work on similar(ly ambitious) projects. Hardware is (so) not the bottleneck we have. " everyone on this project gets all the hardware they want" just happens to be the truth. Just append " that is needed to do their jobs well". I thought that wouldn't need to be explicitly stated here on HN, but whatever. (And I am done with this thread. Too deep. should have triggered my cutoff alarm). Apologies to the rest of the folk on HN. Mea Culpa for getting irritated with a (perceived) sneer. I am disgusted with myself for responding to obvious baiting and will leave the thread here (vs deleting it) as a monument to my folly.
paulcam 16y ago
Just a slight correction: the towels mentioned here aren't paper towels, but real actual towels. Many MSFT buildings have showers stocked with towels. At one point, the towel service was discontinued as a cost-saving measure. Lots of employees took issue with this and wanted their towels back.

kenjackson 16y ago

That sounds very cost ineffective. I'd be more productive with a personal helicopter with landing pads in various locations with an oncall pilot... but the productivity benefit is probably not worth the cost. All organizations need to be cost efficient... unless you're a govt agency or contractor. In which case being cost INefficient is actually rational.

plinkplonk 16y ago
"That sounds very cost ineffective." What specifically sounds "cost ineffective"? 3000 node clusters? That is a tiny cluster as clusters go. 7 quad core machines? Two ThinkPads? A million dollars on one-of-a-kind hardware? You my friend, have zero clue in this. Since you have no idea what the specific cost benefit analysis on this project is that statement is built on nothing but your prejudices. I grant that it may "sound" ineffective to someone with no experience working on such projects. If I were to blather about whether a drug development proposal (something about which I know next to nothing) is "cost effective" without even looking at the financial documentation, I'd come close to what you are doing with that statement. "I'd be more productive with a personal helicopter with landing pads in various locations with an oncall pilot" In the right situation, expensing a personal helicopter would be trivial. What is "cost effective" depends on the derived benefit. Applies to startups too. The cost depends on the benefit derived not on what the raw materials cost. So (fwiw, I could care less about convincing you) It is not really "cost ineffective". Machine/networking etc costs on this project are trivial compared to the total budget (spent on other resources) and (much) more importantly the derived benefit. (just making up an example since I can't talk about what this project really does) If you were able to decrypt, and classify (in the Machine Learning sense) all enemy communication in real time, how much is that capability worth to a nation? Worth spending a few millions on? Not every project in the world has the financial structure of two guys in a garage coding up the next silly web app. Iow you are talking about "unknown unknowns" with nothing to back up your conclusions. Amusing but not really relevant.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - plinkplonk 16y ago
    I see you are making up scenarios where people randomly order new hardware and that too every two weeks just for the hell of it. My assumption is that we are all professionals who won't do crazy things like that on our employer's dime and are talking of what hardware we require to do our jobs well. nostrademons's reply above provides a good justification for a laptop, for example. No I can't justify helicopters (which was something you injected into the conversation). But I can justify some bandwidth on a satellite, say, and a few other things. Whatever it takes to do my job well. And I can also imagine some jobs ( a general in charge of an invasion say), where the cost of a helicopter on call would be so small in the overall context as to be non noticeable. The point is "cost effective" is always in reference to the overall context. "you clearly don't work in the same space as virtually anyone here, much less a company like Microsoft." I never said I did. And in my gp post I was responding to a sneering question as to whether (specifically) I could justify an extra machine or two where (specifically) I work. I quote "So what you're saying is that where you work everybody has 2 desktops, 2 laptops and nobody would raise a brow if you wanted another?" Guess what? That's right. Nobody would twitch an eyebrow let alone raise it. Now wrt Microsoft specifically, even if MS were to give every single developer an extra laptop it cost much less than one of their VPs takes home as an annual bonus for doing nothing in particular. If Google can give their devs a MacBook Pro MS certainly can. (well, not a MacBook maybe but a top of the range Windown laptop). Without blinking. "how much is that capability worth to a nation? A fair bit of money. Although you clearly don't do that, otherwise you wouldn't even suggest it on HN. :-)" Yeah that was a made up example. I explicitly identified it as such. I was just trying to demonstrate that what is "cost effective" depends on what you are trying to do. 1 $ maybe too much money. Or a million dollars may be a drop in the bucket. It all depends. I do work on similar(ly ambitious) projects. Hardware is (so) not the bottleneck we have. " everyone on this project gets all the hardware they want" just happens to be the truth. Just append " that is needed to do their jobs well". I thought that wouldn't need to be explicitly stated here on HN, but whatever. (And I am done with this thread. Too deep. should have triggered my cutoff alarm). Apologies to the rest of the folk on HN. Mea Culpa for getting irritated with a (perceived) sneer. I am disgusted with myself for responding to obvious baiting and will leave the thread here (vs deleting it) as a monument to my folly.

paulcam 16y ago

Just a slight correction: the towels mentioned here aren't paper towels, but real actual towels. Many MSFT buildings have showers stocked with towels. At one point, the towel service was discontinued as a cost-saving measure. Lots of employees took issue with this and wanted their towels back.