4 ms·
That strikes me as a short tolerance for feeling something is ruined. He appropriately highlighted the real time estimate of the more involved work in a footnot
by derivativethrow 6y ago
That strikes me as a short tolerance for feeling something is ruined. He appropriately highlighted the real time
estimate of the more involved work in a footnote. He didn't literally mean all of the work was one day, he's trying to convey a larger point about outsized engineering returns from comparatively small person-hours of work.
Were you able to move past this to read the rest of the article? Because it's a very good article.
- resu_nimda 6y agoI did go back and read the rest of it, and I do agree that it's pretty good overall. For someone going into detail about the mistaken capitalization of a variable name (which I appreciated), the "one day" bit still stands out as oddly hand-wavy and boastful (and, as the opening remark, I would argue it's pretty important for setting the tone). If that point needed to be made (and I don't think it really did in this article, that's not the focus), it could have been done more carefully.