8 ms·
> ... Then have multiple people inspect the logs. Once ok'd, run again, with manual prompts after each log item asking to continue... This sort-of reminds me o
by crispyambulance 4y ago
> ... Then have multiple people inspect the logs. Once ok'd, run again, with manual prompts after each log item asking to continue...
This sort-of reminds me of some "critical" work I had to do a couple of decades ago. I was in a shop that used this horrifically tedious tool for designing masks for special kinds of photonic devices-- basically it was tracing out optical waveguides that would be placed on a crystal that was processed much like a silicon IC.
The process was for TWO of us to sit in front of computer and review the curves in this crazy old EDA layout tool called "L-edit" before it got sent to have the actual masks made (which were very expensive). It took HOURS to check everything.
The first hour was tolerable but then boredom started to creep in and we got sloppy. The whole reason TWO people got tasked with this was because it was thought that we would keep each other focused-- 2 pairs of eyes are better than one, right?. Instead, it just underscored the tedium of it all. One day someone walked in and found us BOTH in DEEP SLEEP in front of the monitor. Having two people didn't decrease the waste caused by mistakes, it just bored the hell out of more people.
- foota 4y agoHow many mistakes did you catch?
- crispyambulance 4y agoONE real one and some occasional nitpicks to show that we were busy (after being caught asleep). Was it worth it? No, I don't think so from an opportunity cost perspective-- even though we were the most junior folks there. A mind is a terrible thing to waste!
- Freestyler_3 4y agoFrom his story I can tell he found one big mistake. The tedious work itself.