4 ms·
> The number of channels is exponential, that's just Metcalfe's law. Metcalfe's law is quadratic rather than exponential -- O(n^2), not O(2^n). And if n people
by pjscott 4y ago
> The number of channels is exponential, that's just Metcalfe's law.
Metcalfe's law is quadratic rather than exponential -- O(n^2), not O(2^n). And if n people all need to be aware of communication happening between every pair of them (which is a worst-case), then that should just add a factor of n, bringing it up to cubic.
(On an unrelated and less pedantically nitpicky note, one of the most valuable professional skills I've developed is an ability and willingness to dive into black boxes. It's remarkable how many bugs arise from the interaction of two or more pieces of software with no overlap between their developers. Debugging those can involve a long, agonizing back-and-forth between people who know how X works and people who know how Y works -- or it can be over in a jiffy if you can quickly familiarize yourself with the basic internal workings of both. Past a certain point nobody can know everything, it's true, but this doesn't need to be as crippling for productivity as a lot of people allow it to be.)
- ItsMonkk 4y agoOne of the surprises I got when doing that was realizing that Y's code was terrible because of how X was interacting with it, and a rewrite of X allowed a rewrite of Y, and I was able to delete half the code in each. This has occurred countless times. But that doesn't stop black-boxes from being created faster than I can fix them, unfortunately.