3 ms·
There is a question that you can apply to any scenario that will almost always give you "the right answer": What are you optimizing for? If you are optimizing
by lbotos 4y ago
There is a question that you can apply to any scenario that will almost always give you "the right answer":
What are you optimizing for?
If you are optimizing for the most experience with emerging tech, then no it's not wrong, you need to get access to it.
If you are optimizing for reducing e-waste, then you should be probably getting older tech and reusing it or selling tech that you've repaired.
If you are optimizing for minimal possessions, then yes, it could be bad if that means more objects.
If you are trading in and trading up and optimizing for "tech that holds value" then no, it's not wrong.
Often when people pass value judgements it's because they are optimizing for a different thing, and low and behold, that's where disagreements stem from.
- travisjungroth 4y agoYeah, it's way better to separate value discussions from "optimizing for values" discussions. They're both important, but if you do them at the same time you don't really get anywhere. On optimizing for the value of work output with tech, I think most people use terrible heuristics that mostly lead to them underinvesting. It's all just benchmarking against other companies and trying to be economical. The number of companies that won't invest in a second monitor or an ultrawide for office employees is mindblowing. The efficiency gains are well studied, something like 20-40% (you may love your single small monitor, I'm talking about averages). It's an upgrade that's 1% of the salary for a $50k employee, lasts years, has no ongoing costs and is transferrable between work stations. It's a no-brainer.