4 ms·
> The Stanford research has not yet been published in any form outside of a few graphs Denisov-Blanch shared on Twitter. It has not been peer reviewed. While I
by ro_bit 2y ago
> The Stanford research has not yet been published in any form outside of a few graphs Denisov-Blanch shared on Twitter. It has not been peer reviewed.
While I don’t doubt the existence of some useless engineers and people secretly working two engineering positions, the fact that they’re claiming 9.5% of engineers are useless based on the output of some code analysis tool and the paper isn’t even published yet makes me think this is junk science. Is their tool going to mark the engineer with decades of institutional knowledge who mainly spends their time helping others as useless? Or the tech lead who is a manager in all but name but doesn’t have time anymore for code?
- pavel_lishin 2y agoAllegedly their algorithm controls for that, and companies have explicitly given them a list of employees who can't be measured by commits alone: > I asked Denisov-Blanch if he thought his algorithm was scooping up people whose work contributions might not be able to be judged by code commits and code analysis alone. He said that he believes the algorithm has controlled for that, and that companies have told him specific workers who should be excluded from analysis because their job responsibilities extend beyond just pushing code.