3 ms·
maybe i've spent too much time trying to make computers operate efficiently, but it strikes me that if a process a) takes more time than should be necessary and
by Kapura 1y ago
maybe i've spent too much time trying to make computers operate efficiently, but it strikes me that if a process a) takes more time than should be necessary and b) produces sub-optimal results, we should maybe pursue other processes.
and stop paying these idiots 7+ figures.
- tremon 1y agoa) takes more time than should be necessary b) produces sub-optimal results Both of these claims are empty. Necessary according to whom? Sub-optimal against which metrics? All industrial processes are inefficient in some way because you're always dealing with engineering trade-offs. Staying in the computer domain: show me a system with optimal latency and I will show you an underutilized system; show me a system optimized for high-throughput and I will show you a system with erratic latency behaviour.
- jennyholzer 1y agogood contrarian comment, +1
- jakelazaroff 1y agoFair point in general. With regard to 996 specifically, though, I think most of us recognize that we're talking about a system that is both less resilient to stress and fails to achieve higher throughput than the status quo alternative.
- jennyholzer 1y agothey aren't idiots, they're kings. you don't just stop paying the king.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]