3 ms·

> I got into tech because I wanted to help make the world better, not worse. I can confidentially say after working in the industry for over 20 years, that it d

> I got into tech because I wanted to help make the world better, not worse. I can confidentially say after working in the industry for over 20 years, that it doesn't do that. That's not what it is. It's not what it's ever been about. I can confidently say that it does. Sturgeon's law applies: 90% of everything is crap, but there are pockets of good, and they make all the difference.

ProllyInfamous 1y ago
What do you think of Price's Law, which suggests that the squareroot of people in most organizations perform half the work (e.g. 3 of 9 ; 10 of 100 ; 50 of 2500)? Put less-specifically, is the majority primarily net-neutral/-negative, productivity-wise? From my IBEW recollections, this was probably true for our membership. >there are pockets of good, and they make all the difference Most-definitely. It took me my first four decades to realize this, but having spent the majority of my adult life blue collar, I certainly empathize with burning out (better than e.g. my lawyer/tech brothers "just lazy"). We cannot all be on good teams, it's statistically impossible, but surely more of oughtta.
- throwup238 1y ago
  > What do you think of Price's Law, which suggests that the squareroot of people in most organizations perform half the work (e.g. 3 of 9 ; 10 of 100 ; 50 of 2500)? Put less-specifically, is the majority primarily net-neutral/-negative, productivity-wise? The way I think about it is kind of like security: 99.99% of the time security guards are just standing around not doing anything or patrolling. They’re still needed even though they technically don’t do anything because there’s no way to predict when and where a breach will occur. Likewise with productivity. Sure half the work might be done by a small minority but you can’t grow or sustain a business by trying to predict who those people are, especially as that minority changes over its lifecycle. Nor can you reliably predict which support roles are actually keystone roles without which the productive people are useless.
  - ProllyInfamous 1y ago
    I spent a couple years apprenticing in Texas data centers (electrician)... >99.99% of the time [we were] just standing around not doing anything So much time I voluntarily spent sorting parts / carts, in preparation for the few hours each week we were actually needed — most just dove into their phones, idly — and even I wouldn't have considered myself in that over-productive squareroot. Everything was dual-feed power, so most of the year was spent unrushed. But those few times of year where managed-risk pushed its limits... were certainly all hands on deck experiences.
  - thwarted 1y ago
    > 99.99% of the time security guards are just standing around not doing anything or patrolling. They’re still needed even though they technically don’t do anything because there’s no way to predict when and where a breach will occur. Security guards, like system administrators who keep the lights on and don't directly contribute to revenue, are insurance, something you pay for that you hope you never have to use. Those who don't see the value are taking risk management seriously.
    - thwarted 1y ago
      Oops, missed a word in the last sentence: > Those who don't see the value are not taking risk management seriously.
api 1y ago
This perception is more a result of humans' powerful negativity bias. Negative news and views get orders of magnitude more engagement and propagation than positive ones. When someone uses the Internet to do something positive, like learn something or make something or contact an old friend, they typically don't say a thing. Nobody talks about this. Everyone talks about all the negative uses. They capture our attention better. This bias is something that's probably been selected for through humanity's evolutionary history. There's a saying: "if you mistake a bush for a lion, you're fine, but if you mistake a lion for a bush you're dead." You are the descendent of paranoid people who made the first mistake, not the second. Being hypervigilant about dangers is going to be adaptive on average in most environments.
insane_dreamer 1y ago
Only if you’re one of the few who get to work on the 10%

ProllyInfamous 1y ago

What do you think of Price's Law, which suggests that the squareroot of people in most organizations perform half the work (e.g. 3 of 9 ; 10 of 100 ; 50 of 2500)? Put less-specifically, is the majority primarily net-neutral/-negative, productivity-wise? From my IBEW recollections, this was probably true for our membership. >there are pockets of good, and they make all the difference Most-definitely. It took me my first four decades to realize this, but having spent the majority of my adult life blue collar, I certainly empathize with burning out (better than e.g. my lawyer/tech brothers "just lazy"). We cannot all be on good teams, it's statistically impossible, but surely more of oughtta.

throwup238 1y ago
> What do you think of Price's Law, which suggests that the squareroot of people in most organizations perform half the work (e.g. 3 of 9 ; 10 of 100 ; 50 of 2500)? Put less-specifically, is the majority primarily net-neutral/-negative, productivity-wise? The way I think about it is kind of like security: 99.99% of the time security guards are just standing around not doing anything or patrolling. They’re still needed even though they technically don’t do anything because there’s no way to predict when and where a breach will occur. Likewise with productivity. Sure half the work might be done by a small minority but you can’t grow or sustain a business by trying to predict who those people are, especially as that minority changes over its lifecycle. Nor can you reliably predict which support roles are actually keystone roles without which the productive people are useless.
- ProllyInfamous 1y ago
  I spent a couple years apprenticing in Texas data centers (electrician)... >99.99% of the time [we were] just standing around not doing anything So much time I voluntarily spent sorting parts / carts, in preparation for the few hours each week we were actually needed — most just dove into their phones, idly — and even I wouldn't have considered myself in that over-productive squareroot. Everything was dual-feed power, so most of the year was spent unrushed. But those few times of year where managed-risk pushed its limits... were certainly all hands on deck experiences.
- thwarted 1y ago
  > 99.99% of the time security guards are just standing around not doing anything or patrolling. They’re still needed even though they technically don’t do anything because there’s no way to predict when and where a breach will occur. Security guards, like system administrators who keep the lights on and don't directly contribute to revenue, are insurance, something you pay for that you hope you never have to use. Those who don't see the value are taking risk management seriously.
  - thwarted 1y ago
    Oops, missed a word in the last sentence: > Those who don't see the value are not taking risk management seriously.

api 1y ago

This perception is more a result of humans' powerful negativity bias. Negative news and views get orders of magnitude more engagement and propagation than positive ones. When someone uses the Internet to do something positive, like learn something or make something or contact an old friend, they typically don't say a thing. Nobody talks about this. Everyone talks about all the negative uses. They capture our attention better. This bias is something that's probably been selected for through humanity's evolutionary history. There's a saying: "if you mistake a bush for a lion, you're fine, but if you mistake a lion for a bush you're dead." You are the descendent of paranoid people who made the first mistake, not the second. Being hypervigilant about dangers is going to be adaptive on average in most environments.

insane_dreamer 1y ago

Only if you’re one of the few who get to work on the 10%