4 ms·

You're breaking apart a very minor detail. (most) People on hackernews can do this math, as can I. Ironically enough, I had a much longer write-up for that sec

• dredmorbius 14y ago
  It's not so much that these are minor details, but I see fallacious / erroneous logic used to justify various actions. Most often, it's actively discouraging collaboration / close working by employees on the basis that they're wasting one another's time and/or that two people working on the same problem is not cost effective, regardless of the fact that they are electing to work in this way, and that productivity is higher (combined) than were they working independently. Yes, you can make the argument that excessive long meetings are cost sinks (but they're likely much more effective than passing information to people one at a time). The key is to keep meetings to the minimum required, to keep them on track and moving toward a goal, and to head off those who'll disrupt, hijack, or otherwise kill efficiency, as well as ensure that makers get their long-duration, uninterrupted time blocks when best suited to get their work done (probably the biggest negative of contemporary office life and design). As for the billing rate observation: that's not a math problem, strictly, it's a recognition of billable vs. nonbillable productive activities. No offense taken.