Your two sibling comments are currently "Why is the comfort of the aggressor more important than the comfort of the innocent victim?" And "Yes." The assumption that some people in this thread are in favor of violence seems to be borne out.
Having spoken to a some people involved with the project, my understanding is that there's a significant schism between factions "Flakes are unfinished software, and our documentation should not focus on them" and "Flakes are what the majority of the userbase is using, and we should document them". I hope this will eventually get better if Flakes are ever stabilized.
I also appreciate the irony. But I think their arguments missed the mark a bit, making it easier. I personally like the discussion it provokes more than the message itself.
Well, perhaps, but the article is utter trash. It might be even right in some points, but it's written in a childish, fallacious and inflammatory manner. SV needs good critics, but that ain't it.
It is! Just like not having surgery, not using AC/heating, or not wearing glasses, etc. All those things are unnatural and some are expensive, but luckily we are not hunter-gatherers anymore ;)
>> git absorb will automatically identify which commits are safe to modify, and which staged changes belong to each of those commits. It will then write fixup! commits for each of those changes.
This counterpoint is also explicitly called out in GP's post:
> You might be thinking "Well that's just him, or people who are weird like him." but it turns out that other people often benefit from the same accommodations as disabled people, only less so. You can look up the term "curb cuts".
You can Google the “curb cut effect” as much as you like. The entire body of evidence in support of this “effect” is that curb cuts (which weren’t originally designed for disabled people) and closed captions are useful to more people than just disabled people. It’s essentially a design philosophy that disability advocates promote. There’s nothing wrong with it, but it’s not at all evidence that accomodations made to support disabled people will always be universally useful. Especially when the issue at hand is “basic social interactions are harmful”, rather than a more universally shared experience like “getting over this curb is challenging”.
What makes your arguments weak, isn't the slightly condescending tone or tonedeaf, endless rhetorics about other peoples lives and experiences. No, it's the stunning absence of facts and evidences.
I described quite explicitly what the numbers looked like when I did a real analysis of the associated costs. The productivity gain required for that change to make sense is significant. There is no study that suggests the change would result in anything approaching the level of required productivity.
There’s a couple of people repeating several times ITT that private offices are proven to result in a 2-3x increase in productivity. There is no such study, and they’re most likely talking about the study that you posted in another comment that reports a measurement that is most certainly not productivity.
There is also no academic study of the “cut curb effect”. If you Google it, all you’ll find is a collection of thought leader style blogs that all reference the same few instances of accessibility features primarily implemented to benefit disabled people, that have been found to have a wider benefit for the general population. The outrageous claims about productivity ITT are entirely unfounded, and the fact that non-hearing impaired people also find closed captions useful sometimes doesn’t change that.
In reality this is just one of the topics that the HN user base seems to be passionately irrational about.
It's funny because I don't think you're lacking citations in your argument; but I think that people aren't asking you the right questions either.
Different work environments would certainly facilitate different kinds of needs. For example if you worked in an office that was primarily sales or human interfacing, such as an insurance broker, then you'd certainly see no measurable performance benefits from private offices.
On the other hand, if you were working in an office whose primary product was science research or deep engineering, you might.
Big companies like Google were early proponents of open plan, but have begun reintroducing walls because they've seen the productivity benefits for their employees.
As for 2-3x increases, or even 15-30% increases, I think this belies the fact that so much of what knowledge workers do is challenging to measure.
I've met people who think that a programmer must be producing lines of code, or be typing away, but some of the best development I've seen doesn't involve programming at a computer at all, but writing things down on a whiteboard, time spent thinking, reading, absorbing knowledge and producing high quality solutions.
This makes the job of quantifying output very challenging.
The people who are complaining that you're not producing concrete numbers are simply asking you the wrong question- and you may simply not have the answer.
As to my curb cuts mention, I mentioned something else that I think got lost in the shuffle, which is that so many people who work in technology are neuro-atypical, whether or not they're officially diagnosed.
Ultimately these are business decisions. The CEO I mentioned who said that he didn't care about employee efficiency because the employees were salaried (and thus fixed cost) was making a business decision.
Similarly, you looked at the cost of private offices, which was calculable and contrasted it against output- measured however you felt it was appropriate, and decided it wasn't worth it.
For all I know, maybe employee output itself wasn't even a constraint in your system! If that was the case then slowdowns in employee time would actually be just fine, since they weren't your resource constraint.
Too many people are making assumptions; I just wanted to bring up the issue of neurodiversity playing a role in these decisions and why these may be hidden issues for many employees.
I left the sociopathic world several years ago. I came back, but now everyone is at that stage where they're ready to ditch the sociopathic behaviours of past 20 years. At that stage you go through with it, as there is nothing left to lose.
Someone not familiar with your excellent points aren't competent to make the judgement. We don't care about their preconceived biases and domination techniques.
Also not for the lies that it was about better collaboration, and not just to cut costs, as confirmed above.
Of course what's discussed here is about impacts on deep knowledge work.
My assertion is that this kind optimizes for less productivity and creativity in others. We all know why, but perhaps this needs more open discussion now.
The waitress asked if they would ALL like dessert. If the first logician did NOT want dessert, then they could safely answer "no", because then it would not be the case that ALL of the logicians want dessert. Since they do not answer no, we can assume they do want dessert. The same follows for the second logician. The third (who also wants dessert) has heard their colleagues answer, and knows that if either of them did not want dessert they would have answered no, and can therefore now answer "yes, we would all like dessert".
