Re: (OT): Human Multi-tasking

I recently read a book that I'd recommend called "Better Off: Flipping the Switch on Technology," by Eric Brende. Brende was pursuing a graduate degree at MIT and taking some classes studying the influence of technology on society. The more he learned, the more he disliked what technology was doing to the culture. About that time, he happened to meet a man who lived in an Amish style community, and he decided to try living their lifestyle for 18 months. Their rules about technology were even more strict than most Amish (no motors of any kind), but their rules were imposed not because of their religion, but because they purposefuly set out to live with less technology.

It was an interesting read and really made me think about the purpose of technology in our lives. For instance, think about how much time we spend making various "time saving" devices work, does it really end up giving us more time? I found that thought particularly interesting because my whole career (the computer industry) is based on maintaining machines that were supposed to make things easier for us.

Comment on Re: (OT): Human Multi-tasking

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: (OT): Human Multi-tasking by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Jan 06, 2005 at 19:07 UTC
For instance, think about how much time we spend making various "time saving" devices work, does it really end up giving us more time? This is a very interesting point. The whole goal behidn "time saving" devices is that the time spent setting them up is amortized over each successive use. So, let's say you have a process that takes 10 seconds. If you can cut it down to 5 seconds, but take 50 seconds to set up that new process, you need to do your process more than 10 times to see any savings. If you do it less than 10, you actually have lost time. This is a very big part of XP programming, particularly YAGNI. If you only do the simplest thing that could possibly work, then you haven't spent time that may not be amortized. However, if you do something 2-3 times and can reasonably expect that it will be done more times (like different reports, similar classes, etc), then you should spend time setting up a framework because that time will be amortized in the short-term. However, especially outside programming, figuring out the cost-benefit ratio of time-saving devices is very tricky because we don't know how many more times we will need to run that process. Washing machines are easy, but is a leaf-blower? Being right, does not endow the right to be rude; politeness costs nothing. Being unknowing, is not the same as being stupid. Expressing a contrary opinion, whether to the individual or the group, is more often a sign of deeper thought than of cantankerous belligerence. Do not mistake your goals as the only goals; your opinion as the only opinion; your confidence as correctness. Saying you know better is not the same as explaining you know better.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^2: (OT): Human Multi-tasking
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Jan 06, 2005 at 19:07 UTC

For instance, think about how much time we spend making various "time saving" devices work, does it really end up giving us more time?

This is a very interesting point. The whole goal behidn "time saving" devices is that the time spent setting them up is amortized over each successive use. So, let's say you have a process that takes 10 seconds. If you can cut it down to 5 seconds, but take 50 seconds to set up that new process, you need to do your process more than 10 times to see any savings. If you do it less than 10, you actually have lost time.

This is a very big part of XP programming, particularly YAGNI. If you only do the simplest thing that could possibly work, then you haven't spent time that may not be amortized. However, if you do something 2-3 times and can reasonably expect that it will be done more times (like different reports, similar classes, etc), then you should spend time setting up a framework because that time will be amortized in the short-term.

However, especially outside programming, figuring out the cost-benefit ratio of time-saving devices is very tricky because we don't know how many more times we will need to run that process. Washing machines are easy, but is a leaf-blower?

Being right, does not endow the right to be rude; politeness costs nothing.
Being unknowing, is not the same as being stupid.
Expressing a contrary opinion, whether to the individual or the group, is more often a sign of deeper thought than of cantankerous belligerence.
Do not mistake your goals as the only goals; your opinion as the only opinion; your confidence as correctness. Saying you know better is not the same as explaining you know better.

[reply]