Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • He cites Brooks as proving that communication friction is quadratic in headcount. The exponent does not need to be exactly, or even nearly, 2; 1 + epsilon is already fatal. This is very closely related to Coase's ceiling.
    by FrankWilhoit
  • >You can make lots of money by making something appear novel and undiscovered, and consequently make yourself sound smart and cutting edge. Nobody raises a round to apply a well understood discipline correctly.

    I'm curious about this. I thought investors preferred safe bets?

    On the other hand, I know that if you're too early, it can be impossible to make a business work (or even to pitch the idea in the first place).

    Related: You can't tell people anything (2004)

    https://web.archive.org/web/20091025030730/https://habitatch...

    by andai
  • Seems like this could be categorized as yet another reason why software developers are not engineers.
    by patja
  • Relatedly, I fully expect the software business to fail to learn from (nearly) literally every other industry how to operate when your marginal costs are no longer zero. It drives me nuts the number of people in software who think that people in other industries are slow because they’re just not as smart as us, rather than because when it takes months to get a cast part made, it better be right the first time.
    by collinmcnulty
  • I'm a hands on engineering leader for a team of about 20 engineers and I've been spending the past 6 months trying to get my team to understand just this.

    On Friday we had a coffee hour to share how we've been working recently and they all seemed perplexed at the workflows I've been adopting. It seems natural to me as someone who's been a manager for some time now, but very alien to all those who've never gone down that path.

    That's not to say my workflows are superior, but they're extremely different to some of my teams now. In reality it's just leaning heavily on things like prds, limiting communication between agents, etc.

    by bluehatbrit
  • This isn't an issue for engineers only, it is basically ingrained in the current system in the world. The problem is in simple terms; the fact that being a polymath is absurdly hard in today's world.

    You can't not reinvent something if you don't know it exists in the first place.

    The thing about software is that it slots nicely into every other field, making it a _very_ good base to work off of to get concepts (aka the modern bootleg polymath) that have likely been invented in other fields (with different names).

    by eadwu
  • The central point, that working with agents is some tried and true variation of existing processes, is incorrect.

    Managing agents has some similarities with EM and program management but a whole lot of other dimensions like token use, avoiding drift, successful concurrency at scale, variations in prompting, testing, evaluation, etc., not to mention that the agents are hyperintelligent coders with zero common sense and a penchant for extremely literal interpretation and ultra-verbosity.

    by Areading314
  • > You can make lots of money by making something appear novel and undiscovered, and consequently make yourself sound smart and cutting edge.

    This is pretty much the crux of it. It's very similar to the strategy of undercutting a market with VC subsidies until it dies and can be replaced.

    by Avicebron

Explore Birbla archives