148
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2025
148 points (96.2% liked)
politics
31115 readers
2329 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
What I don't get is...they can just hire more people to do the work and expand the company? When you consider this, you realize that they're just asking people to work 40% more without an increase in pay (hence hiring more people is not an option)...then they call it "productivity gains".
Then they'll complain when no one wants to work those ludicrous hours and they'll sing one of the greatest hits of all time:
"nOBodY WaNts To woRk ANyMorE"
In software development, it's not that easy. Having multiple people working on the same code adds a lot of overhead. Also, finding another excellent programmer is slow and expensive. (The "fast, cheap, good: pick two" rule applies.)
Plus, do you want two software developers with a good work/life balance and fulfilling ways to spend their free time, or do you want one software developer with mental issues that, among other things, leave him with nothing to do except work and no source of meaning in life except getting work done? The first option is more dependable, since the guy in the second option is crazy. However, if you're building a startup then you need to take risks and the second option is the one more likely to create something amazing. (IMO, of course.)
This seems short-sighted. You want to hire enough people and give them what they need to grow their skills as they work. Invest in your employees a bit. Then you get the quality without the burnout and mental crises, plus you get a company that feels good to work for.
Plus the fundamental insanity of saying efficiency is a single monolithic thing that can only be effectively worked on by a single person. The only reason you have that is because the type of coder these people want to abuse is the same type of person who's bad at designing code. They just keep stumbling on subsuming additional features into the monolith because encapsulation and code design is uninteresting to their reward centers. That's why multiple people can't work on it, not because there's some fundamental inability to effectively partition work during the production of innovative software.
Having more people always adds overhead. It's not only software developers.
You don't need to have two developers working on the same piece of code, you can have each one working on a feature. And different teams can develop different projects/products. If a project takes 1 year to complete but you want an output of 2 projects per year, you don't need to overwork your current employees. You can hire a new team so there are 2 simultaneous projects being worked on at the same time.
I assumed that the VC is talking about small startups, the sort that have a dozen employees and just one project.
Can those be valued at 1Bn?
Ok, yes, there are these examples:
(disclaimer: I sourced these from gpt and have not fact checked them)