this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2024
1209 points (98.4% liked)

memes

9806 readers
6 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] promitheas 124 points 5 months ago (5 children)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 5 months ago

That doesn't sound like giving it 110% and being a team player. We are a family here. We need go getters. We gotta make it happen.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago

I was looking for someone to reference Brooks' Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks%27s_law). Thank you for fighting the good fight.

For anyone who hasn't read The Mythical Man-Month, it is a timeless, compelling, relevant book on software engineering and project management. It is also accessible to non-technical audiences with lessons that apply across much of modern workforces.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Well, nine women could produce a baby once a month (recovery period aside)

[–] promitheas 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think it refers to producing a single baby, rather than just a baby every month

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yes, which is why I phrased my statement as "Well, ... could..." to indicate an alternative perspective. This was to illustrate that sometimes pithy reductive quips can be based on overly reductive assumptions. Maybe it is the case that a single baby is all that's required, but maybe the author misunderstood the goal.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

In this fictional scenario of the author's creation? That just demonstrates the converse - that sometimes simple ideas will be deliberately misinterpreted in a convoluted way, to prove someone else's point.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago

In this fictional scenario of the author's creation?

So a straw man? Or are we supposed to infer that this is an illustrative example of actual behavior?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

You're the one feeding managers bad information.

With something like a baby, people know what's going on and what's meant. That's why it's the example. But when it comes to esoteric things, playing word games just confuses the issue and will lead to a manager thinking that indeed 9 woman can give you a baby in 1 month (I'm not jumping through your word games, you know what's meant).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

With something like a baby, people know what's going on

Unless they're politicians, of course. But then they rarely know what's going on.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Making assumptions about what's meant, and expecting people to make assumptions about what you mean, is how problems happen. Thorough communication is the cornerstone of understanding.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Playing games with "it could be interpreted this way if I tried really really hard" and frankly being intentionally obtuse is how problems happen. Don't intentionally contribute to miscommunication. You can play games online, in real life this doesn't help anyone.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Why couldn't 9 women deliver a baby in one month? That's perfectly reasonable. Put the baby in a vehicle. Drive. Maybe stop at some hotels or just sleep in the vehicle with all 9 women. Then eventually you reach your destination in 1 month. Deliver baby. Profit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago