Live data from Hacker News

Efficiency is dangerous and slowing down makes life better

psyche.co

221–230 of 314 posts

Re: Efficiency is dangerous and slowing down makes life better

#221
post #46

This comment thread is making me realize we don't have a good word to distinguish between efficiency as in "we only have 7 hospital beds because that's all we need on 99% of each day" and efficiency as in "we replaced steps X,Y,Z with just step X', because we found that X' could accomplish everything that XYZ could accomplish but it's faster, more accurate, and cheaper". One makes a tradeoff by reducing overheads and…

It's also not as simple as adding 7 more beds so we have all we need on 99.999% of days. Sure you have 14 beds, but you also need more doctors, nurses, surgeons, OTs, etc. to support those beds. Those health care providers won't get the patient contact they need to maintain their skills as competent providers. I know as a part-time EMT if I don't go on a certain number of calls a month that I have a noticeable declin…

A hospital can call a part-time EMT and ask them to work a few extra shifts due to some disaster. They can't ask them to bring a bed.

Re: Efficiency is dangerous and slowing down makes life better

#222
As an "Engineer" by job title, I strive for efficiency at work, and it certainly creeps into my daily personal life also. With this pandemic I have learned to realize that efficiency is not the end game for everything, and the things you do efficiently should be chosen wisely. I have seen the the toll it takes on those in my daily life more clearly, but have also seen how it can lead to a safer less risky life during these times (i.e. shopping habits). It is also clear that efficiencies built into our supply chains (i.e. food) have become a liability as of recently. I do see this as a time of great reflection on efficiency for both individuals and corporations or markets. I think this re-evaluation will lead to some of the longest lasting changes to come out of this pandemic.

Re: Efficiency is dangerous and slowing down makes life better

#223
post #2

I've found "efficiency as the opposite of stability" a very powerful concept to think about - even though it's fairly simple, it seems to be almost a fundamental law. Whether it's about the economy at large, your own household, a supply chain, what have you - as soon as you optimize for efficiency by removing friction, you take all the slack/damping out of the system and become instantly more liable to catastrophic f…

When I think about personal finance, I often think about efficiency. The obvious examples include buying in bulk, avoiding finance charges to optimize what you get for your money, paying insurance up front when the payment options charge extra, and just plain having fewer subscriptions to keep monthly expenses lower and easier to track. All of this efficiency increases financial stability. I suppose if we argue that…

> paying insurance up front when the payment options charge extra

Depending on the cost of the insurance, that sounds to me like a drop in stability: you have infrequent periodic large payments to make instead of frequent smaller payments to make. If you had an unexpected expense arise near the time of the large insurance payment, your financial situation could get temporarily bad; if instead your insurance was small payments on a monthly basis, the unexpected expense would be easier to ride out.

[Note that I pay all of my large expenses in lump sums instead of in small trickles, but that's mostly psychology on my part not efficiency or optimization]

Re: Efficiency is dangerous and slowing down makes life better

#224
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't this be better described as a tradeoff between accuracy and robustness? Interesting concept.

It's a bit different aspect of the same thing. If B can perform better than A given the same data, it usually means B can perform equal to A with less data. From wikipedia: > Essentially, a more efficient estimator, experiment, or test needs fewer observations than a less efficient one to achieve a given performance.

Aha. That makes sense.

Re: Efficiency is dangerous and slowing down makes life better

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is a fundamental law . > Systems theory I'm confused. Is it a law or a theory? And no, it can't be both. Laws are proved. Theories are unproven.

Well, those two statements aren't referring to the same thing. The law they reference is something found in Systems Theory. It may be useful, also, for you to read these two pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory The difference between Law and Theory (in scientific discourse) is not what you believe it to be.

> The difference between Law and Theory (in scientific discourse) is not what you believe it to be.

ELI5?

Re: Efficiency is dangerous and slowing down makes life better

#226
post #70
post #49

It something I learned recently about ecologies, and permaculture design. And then I started applying it to my personal life. Instead of heroically finishing things, to instead, work on them in a way that is more like the regenerative and resilient processes from permaculture design.

I'd love to hear you elaborate on this in more detail.

I'm still working it out myself, so this is all work in progress.

I have a teenage stepdaughter doing online schooling. I had been working remote for years now. It took a long time to work out how things work with my wife -- she is a stay-at-home mom. Work and family life intrude on each other, and even more so this year with the pandemic.

I used to burn out big time, and then, I burn out in smaller doses. In the last burnout cycle, my wife miscarried, and that spent both my wife spinning. So I am not entire sure at this point how much of this is like when I functioned at peak.

The things that I have been doing:

- I try to have a few tasks I think I can accomplish and try to do them. But because the family life can be so disruptive, I've learned that I'm not really going to be as productive as I am at the peak, and just be ok with it.

- I try not to be a blocker for either my teammates or for my family.

- I have a garden. I enjoy it. I mainly do work with it in the morning and evening. Sometimes I am exhausted (especially in Phoenix summer hell season). In general, though, it recharging.

- I practice neigong, and I finally got to the point where I can reliably cycle something (which I will not get into technical details about unless you're also a practitioner. It is a rabbit hole). But suffice it to say, it rebalances the vital energy being distributed among my physical, emotional, and mental states. Part of the burnout was exhausting everything mentally, repeatedly, until there is just nothing left.

- When I push through something, it is for small things. Those small things might chain together. Past a certain point, it is better to go for a walk.

- I can tell when my brain is just exhausted. It is better to take a nap. I'll warn my wife that I'm not really present during grocery shopping. She doesn't always like that (it is one of the times we go out to do something together that is not in the house). I might take MCT with some mixed nuts.

- I don't use caffeine -- no coffee or tea. The closest I get is with roiboos, and even its 1mg caffeine can affect me. Fortunately, the caffiene content of chocolate does not affect me as much.

The part I am working out is how to live in a way that follows the permaculture ethics -- care of earth, care of people, and fair share. It is the last of these that has made me realize that the ambition of unbounded growth, whether for society, or for myself, is simply impractical. It may be strange to say it on a forum that was created for people who were or are interested in doing a Ycombinator startup and getting rich from winning the startup lottery ... but I've come to realize that it is not how I want to live or relate to the world.

I used to practice minimalism ... but now I realize that is just a stepping stone. It's investing in regenerative and resilient systems. The garden is part of my long-term effort to create a perennial food forest on my property. There is a lot of tech and "shiny" that I realize I don't really need to get.

And while I know that recently, I would keep comparing other people's cars as status / wealth symbols, it is ultimately meaningless. And fortunately, I know what I need to do to get my mind to cease doing that.

This is a very unusual way for me to approach this subject. I usually start out with a radical position: inequality and the wealth gap is _intrinsic_ to modern civilizations, and it rests upon the notion that wealth is something to be extracted from the earth, and access controlled. "Efficiency" is how you maximize profit, as if that is the only way to optimize things. Therefore, there will never be any system of economics and free market (or command economy) that will ever take the well-being of the earth and the people into account.

From this perspective, I think it is insanity. Why would anyone want to participate in a system where there will be guaranteed losers? (Because the few exceptions give the false hope that you might be the exception).

It therefore follows that, if I want to participate in a different kind of a "game", then I will have to live my life by those other principles. And so, I'm trying that with my current work. To give an receive my fair share. To reinvest capital gained from extractive wealth and convert it to regenerative wealth. To not tie my personal sense of self-worth into status or wealth symbols.

Re: Efficiency is dangerous and slowing down makes life better

#227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, those two statements aren't referring to the same thing. The law they reference is something found in Systems Theory. It may be useful, also, for you to read these two pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory The difference between Law and Theory (in scientific discourse) is not what you believe it to be.

> The difference between Law and Theory (in scientific discourse) is not what you believe it to be. ELI5?

Well, I'm not interested in explaining this to a five-year old, but I'll treat you as an adult and use words over two syllables.

> Laws are proved. Theories are unproven.

This is not what is used to identify something as either a law or a theory in scientific discourse.

First, "laws" may be disproven, or falsified: Newton's Law of Gravity could actually be considered disproven as it is not accurate at all scales, but it's accurate enough within its scope to continue using it. It's considered a law in the sense that it matches empirical, observed data (within certain bounds). See [0] for details on that. So that, right there, is a flaw in your understanding.

Second, laws do not attempt to offer an explanation of the phenomenon they describe, they offer predictive value like "a ball dropped from 50 meters will, at time t, have velocity ...". Again, Newton's Laws do not explain why gravity works, only offering a model to calculate the effect of it. This brings us to theories.

Theories are, again, falsifiable via empirical evidence (like laws), but they offer an attempt at explanation. A Theory of Gravity would try to explain why objects are attracted to each other and why the mass effects the amount of attraction. The theory can be shown as false, but like a law it can only be shown to match empirical data. This is not the same as proven.

TLDR: The distinguishing characteristic is that both attempt to predict, but theories attempt to explain. Both are falsifiable, and neither are considered proven only to match empirical data (possibly within some constraints).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gr...

Re: Efficiency is dangerous and slowing down makes life better

#228
post #38

Insurance is the opposite of a lottery. If you think buying lottery tickets are a waste of money because you lose out in the long run, the same argument should lead you to think having insurance is a good thing.

I think you have it backwards - insurance and lottery are (sort of) equal. In the long term, you'll lose money in the lottery. You'll also lose money paying for insurance. If you have extraordinary "good luck", you may come out ahead in the lottery. And if you have extraordinary "bad luck" you may come out ahead in insurance. Insurance of course has a more practical value, and a much better return on investment (even…

Another way of thinking about it. Insurance is a way of marginally reducing the potential effect of variance on your life, lotteries are a way to increase it.

Re: Efficiency is dangerous and slowing down makes life better

#229
It’s an interesting definition of „efficient”.

In my book, you are efficient if you did 8 hours worth of work in 4, did it right on the first try, went home early, and had enough mental capacity left for hobbies and family.

60 hour weeks are not efficient. Busywork is not efficient. So called „productivity” software is more than often not.

Re: Efficiency is dangerous and slowing down makes life better

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should've specified, I meant collision and comprehensive insurance. Liability insurance is legally required, as you said, and I personally take the maximum my insurer offers. Personal liability in an accident is potentially unbounded. This is an example of an unbearable loss that must be protected against, even if it costs money on average. (If there's an outstanding loan on the car, the lender requires collision a…

> Personal liability in an accident is potentially unbounded. This is an example of an unbearable loss that must be protected against, even if it costs money on average. Why it is "unbearable loss"? There is saying about that: If you owe the bank $100 that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem. That may seems unethical, but if you think about it - it's reach people, who lives in…

They were pointing out that liability in the case of a car crash could claim approximately all of your assets, where as a comprehensive loss can at most claim the current value of your car.

You have a good point though that if you have essentially no assets to go after liability insurance isn't worth much to you. This is why it is mandated for auto insurance (and why many places have underinsured motorist insurance, also)

Post reply on HN