Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Doesn't Software Show Up in Productivity?

austinvernon.eth.link

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 212 posts

Re: Why Doesn't Software Show Up in Productivity?

#51

Post by swalsh »

zie wrote: post #44
orolle wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a different discussion, quite off topic. When the boomers go into retirement, our current economic system with GDP growth focus has a big problem. Our system is based on produce more stuff and buy more stuff. But when the boomers retire, they will buy less stuff. Who will buy supply overhang? Nobody. Even worse, who will pay for the debt incurred to buy overly inflated asset prices, like housing and factories, wh…

I don't disagree it could definitely be a problem with the US, but so far, with immigration, it's not been a problem. As long as our immigration #'s stay up, the US should be fine. So far it's been a steady state, but it's unknown if that will continue into the future.

In the not too distant future, competition for immigration is going to be tough. I wonder if the US has the political atmosphere to offer competitive packages to win over the immigrants we'll need.

Re: Why Doesn't Software Show Up in Productivity?

#52

Post by jefftk »

hvs wrote: post #32
neogodless wrote: post #4

This article makes me think of the woodworker's dilemma. You might start working with cutting, planing, joining and finishing wood because you want to make a chair or end table, and you like the idea of learning to do it yourself, maybe saving some money, or at least getting some extra tools out of the process, and having some pride in your work. But before you know it, you've spent 4 years accumulating tools, but mo…

A few nits to pick as a woodworker: 1) You never save money building it yourself (at least not in comparison to a standard consumer option, like a chair or table from your local furniture store. This may hold up if you compare what you build to high-end hardwood furniture. But with the cost of tools, you're probably still losing money if this is just a hobby) 2) 90% of my enjoyment of woodworking is just being in my…

> You never save money building it yourself

I agree, if what you want is a standard chair or table. But its common that I will want some piece of furniture that exactly fits some space or is otherwise unusual. For example, shelves that exactly fit my rooms.

It does help that I have somewhat low standards for appearance, and am quite content building things out of cheap wood.

Re: Why Doesn't Software Show Up in Productivity?

#53

Post by agumonkey »

dalbasal wrote: post #31

Extremely worthwhile question, long overdue. Productivity, especially in relevant areas like administration, stagnated despite computers hitting every desk. I read the Cowen book (Complacent Class) at the same time I was reader Graeber's "Bullshit Jobs." Heterodox writers from both sides of the spectrum. Same observation. On the face of it, it doesn't make sense. How could, for example, a local college's administrati…

For offices, non tech saavy places, my experience hints at the fact that computers are far from being a main factor.

Software is not mastered even by people in charge of picking it. It changes all the time. Users are (might be different with the next gen) digital-first, also software design regressed a lot, as400 terminals were so damn fast and predictable. Now users have desks with various UI paradigms (2021 people still don't know if single or double click will cause an action, from a hand tool pov it's an absolute failure, but software is not approached like a tool, except maybe industrial settings with big buttons and lag free interfaces)

Fun bit: intranet failed the other day, had to use good old paper template filled manually. It took me (newb here) 2 minutes. With the webapp it's 3 or more, with lots of clicks and waits and maybes... Beside a DB tracking the document creation it's of zero value.

I could go on further but not right now.

Re: Why Doesn't Software Show Up in Productivity?

#54

Post by analog31 »

tyingq wrote: post #29
neogodless wrote: post #4

This article makes me think of the woodworker's dilemma. You might start working with cutting, planing, joining and finishing wood because you want to make a chair or end table, and you like the idea of learning to do it yourself, maybe saving some money, or at least getting some extra tools out of the process, and having some pride in your work. But before you know it, you've spent 4 years accumulating tools, but mo…

This effect gets worse in a large organization, where eventually you get a named group with a leader for every possible sub-specialty or task. Human nature, then, is to grow (or at least preserve) the size of your group. So you end up inventing projects and work that keep your group busy, rather than ceding people to other groups that actually need more help. There's also a tendency to create mandatory process that f…

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith

Re: Why Doesn't Software Show Up in Productivity?

#55

Post by ilammy »

kiba wrote: post #19
neogodless wrote: post #4

This article makes me think of the woodworker's dilemma. You might start working with cutting, planing, joining and finishing wood because you want to make a chair or end table, and you like the idea of learning to do it yourself, maybe saving some money, or at least getting some extra tools out of the process, and having some pride in your work. But before you know it, you've spent 4 years accumulating tools, but mo…

As I remember Elon Musk saying, the best part is no part. Likewise, same for process. The worst thing an engineer can do is optimize to a requirement that don't need to exist.

> As I remember Elon Musk saying, the best part is no part.

IIRC, the saying originates from Mikhail Koshkin who designed the T-34 tank, often extended with “...but the essential function still performed”.

Re: Why Doesn't Software Show Up in Productivity?

#56

Post by nonameiguess »

jasode wrote: post #10

>Almost every recent A.I. advance has come from one tiny corner of the field, machine learning. Machine learning exposes a set of connected nodes, known as neural nets, to mass amounts of labeled real-world data in an attempt to give those nodes tacit knowledge. The breakthrough example was software that was able to identify cat pictures. >So far, these neural nets have given us some great demos but mostly niche real…

The author didn't really mean "real world" here. That is a misnomer. The article is about explaining why productivity gains have slowed even in the face of better software techniques. Machine learning has possibly made YouTube more addictive than it otherwise would have been, but this isn't increasing aggregate economic output for the world. It's just concentrating ad revenue in Google accounts, where it used to be spread between many more content distribution platforms.

Re: Why Doesn't Software Show Up in Productivity?

#57

Post by Ma8ee »

swalsh wrote: post #21
neogodless wrote: post #4

This article makes me think of the woodworker's dilemma. You might start working with cutting, planing, joining and finishing wood because you want to make a chair or end table, and you like the idea of learning to do it yourself, maybe saving some money, or at least getting some extra tools out of the process, and having some pride in your work. But before you know it, you've spent 4 years accumulating tools, but mo…

As a woodworker, i've noticed 90% of time is easily spent on setting the tools up. Jigs help save time because they let you spend less time setting up tools. Economy of scales are gained when you can get more products out of the same number of tool setups.

That is why I use hand tools. For most one of items, it’s not slower. And I’m actually shaping and joining wood instead of spending most time adjusting machines. I’ve got enough of that in my day job.

Re: Why Doesn't Software Show Up in Productivity?

#58

Post by SimianLogic2 »

neogodless wrote: post #4

This article makes me think of the woodworker's dilemma. You might start working with cutting, planing, joining and finishing wood because you want to make a chair or end table, and you like the idea of learning to do it yourself, maybe saving some money, or at least getting some extra tools out of the process, and having some pride in your work. But before you know it, you've spent 4 years accumulating tools, but mo…

Are you a game developer?

(brb writing a new engine)

Re: Why Doesn't Software Show Up in Productivity?

#59

Post by PeterisP »

swalsh wrote: post #51
zie wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree it could definitely be a problem with the US, but so far, with immigration, it's not been a problem. As long as our immigration #'s stay up, the US should be fine. So far it's been a steady state, but it's unknown if that will continue into the future.

In the not too distant future, competition for immigration is going to be tough. I wonder if the US has the political atmosphere to offer competitive packages to win over the immigrants we'll need.

Why do you think that? It feels that the mid-term (e.g. 20-40 years) outlook for migration would include a large increase of migrant supply due to e.g. climate change issues in the "global south", so instead of competition for immigration it seems likely that places like US would be able to pick whatever kind of migrants they'd prefer to allow.

Re: Why Doesn't Software Show Up in Productivity?

#60

Post by handrous »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #49
dalbasal wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps. Why though? Why aren't HR, accounting or other such tasks more productive with computers than without?

With paper, you do it your way , which maps to the organisation's way at both ends (and is probably just a minor improvement over the organisation's way). With computers, unless you can reprogram the system (which is tricky even for programmers), you're doing it the computer's way, which is often worse than the way the organisation would want to have it set up.

I also suspect management is placing a high value on some ideal of "total visibility" into their organization, for which they are sold computerization as a solution, and are willing to accept significantly greater friction across their organization in order to get it. They imagine it will be of such great value that it'll be worth it.

Of course what happens is one or (usually) both of: they aren't actually ready or able to use that visibility for any productive purpose sufficient to justify its (labor-to-use, and direct monetary) cost; the system doesn't actually deliver so perfect a view as they wanted (though it may act like it does).

Post reply on HN