I've always considered myself a jack of all trades and made the switch to product management after being a designer for the last decade.
The switch felt almost fully natural, and I noticed that I have a very obvious significant leg up from most of my peers, I'm easily 3-4x more productive while working at the same pace as everyone.
I've played it a bit. The core mechanics was spot on but it ended up a soulless copy of what UO was. Procedurally generated levels and instances just took away any resemblance of a story for me.
I've found your comment compelling. I'm assuming you have some unit economics implied here, I'm very curious to learn from your experience.
What would you say, in a team of 6 devs, if a pm just walked up and said "If we can get 6 different tasks done in a week versus 3, guess which one I'm gonna pick?"
This is exactly what I was looking for, thank you!
Just looking at learning curves per industry, do you think its possible to make educated guesses as to which would stand to benefit more from improvement?
> What I'm thinking about is: how can we parametrize the manifestations of these scopes, and, ubiquitously, reverse-engineer them, thus linking all the systems?
> Then: which systems are topologically identical? If there are classes, how many? How do they differ? Are they (the systems OR the classes of systems) related?
> If so, is there a hierarchy (or are there multiple hierarchies)?
To what end though? How would you even begin measuring success in such a vast context?
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the art for arts sake, just curious to hear more.
What I noticed is that every discipline invents their own lingo to describe the systems in play at the ethos of their discipline and they often manifest as some sort of law, principle or concept.
What I'm really curious about learning is to see if there's some sort of overarching discipline that focuses on these sort of systems as a meta and finds improvement points or market opportunities based on a given principle.
Take Moore's law for instance. It essentially describes a relationship between the most atomic component of {system} and the price of the commodity that is offered by that {system}. (system=hardware)
Now apply that to any other field. How about energy production? Is there a correlation between amount of cells in a solar panel and the price of energy at large available to consumers? This is still in the field of engineering so I'm guessing there will be some sort of relationship, but I wonder what taking it further into business and design for instance would look like.
I don't know how that would look like but to clarify I don't expect any of these laws to illustrate a similar pattern, but I do expect them to define how further along or behind any given "system" is, assuming that they are somehow comparable.
Well, that's his big bet isn't it. There are a lot of studies that claim 4 day work week will keep productivity more or less the same.
The catch here is this will potentially enable you to hire those 10x people. Even at reduced productivity, 80% of 10x is more than double productivity for 100% of 3-4x people, and perhaps this work environment will foster other people to increase their productivity as well.
With the right people and product, I see this as the ultimate weapon against big tech, most of which will have shareholders that will act a lot more conservatively when it comes to risks compared to startups.
This is not something big tech will be able to accommodate in the current macro-economic environment, no board will approve basically a 20% salary bump to all employees and while risking a potential drop in productivity.
The switch felt almost fully natural, and I noticed that I have a very obvious significant leg up from most of my peers, I'm easily 3-4x more productive while working at the same pace as everyone.