> Productivity be damned, RTO makes fiscal sense when you have a 15 year lease on a building you can't get out of. I don't agree with it, but I can see why you'd want warm bodies in seats when you pay 20,000 (or more) a month for your modern-tech cube farm.
Could you explain your thinking this further, please?
In your example the company is paying for accommodation whether it is used or not, it seems to be a sunk cost. The fiscal decision making should hinge purely on what gives the best ROI given that money has already been forsaken.
What you're describing seems to be more aligned to "it makes sense psychologically." A large and very visible commitment has, due to unforseeable reasons, been made partially unnecessary. Following through regardless saves face.
I'd be interested to know if you might be able to if you could find problems by looking at invariants over partitions of the space.
Like
Is the number of solutions with v1=false plus the number with v1=true the number with v1 free?
If we have n constraints then there 2*n variants where you negate subsets of constraints. Is the sum of solution counts over the 2*n subproblems equal the size of the variable space?
Could you explain your thinking this further, please?
In your example the company is paying for accommodation whether it is used or not, it seems to be a sunk cost. The fiscal decision making should hinge purely on what gives the best ROI given that money has already been forsaken.
What you're describing seems to be more aligned to "it makes sense psychologically." A large and very visible commitment has, due to unforseeable reasons, been made partially unnecessary. Following through regardless saves face.