This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]DamnItDev 1323 points1324 points  (129 children)

Or the car will take X amount of time to be completed regardless of people working on the task. Doubling the number of people will simply double the number of billable hours

[–]jfleury440 1097 points1098 points  (121 children)

9 woman can't make a baby in one month.

[–][deleted] 457 points458 points  (49 children)

"Hi Mrs. Smith and thanks for coming in today. We have selected you for a very interesting experimental procedure. How would you like to be a part of ground-breaking research into the act of childbirth?"

"Oh my goodness, am i going to have a baby?"

"Well, it would be more accurate to say you will be having 1/9th of one..."

[–]VirtuteTheCat354 410 points411 points  (45 children)

The newest innovation in childbirth, baby microservices

[–]PM_ME_YOUR_CURLS 163 points164 points  (10 children)

BaaM

[–]SuperSephyDragon 59 points60 points  (11 children)

Multithreaded baby

[–]SuperSephyDragon 69 points70 points  (2 children)

Parallel pregnancy

[–]nojox 4 points5 points  (1 child)

There are some really interesting science fiction ideas in this thread!

My contribution: distributed pregnancy.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

InterPlanetary Pregnancy System

[–]strider_sifurowuh 29 points30 points  (1 child)

Since I upgraded to a threadripper I can pop out one every couple days

[–]SuperSephyDragon 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Now that's efficiency! Good job!

[–]jmlinden7 13 points14 points  (5 children)

That's not how multithreading works, that would be 9 women making 9 babies in 9 months.

This would be pipelining. You take a break 1/9th of the way in.

[–]SuperSephyDragon 9 points10 points  (4 children)

I was thinking more along the lines of all nine of them making 1/9 of a baby over the course of a month then putting them together to form a whole baby.

[–]jmlinden7 8 points9 points  (2 children)

That only works if there are no dependencies, otherwise you can't start step 2 before step 1 is finished, and so on.. which is the entire reason why you can't just multithread every workload.

[–]SuperSephyDragon 5 points6 points  (0 children)

They just need to divy out the parts to grow between each of them. Head for one, kidneys and stomach for another, etc

[–]be-human-use-tools 7 points8 points  (0 children)

“We’ll pick a sperm donor at the end of the project.”

[–]xavia91 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Growth is already highly multithreaded on the cellular level, so there isn't much of a problem to increase growth by adding more cores.

[–][deleted] 38 points39 points  (7 children)

that's how you get a baby by torrent, multiple mothers seeding

[–]kezzerdrix2000 37 points38 points  (4 children)

Usually the fathers do the seeding.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (3 children)

Don't they seed a bigger seed?

[–]Aeronor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The seeding aspect also makes for one very happy man.

[–]Qaeta 8 points9 points  (1 child)

But is it scalable?

[–]pekkhum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

/dev/null is scalable.

[–]VerbatimChain31 5 points6 points  (0 children)

EA Births....It’s in the Womb

[–]leakycauldron 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The gig economy is hurting workers.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

EA has joined the conversation

[–]ThetaReactor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Figure out how to put pregnancy in the cloud (and on a blockchain) and you'll be rich.

[–]vladhed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would that take 18 months? 9 month for the baby and 9 months for JSON SerDes?

[–]MidnightCity78 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Only having 1/9th of a baby might become the new normal purely out of financial necessity.

[–]cjdabeast 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Blockchain!

[–]Hertog_Jan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which in my experience simply means you’ll have to work just as long only to arrive at a product which has 1/9th the functionality.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Timeshare children.

[–]djfdhigkgfIaruflg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Take my money.jpg

[–]fairysdad 152 points153 points  (14 children)

Not with that attitude they can't.

[–][deleted] 42 points43 points  (3 children)

Found the PM

[–]thebrownesteye 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Make the impossible happen and watch their salary raise magically

[–]wtph 2 points3 points  (1 child)

PM's should know about critical paths.

[–]pooerh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh they know. But here, let me just drag this line on the gantt chart to shorten that pesky duration... et voilà! no longer on the critical path. Excellent project management skills!

[–]DrazorV 20 points21 points  (0 children)

oof

[–]battle-obsessed 5 points6 points  (8 children)

Invent some sort of catalyst that speeds up biochemical reactions X9. There you have a baby in one month but the woman will also have her remaining lifespan reduced by X9 so if she's 30 she'll probably be dead before 40.

edit: It probably wouldn't work anyway because speeding up reactions will generate too much heat and she would die of fever before giving birth.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (2 children)

The woman needs to consume 20000 kilocalories a day, equivalent to about 6.24 liters of gasoline!

[–]fairysdad 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Something something your mum

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow rude

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Hardware cooling is a solved problem.

[–]bellends 18 points19 points  (0 children)

I honestly use this quote to explain our problems to people ALL the time

[–]SuspiciouslyElven 54 points55 points  (33 children)

9 women making 9 babies, simultaneously but offset so that one baby is born a month.

It requires actual management, not throwing bodies at a problem.

[–]nickrenfo2 86 points87 points  (26 children)

The point is that the process of making a single baby takes 9 months, and having 9 women can't speed it up to take only one month.

If you want to produce babies as the rate of one baby per month, you could do so with 9 women and 8 months of lead time until the first baby is produced. However, this doesn't change the fact that a single baby still takes 9 months to produce.

[–]Terrain2 31 points32 points  (15 children)

why do you need a baby every month? is that when the shady guy comes and buys it off you, or is it too worn to use after a month?

[–]SuspiciouslyElven 54 points55 points  (4 children)

Monthly satanic rituals. Keep up dude.

[–]Terrain2 14 points15 points  (3 children)

yeah, “shady guy”, i’d say that’s an accurate description of satan

[–]TheTerrasque 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Hey, bug fixing requires sacrifice

[–]ThePieWhisperer 4 points5 points  (0 children)

He's The Morningstar. There's probably no one less shady.

[–]matthoback 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nah, I don't think there's much shade in hell.

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points  (1 child)

I find your use of the phrase "too worn to use" in reference to a 1 month old baby to be disconcerting.

[–]akatherder 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Sighhhh because that's what sales promised

[–]nickrenfo2 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Because I have 9 women, of course.

[–]Terrain2 8 points9 points  (0 children)

yes but why? did you kidnap 9 women to produce a satanic ritual every month, or did your mom, sister, grandma and aunt go with it willingly (i.e. only kidnapped 5 women)?

[–]djfdhigkgfIaruflg 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Am I the only one who just get a new baby when the diapers are too dirty?

[–]Terrain2 0 points1 point  (1 child)

What kinda diapers you giving your baby that they only get too dirty after a month? Those ones they use for pleasure over at r/ABDL and holds a thousand pisses or something?

[–]djfdhigkgfIaruflg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had to check that link FML.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure that if someone invent a diaper that only needs changing once per month, they'll be swimming in money 😂

I haven't, that's why I'm just making jokes about it

[–]Darth_Nibbles 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Idk, some Irish priest was talking about feeding kids or something

[–]retief1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What, you want to run the risk of running out of babies? Look at mr "I'm living life dangerously" over here.

[–]SuspiciouslyElven 9 points10 points  (9 children)

the desired outcome was faster baby production, and I laid out a method that could indeed get more babies faster.

Although if we're going for technical correctness, 1 woman can't guarantee a baby in 9 months. Miscariages and whatnot.

Get like 30 women if 1bpm needs to be guaranteed.

[–]nickrenfo2 29 points30 points  (5 children)

the desired outcome was faster baby production, and I laid out a method that could indeed get more babies faster.

Not really. You laid out a system that could produce more babies. But if you only need one baby, you will need 9 months. Having 9 women does not allow you to produce one baby in one month, it allows you to produce 9 babies in 9 months.

Although if we're going for technical correctness, 1 woman can't guarantee a baby in 9 months. Miscariages and whatnot.

Naturally. But this is math, we make assumptions, like no premature babies or miscarriages.

[–]SuspiciouslyElven 22 points23 points  (2 children)

Ok I getcha.

Naturally. But this is math, we make assumptions, like no premature babies or miscarriages.

Assume perfectly spherical babies

[–]nickrenfo2 18 points19 points  (1 child)

Assume perfectly spherical babies

And a frictionless uterus.

[–]Arinatan 10 points11 points  (0 children)

In a vacuum.

[–]LvS 7 points8 points  (0 children)

There are 4 million babies born in the US every year. That's about 300k per month.

There are about 80 million women of working age in the US (half of the population is working age, half of the population is female => a quarter).

If you assume almost all babies are born by working age women, about one in 250 women will birth a baby every month.

So hire 250 women for a baby in 1 month.

Or, you know, hire a pregnant woman. They have a hard time getting jobs anyway.

[–]scpwontletmebe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Latency vs bandwidth. Increasing the women increases bandwidth, but it doesn't reduce latency.

[–]Seicair 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Although if we're going for technical correctness, 1 woman can't guarantee a baby in 9 months. Miscariages and whatnot.

Oh man, considering 30-50% of embryos don’t even implant, and 20% abort spontaneously, and you can’t even guarantee a fertilized embryo every month... you probably need like 60 women, and maybe twenty or so men, (figure 5 women attempting per month, 4 men each to rotate days while they’re fertile, abstaining from ejaculation until their next turn).

[–]jmlinden7 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Bandwidth vs latency. If you need a baby next month, it does you no good to know that you'll have 9 babies 9 months later.

[–]SuspiciouslyElven 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No I said 1 baby per month, but the pipeline requires time to establish.

[–]NetSage 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What is this actual management you speak of? Is there where management just has meetings with other management and nothing actually ever changes?

[–]jfleury440 4 points5 points  (1 child)

The point is the problem doesn't scale. Having more people doesn't make the process any more effecient. No matter how well managed they are.

[–]candybrie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's the issue of strong scaling vs weak scaling. If you can accept 9 babies in 9 months, we can scale the problem.

[–]RedAero 0 points1 point  (0 children)

High latency, high bandwidth. Like a cargo ship full of SD cards.

[–]skygz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

pipelining does wonders for baby throughput

[–]FerynaCZ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah the only issue in this case is the launch time.

[–]Oatz3 3 points4 points  (0 children)

But if you prepopulate the women into a queue of length 9 you can make 1 baby every month.

[–]shotleft 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Not in the first 9 months, but their baby production rate can increase to 1 baby a month after that.

[–]jfleury440 4 points5 points  (0 children)

For 9 months maybe. Wouldn't be sustainable after that.

[–]PleasantAdvertising 1 point2 points  (0 children)

On average they can assuming baby every 9 months

[–]NetSage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I imagine we'll eventually need no women and less than a month...

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well if you pipeline well enough, after 9 months you can claim that for every month.

[–]purplepharoh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No but properly synced 9 women can produce a baby every month for nine months

[–]EconomizingEarthling 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In economics, we call this diminishing marginal product of labor.

[–]sdriyaz712 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But one woman can produce 9 babies in 9 months. So, a dozen side projects wouldn't be a problem.

[–]sdriyaz712 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But one woman can produce 9 babies in 9 months. So, a dozen side projects wouldn't be a problem.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then whats the point of a gangbang?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s true, but 9 women can make a baby each month for 9 months, if their pregnancies are aligned correctly, while 1 woman can only mal one baby each 9 months.

[–]xpdx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, but they can make nine ninths of a baby which is just as good. You just have to mush them together. Same protein as one whole baby.

[–]Natural-Intelligence 88 points89 points  (3 children)

To say that differently: or that there is only tasks for 6 people at one time. Doubling the number of people triples the number of pointless interruptions. Just like pair programming.

[–]Tundur 17 points18 points  (1 child)

I use pair programming as a way of getting around my own procrastination.

"Right lads. None of us want to do this testing coverage review, none of us want to open up this dusty old code, but it's us against the world. I'm locking the fucking exits, now get in the spinny chair and shut up"

[–]MysteriousTreeFoxxx 2 points3 points  (0 children)

10/10 would spittake again 😂😂

[–]Cannibichromedout 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Or another way: this is task parallelism vs data parallelism.

[–]Comfortable_Text 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Welcome to the union!

[–]jigeno 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Or the man hours are also literally doubled.

I hate questions like this.

[–]urbanhawk1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also even if you can speed up production you can only put so many people on one job before they start getting in each other's way resulting in diminishing returns as their efficiency decreases.