Sutton's Zeroth Law
-
Dan Sutton wrote:
And since the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant
FTFY. :)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Well, it's a constant in any medium. Just a different constant.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein -
Seems a bit incomplete to me, you need to add the number of managers, and the level of customer involvement AKA feature creep. :~
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello[^]
:thumbsup::thumbsup:
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein -
Dan Sutton wrote:
And since the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant
FTFY. :)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
I thought about it... but that's not strictly true, anyway, if you consider the relativistic effects of high-density, high-mass objects: in fact, "the speed of light in a vacuum around a given mass is a constant" -- but that's not true, either, because the speed of light is the speed at which one can circumnavigate the universe once in a period of one universe lifetime... and since the universe is expanding, that value is changing constantly (along with the size of a meter, and so forth)... so effectively, the speed of light is a constant only because we want it to be.
-
Seems a bit incomplete to me, you need to add the number of managers, and the level of customer involvement AKA feature creep. :~
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello[^]
I'll buy that. Change "programmers" to "people". LOL!
-
I'll buy that. Change "programmers" to "people". LOL!
I was thinking more in the lines of: NQM(2f+1)/t=c, where: - N is the number of programmers on the project; - Q is the quality of the final product; - M is the number of managers on the project; - f is feature creep (in percents of the original number of features); - t is the time taken to develop the product; - c is a constant
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello[^]
-
I was thinking more in the lines of: NQM(2f+1)/t=c, where: - N is the number of programmers on the project; - Q is the quality of the final product; - M is the number of managers on the project; - f is feature creep (in percents of the original number of features); - t is the time taken to develop the product; - c is a constant
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello[^]
-
Doubling the number of features doesn't just double the time needed as it's also adding complexity. Hmm, it's probably more like (f+1)2 when I think about it.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello[^]
-
I was thinking more in the lines of: NQM(2f+1)/t=c, where: - N is the number of programmers on the project; - Q is the quality of the final product; - M is the number of managers on the project; - f is feature creep (in percents of the original number of features); - t is the time taken to develop the product; - c is a constant
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello[^]
Brilliant! Although... since you don't want to affect N inversely with M, then I suggest: (N^(M(2f+1)))Q/t=c ...which, since M implies 2f+1, could theoretically be shortened to: (N^M)Q/t=c (or else, we could include a constant to state the probability of someone posting a thread like this...)
-
Here's my zeroth law of software development, which I now share for your amusement: NQ/t=c, where: - N is the number of programmers on the project; - Q is the quality of the final product; - t is the time taken to develop the product; - c is a constant
NQ/t=c is incorrect. It is: NQ/t=C^2 Where "C" = Change; as in "_________ in my pocket" from all of the "_________ requests"
-
NQ/t=c is incorrect. It is: NQ/t=C^2 Where "C" = Change; as in "_________ in my pocket" from all of the "_________ requests"
That's the spirit!
-
I was thinking more in the lines of: NQM(2f+1)/t=c, where: - N is the number of programmers on the project; - Q is the quality of the final product; - M is the number of managers on the project; - f is feature creep (in percents of the original number of features); - t is the time taken to develop the product; - c is a constant
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello[^]
I think we are getting somewhere, but you also need to account for "New Technology" with a heavier factor than feature creep (e.g. "We are going to change our platform to be all in the Cloud"). Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
-
I think we are getting somewhere, but you also need to account for "New Technology" with a heavier factor than feature creep (e.g. "We are going to change our platform to be all in the Cloud"). Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
Nah, a new technology is a whole load of features in one go, you just need to break them apart and the formula will still work.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello[^]
-
learner'sbug wrote:
not f+1 ?
Because f+1 is a race with no passing.
This space intentionally left blank.
-
Here's my zeroth law of software development, which I now share for your amusement: NQ/t=c, where: - N is the number of programmers on the project; - Q is the quality of the final product; - t is the time taken to develop the product; - c is a constant
-
I thought about it... but that's not strictly true, anyway, if you consider the relativistic effects of high-density, high-mass objects: in fact, "the speed of light in a vacuum around a given mass is a constant" -- but that's not true, either, because the speed of light is the speed at which one can circumnavigate the universe once in a period of one universe lifetime... and since the universe is expanding, that value is changing constantly (along with the size of a meter, and so forth)... so effectively, the speed of light is a constant only because we want it to be.
No. In a vacuum the speed of light is constant. No exceptions. The light can be bent by mass, but not slowed down. The universe is expanding, yes, so the light is going to need more and more time to travel across it, but the speed is still constant. No implications about it. In fact, relativity states that the speed of light in a vacuum is the ONLY thing that remains constant in different reference systems. Which can get you down in a very deep rabbit hole: time shrinks and space expands, but whoever are you, wherever are you, you will still get around 300'000 km/s for a ray of light in a vacuum.
-
No. In a vacuum the speed of light is constant. No exceptions. The light can be bent by mass, but not slowed down. The universe is expanding, yes, so the light is going to need more and more time to travel across it, but the speed is still constant. No implications about it. In fact, relativity states that the speed of light in a vacuum is the ONLY thing that remains constant in different reference systems. Which can get you down in a very deep rabbit hole: time shrinks and space expands, but whoever are you, wherever are you, you will still get around 300'000 km/s for a ray of light in a vacuum.
Yes, but the size of a kilometer changes as the universe expands. So does the size of the instruments used to measure it, and the atoms constituting said instruments, so we don't notice... but to an outside (the universe) observer, a difference would be noticeable.
-
Not so sure about that. If either N or Q are 0, then c = 0. Knowing this and assuming c is a constant, then t = lim(x->inf), or lim(x->-inf).
.
Well, it almost makes sense: if you have no programmers, it's not really supposed to mean anything...
-
I thought about it... but that's not strictly true, anyway, if you consider the relativistic effects of high-density, high-mass objects: in fact, "the speed of light in a vacuum around a given mass is a constant" -- but that's not true, either, because the speed of light is the speed at which one can circumnavigate the universe once in a period of one universe lifetime... and since the universe is expanding, that value is changing constantly (along with the size of a meter, and so forth)... so effectively, the speed of light is a constant only because we want it to be.
Is the universe expanding, or it is simply our abilty to see further into the universe that is expanding? If we can't see the reaches of the universe, how can we know that it is expanding? And, if it is expanding, what is it expanding into? Does the absence of matter mean that space doesn't exist?
-
Is the universe expanding, or it is simply our abilty to see further into the universe that is expanding? If we can't see the reaches of the universe, how can we know that it is expanding? And, if it is expanding, what is it expanding into? Does the absence of matter mean that space doesn't exist?
Well, the general consensus is that it's expanding because everything we observe out there is somewhat red-shifted, thus the Doppler effect tells us that everything's retreating from everything else. The question of what it's expanding into is more interesting: my own theory which I've held for a long time, and which is now becoming accepted by various factions within astrophysics, is that the universe is actually an exploding singularity within a larger universe: this explains several things, such as the fact that the size of the universe is (mathematically) much greater than it should be. In theory, if the universe is 13.7 billion years old (as is currently stated) then its radius should be 13.7 billion light years, since it shouldn't be possible for it to expand faster than the speed of light. But in fact, it's something like twice that: a conundrum which has stumped physicists for a while now. However, if the universe is an exploding singularity, then its theoretical radius is determined by the radius of the event horizon of the black hole surrounding such a singularity -- into which matter can fall from outside. This would explain massive objects on the boundaries of what we can see - such as quasars and so on - which conventional closed-system theory cannot explain - and also where all that extra mass came from. There would be a shift in perception between what we can see and the universe outside, simply because of the time dilation effect one would perceive when approaching a large center of mass. Furthermore, if one were to calculate the distribution of matter inside a black hole with the mass of the universe, then one would actually come out with a distribution of matter virtually identical to what we can see now. My theory goes on to state that (a) all singularities detonate at the instant they form (having achieved critical mass), but that because of the time dilation effect, an outside observer would not detect the explosion: it would appear to take an almost infinite time to occur (although, to an entity inside the exploding black hole, time would proceed at a regular pace, with the "outside" appearing almost infinitely slow, and thus unfathomable: there would be a definite interface between "inside" and "outside"; and that (b) a singularity is not zero-sized at all, but is in fact one Planck length: this removes the problem of it actually taking an infinite length of time for the explosion to occur (as seen from outside). This theory is supported by the fact that known black holes, such as the superma
-
Well, the general consensus is that it's expanding because everything we observe out there is somewhat red-shifted, thus the Doppler effect tells us that everything's retreating from everything else. The question of what it's expanding into is more interesting: my own theory which I've held for a long time, and which is now becoming accepted by various factions within astrophysics, is that the universe is actually an exploding singularity within a larger universe: this explains several things, such as the fact that the size of the universe is (mathematically) much greater than it should be. In theory, if the universe is 13.7 billion years old (as is currently stated) then its radius should be 13.7 billion light years, since it shouldn't be possible for it to expand faster than the speed of light. But in fact, it's something like twice that: a conundrum which has stumped physicists for a while now. However, if the universe is an exploding singularity, then its theoretical radius is determined by the radius of the event horizon of the black hole surrounding such a singularity -- into which matter can fall from outside. This would explain massive objects on the boundaries of what we can see - such as quasars and so on - which conventional closed-system theory cannot explain - and also where all that extra mass came from. There would be a shift in perception between what we can see and the universe outside, simply because of the time dilation effect one would perceive when approaching a large center of mass. Furthermore, if one were to calculate the distribution of matter inside a black hole with the mass of the universe, then one would actually come out with a distribution of matter virtually identical to what we can see now. My theory goes on to state that (a) all singularities detonate at the instant they form (having achieved critical mass), but that because of the time dilation effect, an outside observer would not detect the explosion: it would appear to take an almost infinite time to occur (although, to an entity inside the exploding black hole, time would proceed at a regular pace, with the "outside" appearing almost infinitely slow, and thus unfathomable: there would be a definite interface between "inside" and "outside"; and that (b) a singularity is not zero-sized at all, but is in fact one Planck length: this removes the problem of it actually taking an infinite length of time for the explosion to occur (as seen from outside). This theory is supported by the fact that known black holes, such as the superma
A well reasoned explanation, which is better than most of the time when it is simply stated 'scientists say...' and to counter that simple arguement is to invite ridicule. While I may not understand what you wrote, or agree with it, as I said, it is a possible, well explained answer. Thank you, Tim