Talk:1205: Is It Worth the Time?

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search

The title text is just silly. 08:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it worth all of the time we've spent on 1190, developing wikis, and wget scripts to pull the pictures efficiently, etc.? Bdemirci (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to ask if there is an interactive version of this comit out there. I suppose it wouldn't be too hard to create... --Charlesisbozo (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, it would be really simple indeed. For now, you can try Wolfram|Alpha --Mormegil (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I have a site up that does the calculation : --Whitecat (talk)whitecat (whitecat) 18:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I wish I had seen whitecat's tool before I made my own. It's slightly different, so that's good: --Agileadam (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The graph ignores the fact that it is much more satisfying to shave off time from task, especially by automating it. Also note that it IS possible to shave off 6 hours from task you do daily and one day from task you do weekly. -- Hkmaly (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The table also ignores all monetary costs associated with the work: e.g. buying a new tool -- 15:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking the same, but then realised it's NOT practical if you assume a 6 hour working day and 5 day working week. 12:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If Momo taught us 1 thing, than it is that you can not save time ;-). --DaB. (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is it "not possible" to shave a day off of a task that you perform weekly? MrBigDog2U (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It definitely possible, but Randall feel it's just not worth the time to put it there. :-) Arifsaha (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Then the explanation is inaccurate as it states that "blacked out areas represent times which are impossible to save". It is possible, perhaps just not worthwhile. MrBigDog2U (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

For most people in most circumstances, a net present value comparison would be most relevant. Even if I can save a day every year for the next 5 years, it may not be worth 5, or event 4, days input now, because my time now is more valuable to me than my time in the future (as of now), and my opportunity cost for time spent now greater. It would be interesting to see the chart revised assuming a particular discount factor, and that all efficiency-improvement input occurs up front. RyanDonovan (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

     Agreed!    :¬D

TL;DR --DanB (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Reminds me of this chart: And of course, Randall has covered similar ground before: (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

There are a few flaws with this:

  1. How many tasks that you were doing five years ago are you still doing? I'd give a max window of two years for most task executions.
  2. Whatever system you designed to save you time will itself require maintenance -- and become a task.
  3. Very few people can figure out when they start a time-saving task how long it will take.
  4. Not all attempts to create a time saving system actually work
  5. Not all attempts to create a time saving task actually save time
  6. Once you create a time saving system, you are locked in to doing the task the way that the time saving system expects you to do it -- or, continually modify your time saving task, which again, takes time.

Dave Edelhart 16:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

WRT your first 'flaw'. I can think of lots. Just off the top of my head - brushing my teeth, making breakfast, showering, walking my dog, commuting, responding to emails, editing documents for grammar and style, arguing on wikis, etc... There are thousands of such tasks, if not tens of thousands. 17:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The chart does not take into account when multiple users use the more time efficient task. --Rhayader (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

For multiple users who benefit, you multiply the number by the users. But you should recalculate it yourself, because the numbers are floored. Saving 5 seconds daily gives you 2.536111 hours in 5 years (5*365+1 days). So for example, to save a group of 15 people 5 seconds for the twice-a-day coffee break: Randalls 2 hours gives you 2*2*15= 60 hours to spent for a computerized/automated coffee system which saves everybody 5 seconds. While it's actually 76 hours and 5 minutes. :) 15:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
For across a tritri years, most things get a byte more well-defined. 10:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)