= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Planning Fallacy - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (43)
99%? How am I supposed to answer if I assign less than 99% probability to me actually completing the task? That isn't even particularly pessimistic given reasonable priorities.
ETA after surprising vote: Really an actual answer would be appreciated. How am I supposed to understand that question? Or is it somehow shame-worthy to ask even when I am so entirely distanced from those individuals expected to give such an estimate to an actual superior?
They weren't asked if they'd complete the task, they were asked when.
If you ascribe less than 99% probability to the proposition that you will ever finish a given task, then there is no time t such that Pr(task completed by t) = 0.99.
Not with a finite number, obviously. "I'm not 0.99 sure I'll ever get this done", "your question makes an incorrect assumption", "Mu" all seem like reasonable replies. "∞" will make some people cringe, but should also get the point across.
Thankyou. I wasn't familiar with the 'Mu' word. English or not I shall put it to good use.
Agree on both counts. Especially the cringing part.