You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

MaximumLiberty comments on [Link] How to see into the future (Financial Times) - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: fortyeridania 07 September 2014 06:04AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (13)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: MaximumLiberty 15 September 2014 12:44:23PM 0 points [-]

This is something i have tried explaining multiple times, but I cant really say that i understand the point. It's harder, so it takes longer, right? My response is that it is a combination of time to complete and probability that the estimate is wrong and it takes a lot longer. But it seems to me that it would be better to decompose those aspects. The benefit of putting it in one number is that it is easier ti use to manage expectations. It's like giving an estimate that is higher than your true estimate based on risk. Frequently, you should end up with spare time that you use to offset the reputational impact of totally missing sometimes. From a manager's perspective, it looks a bit like padding the estimates systematically, to offset all the biases in the system towards only hearing the earliest time possible.

Max L