82,891
edits
Four-eye check: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|work|}}An accident waiting to happen. | {{a|work|}}An accident waiting to happen. | ||
You have a process that is so mind-numbingly [ | You have a process that is so mind-numbingly [[dreary]] — [[Citigroup v Brigade Capital Management|sequencing interest payments on billion dollar revolving credit facilities]], for example — that the posse of [[School-leaver_from_Bucharest|Bratislavan school-leavers]] you have engaged for the purpose cannot be depended on to carry it out without occasionally ticking the wrong box, whacking the wrong mole, or wiring an eight-figure principal repayment to the wrong distressed creditor. | ||
What to do? Easy: engage ''another'' squad of Balkan undergraduates for the even more soul-gouging chore of checking the | What to do? Easy: engage ''another'' squad of Balkan undergraduates for the even more soul-gouging chore of checking the work product of the first lot. | ||
In the same way that two wrongs make a right, that will definitely work.<ref>It won’t.</ref> | |||
The [ | The [[JC]] has moaned elsewhere about our [[modernist]] confusion as to the division of labour between the [[Meatware|meatware]] and the [[Machines_are_fungible|machines]]. The division is fundamental: humans are slow, expensive, inconstant, hopeless at following instructions but good at dreaming up a passable plan of action if something unpredictable happens. Machines are fast, cheap, reliable, but ''useless' at figuring out what to do if something unpredictable happens. | ||
If you want a routine job done quickly, cheaply and reliably, and it’s important, ''get a machine to do it''. If it is worth investing in not just one low-paid call centre worker to carry out the task, but another one to check it, it is worth investing in a machine that can do the work without the need for anyone to checking it. If a human is your solution, ''you have your model wrong''. Oh sure, you will have someone to blame when everything blows up, but even to draw that conclusion is to have your model wrong. | |||
Here is is, in short: | |||
{{Tabletopflex|50}} | {{Tabletopflex|50}} | ||
| Line 20: | Line 24: | ||
| {{bg|grey}}'''Rare''' || {{bg|yellow}} Human. Not worth programming a computer. || {{bg|green}} Human. No ''point'' programming a computer. | | {{bg|grey}}'''Rare''' || {{bg|yellow}} Human. Not worth programming a computer. || {{bg|green}} Human. No ''point'' programming a computer. | ||
|} | |} | ||
{{ref}} | |||