▲ | wizardforhire 2 days ago | |||||||
Good point, thats how I feel about to do lists most of the time. I think the key insight you make is recognizing that attempting to do two things at the same time is asking for disaster. Concurrency in my experience is all about rhythm and timing… something humans in their default state are notoriously bad at ie without training and practice. The best approach in my experience is doing one thing at a time with focus and conviction until completion, then move on to the next thing. If concurrency is desired then understanding duration and prioritizing items via dependencies is of utmost prudence. But paraphrasing Michel de Montaigne… something something about something | ||||||||
▲ | bluGill 2 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||
Concurrency is very hard for humans to get right. It can work in a factory where we can analysis everything and figure out that someone has time to do two jobs (you might be able to put the windshield wipers on at the end of the line and then turn to a different line to put the seat recline buttons on - if the lines are arranged for this and the bottleneck is somewhere else on the line). However most home jobs are not the repetitive and so you can never get good enough at something to take advantage of it. (maybe if you always make the same meal every night you will know where the breaks are and can do something else - but most people like more variety in life) | ||||||||
|