They measured 16 developers and called it a "study"? That is amusing. Not to mention it was conducted almost a year ago, the tools have already changed dramatically.

▲

sarchertech 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Depending on the effect size a sample size of 16 can be plenty.

▲

archagon 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Not to mention it was conducted almost a year ago, the tools have already changed dramatically.

There is no point at which this argument will not be made. Therefore, it is a useless argument.

▲

notlenin 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Not to mention it was conducted almost a year ago

false. The article is from 4th of March 2026, less than a month ago.

	▲	mkl 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		From the first sentence of the article proper: "A study published in July 2025".

▲

tehjoker 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

So just run a new study this year. I do think the tools have improved, but it should show up empirically. The only people for whom the urgency of "right now" is present is for the C-suite and investor class who are fighting to make sure they survive, but it might also be a crisis of their own making. Don't confuse your identity as a worker with the identity of the capitalist class.

▲

jmalicki 3 days ago | parent [-]

You should be able to just develop software on your cellphone, right?

Do you have an empirical study to support that your employer should buy you a laptop and possibly a monitor or two to help your productivity?

If there's no study, why should we believe it?

It's like "A study found that parachutes were no more effective than empty backpacks at protecting jumpers from aircraft."

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/12/22/6790830...

▲

SpicyLemonZest 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I think my employer should buy me a laptop and possibly a monitor or two to help my productivity because I subjectively feel they'd be helpful, and I have the market power to insist on tools that I subjectively feel are helpful. If my CEO announced that monitors are super important and everyone will be tracked on monitor space usage going forwards, I would still want to see evidence that this is going to accomplish something.

▲

jmalicki 2 days ago | parent [-]

Your CEO likewise subjectively feels all of their employees using AI will be helpful, and has the market power to insist that their employees use them.

When engineers demand evidence that AI is productive, but not that having laptops and monitors are productive, it screams confirmation bias. "I'm right, you're wrong" as a default prior.

	▲	SpicyLemonZest 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I wouldn't call it confirmation bias, but you're right that is my prior. If an executive and a line worker disagree about whether a tool is useful, I assume unless presented with evidence to the contrary that the executive is wrong. I would emphasize that I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the converse either. If an executive is just absolutely convinced that dual monitors are a scam and nobody needs more than their laptop screen, they can run their company that way, and I'm sure there are many successful companies with that philosophy.
	▲	archagon 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Sounds like it would be pretty productive for employees to unionize and replace their CEO with an LLM.

▲

roarcher 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> It's like "A study found that parachutes were no more effective than empty backpacks at protecting jumpers from aircraft."

Are you under the impression that we don't bother to empirically prove things that seem obvious, like the safety benefits of parachutes? You don't think parachute manufacturers test their designs and quantify their performance?

▲

jmalicki 2 days ago | parent [-]

There are no randomized controlled trials that parachutes save lives.

This is repeatedly used as an example in the medical community about the limits of randomized controlled trials. This isn't some impression - your impression that such evidence exists is wrong.

There might be some parachute company tests about effective of velocity, etc., but there are no human trials.

Why? Because that would be unethical.

	▲	roarcher 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> There are no randomized controlled trials that parachutes save lives. It's a good thing "randomized controlled trials" aren't the only kind of empirical evidence, then. We know the limits of how fast a human can safely land. Parachute manufactures have to prove that their designs meet the minimum performance specifications to achieve a safe speed. This proof is not invalidated by the fact that it doesn't include throwing some poor bastard with a placebo parachute out of an airplane to demonstrate that he dies on impact. Also, the answer to your original question is yes. There are numerous studies showing that multiple monitors improve productivity.

▲

Copernicron 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Oh, there's one important detail here. The drop in the study was about 2 feet total, because the biplane and helicopter were parked.

I don't think that's making the argument you think it is.

	▲	jmalicki 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		That is exactly why I posted it.