Posted by theanonymousone 9 hours ago
Yes, trivially. Just look at the opposite end of each metric. Pareto optimality doesn't know/care what each metrics means, since it keeps them all separate.
"We're often faced with similar trade-offs. You want a meal that's both cheap and delicious? A job that's both well-paid, easy, and fulfilling?"
I really don't feel like "easy" is a dimension I wish to optimize for in a job. It almost feels opposite to what I've actually optimized for - since for me a fulfilling job usually means full of deep technical challenges. I want a job without unnecessary friction, without interpersonal drama, even one that's low stress. But definitely not easy.
> I want a job without unnecessary friction, without interpersonal drama, even one that's low stress.
Doesn't matter if the actual job is filling glasses of water or building rockets; as long as I can focus on it for 100% of my working hours, I'd see it as an "easy" job.
(And please note that I do not mean to imply that there are no challenges in manual labor or that software engineering is more important.)
But I definitely want a job without stress, danger, or physical strain on my body. Perhaps I am just looking for a similar word which doesn't imply anything about the complexity of the task at hand.
I don't think I've ever seen an example of pareto that wasn't pseudo scientific drivel.
The analysis comes before the meta settles, so of course it’s consistent :)
Coincidently, this Pareto Front concept is currently on the front page on HN at #10 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49096439) and apparently, it was posted before this post.
build a card here: https://requirement5.com/create (and the CLI instructions are there too)