<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Multithreading on Mad Blog</title>
    <link>/tags/multithreading/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Multithreading on Mad Blog</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
    <language>en-GB</language>
    <managingEditor>madking.direct@gmail.com (Mad King)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>madking.direct@gmail.com (Mad King)</webMaster>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="/tags/multithreading/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>The Multi-Threading Fallacy: Why Management Keeps Misunderstanding System Design</title>
      <link>/posts/multi-threading-fallacy/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>madking.direct@gmail.com (Mad King)</author>
      <guid>/posts/multi-threading-fallacy/</guid>
      
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Someone in a meeting somewhere is about to say: &lt;em&gt;&amp;ldquo;let&amp;rsquo;s add multi-threading — it&amp;rsquo;ll speed things up.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Every senior engineer just flinched. Because that sentence has killed more projects than bad requirements, understaffing, and legacy codebases combined.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Here&amp;rsquo;s the problem: threading is sold as a performance technique. In practice it&amp;rsquo;s a &lt;strong&gt;correctness&lt;/strong&gt; technique used for a very narrow set of problems. And the number of times it actually delivers on its performance promise is small enough to count on one hand.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      
    </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>
