I've noticed that e.g. over dinner only groups of 5 or smaller can keep one coherent discussion going; if you go to 6 or more people they will inevitably split up into subgroups. That's why I think meetings where people are supposed to discuss an issue and come to a shared understanding of something can only be at most 5 people.

"One pizza" team

That is why I can't work with others. I normally will eat one pizza all by myself, to the shock of everyone else around me. There is a downside to a fast metabolism (I know a lot of "fat" people who would still gladly trade downsides)

> eat one pizza all by myself, to the shock of everyone else around me

I'm puzzled. Which kind of cultural context does this unfold in? Are these pizzas extraordinarily large? Or is it just a cultural issue that you are supposed to share in any event?

Where I'm at (Northern Europe) ordinary pizzas are about the same size of a LP record (around 30cm, or one foot for the metrically challenged). Unless you specifically order multiple (and/or "family sized") pizzas you are really expected to eat the whole of one pizza by yourself. It's in no way remarkable.

House this one:

https://www.tasteofhome.com/article/pizza-hut-big-new-yorker...

That one is thin and really easy to eat the whole thing

Eating a Chicago deep dish by yourself would be impressive. They style from Giordanos or Lou's

When US people say "one pizza" (in group context), they usually refer to a pie around 40-45cm or so. A size where most people would eat roughly 2 slices.

Sharing my dinner with 5 people would make me very grumpy.

> I think there are actually many such points at which teams/companies change significantly. Going from 2 to 3, or 4 to 5 people can feel like a paradigm shift. Team communication often becomes too complex once the team grows beyond 8.

We are struggling to get beyond 10 right now. Every time we hire a new person it feels like resetting the entire org chart. The communication thing is 100% on target. At 8 people it felt manageable. Once we got to 10 it was like someone flipped a goddamn switch somewhere. We added a small management layer but this comes at a cost (i.e. we probably need 15+ to justify it fully).

I know a place that went from 200 to almost 900 over just a bit more than 18 months (VC money can be nice sometimes I guess). The new hires included some highly experienced, and thus less start-upy and older, people. Those were highered, across the org because you found them basically everywhere in small numbers, to help get the company ready for production and finalize development (my guess, it can also be just blind luck).

Then the whole thing got delayed, right around the time the new folks ended up, as part of a bunch of projects, exposing the sheer incompetence in some areas. Areas that are vital to get production of the ground. The delay led to a fight between the old and the new culture, and the delay allowed the old to close ranks with founders and clue less career management. As a result, the new culture lost, then the experienced new people left and / or got sidelined. As a result everything got delayed even more, and now VC money is close to run out.