If that were actually true, America would have by far the world's lowest crime rates. It doesn't. In the developed world, it has one of the highest crime rates. You should read up on "evidence based reasoning".
You are conflating some of the silly and stupid things we have put people ln jail for, and making a broad generalization that since at one time, simple marijuana possession could get you 30 years or so is now the same thing as this.
In addition, you have made a rather interesting leap to assuming a lot of things about me.
n addition, you've presented a mighty fine non-sequitur which is that since 'Murrica jails a lot of people that no more should be jailed because we jail a lot of people.
Our current CC system is DESIGNED to be insecure, because Visa and MasterCard have no incentive to fix it, and actually benefit from additional fees for chargebacks. Blaming the merchants (who bear much of the cost of fraud) and/or end users (who also bear part of the cost) is silly.
You are correct - no incentives. I propose adding some real nice and effective incentives.
... back to work waiting until the next breach.
You are completely missing the point. With a proper 2FA or 3FA system, disclosure of CC#s DOES NOT MATTER, because there would no longer be any reason to pretend they are "secret". In fact, the CC#s themselves would matter so little, that we could just print them directly on the cards.
Isn't "proper" the issue? I use 2 factor for a lot of my online life. I also decline any storage of my card options - but I know damn well they store the CC info anyhow. Right down to that 3 digit number on the back of the card. That's a 2FA, I get texts on my phone for authorization as well. There's your 3FA. I have ot use my zip when I use my gas card outside of my local stations. Its all CC security theater.
I've more often relied on my card issuers to keep things clean as their algorithms note any purchase that is out of my normal patterns, and an actual human calls to verify the transaction. Same with any big ticket purchases. They put a hold on the account and the phone rings immediately. The only time this has been a real problem was once when my wife tried to fuel her car in one city at the same time I was fueling mine in another. I trust the CC issuer a hella lot more than any business I deal with.
But the situation is what it is. Businesses shouldn't be allowed to store CC numbers period. And as I learned a long time ago, some times you only get results when you make your problem someone else's problem. And that person is the person who can fix it.
The CEO of these companies are going to have to face some prison time.
No, that is not the solution. America already imprisons far more people than any other country, four times more than China, Russia, or Iran.
No crime, no punishment, no solution, the situation continues just the same as it has occured for years. Perhaps a stern talking to is in order, and a promise to go to their room and think about what their company has done to millions, and back to work waiting until the next breach.
The CEO of these companies are going to have to face some prison time. Otherwise these companies simply do't give a STD fuck about giving your credit card information away. Why would they. Even if fined, it's just a itty bitty CODB issue.
Send one of them to a max security prison toe get a little butt boning time, and we'll see the problem fixed in no time.
There's a difference between being flexible and learning new things...and.... management rewriting the app every year or two in some new language and never getting around to releasing it.
What's Kotlin? (Feminine hygiene? Geeks should'nt name products...)
HAR! its a new programming language (2011) https://kotlinlang.org/ So there aren't too many with 10 years experience....
I have far more than 10 years experience bullshiting experience I don't have. I first coded *, 12 years before it was specified.
That's what they're asking for when they ask for that. It's simply code for 'must be willing to sling bullshit'.
If you have to do it, learn from it. Not just technical, bullshit skills are lifelong useful. Who knows? You might end up a consultant.
Well, my boss, when he had the chance to meet people before they dealt with me, would always tell them "Just remember, don't bullshit a bulshitter." So I guess I qualify. 8^)
Seriously - anyone at all who can put two thoughs together knows that teh intertoobz has bee collecting our data for years now - I have no idea how this is supposed to be news. While the user can keep some of the tracking and dta grabbing from happening, overall, the Internet has zero privacy, and the more extreme attempts at cloaking just make a person interesting.
Being willing to learn new things is different from being required to constantly shift gears.
How am I supposed to get any good at Yesterdays-Framework.js when management suddenly decides we need to "pivot" to Framework-du-Jour.js?
Hard to say. Over my career I simply learned and adapted to what I needed to do. I actually enjoyed learning new things - I suspect that might be the difference between myself and many/most people. There are rewards for being flexible and open to learning new things.
A "unicorn" is mostly just someone who's been around for more than a few years and kept learning in a broad range of areas. There are plenty out there.
Hopefully there are more of those unicorns coming through the pipeline. I've found so many people simply don't want to learn new things. That won't work in the future, and to a large extent hasn't worked for years. Lifelong learning is the key, and a big part of being a Unicorn is a desire to learn new things. I've seen people lose their jobs because they refuse to learn new things, or learning them poorly when forced.
To some extend, everybody should be a "full stack developer" although this doesn't prevent anybody from specializing in a specific field.
And 100 percent of people should be above average. Just funnin'.
Using people only specialized in specific fields raises the chances of cluster-fuck solutions because nobody gets the big picture and the implications on how components interact.
I have seen it over and over, web developers without any knowledge of network call implications, etc. etc.
Yeah - I mostly agree. Its good to have at least a couple people who know enough about everything to act as a reality check for and to the specialists. But everyone? not happening.
This "full stack" buzzword just reminds me of want ads looking for people with 10 years of experience in Kotlin, plus extensive COBOL experience. Good luck with that,
And you're competing globally against people who are, your job gets outsourced.
Congratulations on discovering why the global village only works well if it's tuned.
THis idea that 'Murrica is failing becauxse oof our work hours - Any citations? As well, can you cite the work conditions with hours worked in trh countries that are eating our lunch?
Allow me to start, since you might be stressed.
While it certainly isn't a dead lock as to flexible work schedules that employees only work duringh their peak performance times, there are indeed only 24 hours in a day - so the average number of hours in a day are of interest. After all, the more hours worked are likely to indicate that not all of those hours are peak time. \
So your thesis is that America is working too much and at the wrong times.
In 2011 the average American was working 1,703.55 hours in a year. W'll for the moment accept that as indicating imminent failure.
In the 1950's the Average American worked 1,920 hours per year. Just sayin'
In France in 2011 the average work week was 1,475.79 per year - that's only a little over 28 hours per week.
UK is similar to the US at 1,650.40 hours per year.
Germany the average is 1,406.25 hours per year - that might argue to your thesis. Germany is an economic powerhouse especially considering it's size and population.
Netherlands a little more on average than France.
Now on to Asia.
Japan is averageing 1,706.25 hours per year - similar to the US
Canada 1,707.88 hours also similar.
Taiwan - its heading up 2,144.40 hours per year.
Singapore - 2,287.20 hours per year. still trending up
While not directly addressing the peak performance hours - which you are going to give us the citations in your next post, I'm reading the situation as rising economies doing it with cheap labor as companies and countries are happy to expolit that fact. Some of the Asian countries like South Korea were well known for Insane hours along with a rising economy. But one thing is for certain, If you are working many more hours per week, it stands to reason they will be more likely to be in a non-optimum time.
I thought that was one of the selling points of Obama care. Didn't Pelosi make some bs comments about how now that people had guaranteed healthcare they didn't need to worry about full time jobs and could pursue art and other crap?
Life is long and hard. It's even harder when your humor gland is missing.
Yeah. the best workers are all just out of college. Probably all of the news and complaints is just that fake news. And that dear friend is interesting indeed. You should take this to the world at large to show this to be the case. Colleges are even trying to end this tyranny of parents who never left their children grow up. You can save them a lot opf money by letting them know it isn't the youn'uns - its the old ones. Good luck.
No, it won't be overturned, quickly or otherwise. Because of the way Prop 65 works. And those grill lines... restaurants that grill stuff already have to have the warning signs, due to prior lawsuits.
The law allows no balancing act. That's left as an exercise for the user.
Doesn't change that it is silly. Obesity is a cancer risk and is caused by food intake. Therefore we must put the warning on all food products.
I still think they should put the warning that coffee drinkers live longer than non-coffee drinkers. http://www.sandiegouniontribun...
At least that has some research behind it, not massive doses given to rats and somehow determining without any study that it is a human carcinogen.
Humans have eaten the offending compound since we started to eat cooked food. You would think there would be a clear association by now.
But overall - it gets a big whatevah, don't care because it is likely bullshit.
As noted in my previous post, that does depend. There are companies that offer flexitime and there are cultures that are highly successful outside the UK/US paradigm. Flexible hours and a good work culture improves competitiveness and some countries are cashing in on that.
Now, if you want to stay in the US, you have to live by US rules. Same with the UK. And most companies are rigid and, well, I wouldn't call it medieval as some Japanese and European corporations have operated successfully from 900 AD until the present. Clearly there were attitudes from back then obviously worked on competitiveness. Nonetheless, there is a certain feudal aspect to it, and indeed that's where most clock development came from - feudal organizations wanting to manage the time of others as much as possible.
If you live in such a world, you have to play by those rules, however inefficient they are. And they are inefficient.
If you want to play by different rules, you've got to find a country that plays by them, a job that is economic to hold there, and a way to be accepted.
So if I read you right, we should come in when we feel like it, and leave when we feel like it, and our success wil be assured....and because Murrica sucks! Sign me the hell up!
If you are good at something - job should accommodate you, not the other way.
Hmm...I take it we grew up getting a trophy for showing up, and raised to think the world revolves around you didn't we?
I've got some bad news for you sunshine....unless you wanna live your live in a box under the freeway, you'd better learn quick that YOU had to adjust to how the rest of the world works and deal with it.
Unless you are independently wealthy already, that's just a fact of life.
Millenials think they are all going to be as rich as Musk and Bezos because of reasons. Like their mere existence. I blame self-esteem culture.
You do know that the type of person you are referring to laughs at your pejorative.
It turns out, lots and lots of companies don't particularly care if you arrive at work at 6am or 10am, as long as you put in a 40-hour week. Sure, that doesn't fit all jobs because in some jobs you need someone to cover those hours. But not in all jobs.
For example, the "meh, get in by 10ish" policy is actually quite frequent for software development and similar IT-related fields....you know, the core audience for Slashdot.
And there are second and third shift jobs, and food service jobs that start at all manner of times.
Point is you show up for work when you are supposed to show up.
In fact, every real job I have had in the last 20 years has taken this approach. It turns out giving employees some time flexibility is a very cheap benefit to offer, and this day-to-day flexibility makes the employees more willing to stay late or work overtime when the need arises, instead of having the employees fixated on a timeclock.
And as that number of years would indicate, I'm not a Millennial. So get off my lawn and start working for decent employers.
While that is interesting, not all work is that way. And never will be. If I were to use my own experience, I would often come in early for meetings, stay late for work or dinners. Experiments and presentations happen when they happen. My computer work wasn't on a strict schedule either. And I was compensated well enough to retire at 55 in today's world.
But people are too worried that da man will take advantage of them I suppose. And I wonder if some of thes folks who are incapable of working other than specific hours might have a metabolism problem in which case I shouldn't be so mean.
Yes, that is how the world works. Problem is, it's inefficient. Which means that whichever company stops working like that first will out-compete those who don't.
This is based on a faulty assumption that if you are not performaing at your peak - the result is failure.
That different people are at their best at different times is well known. I worked at two places - one in the 1970s and one in the 1980s that had core hours. People used it more for personal convenience than for their personal peak hours. But it was there. It disn't make us a bit less or more competitive. It was only a choice. Probably because peak performance time is a bit of a canard. I've performed miracles when I've had bad colds and felt shitty but had to come to work anyhow.
And if you simply must be at peak performance to perform properly - nah, that isn't going to work out.
I work to the real world's schedule, but it's the schedule set by nations with a failing economy that can't keep up with those who work differently.
Yes, when the epitaph for the western world is written, it will surely say The west fell because of a 9 to 5 schedule. Comeon!
The 9am work time exists because that's the time that people in their 50s, on average, become most awake and those were the ones in management positions when the working day drifted towards standardisation.
The average time for different age groups to reach peak awareness is basically later for younger people (teenagers are basically useless before 11am). This has been studied for ages and is well known.
So what? Most people don't need peak awareness in their work. Simple proficiency is fine. Here's a question. Since we are geting to the point of demanding that a person set their hours because of when they are maximally alert - should we do this for everything? There's a meeting, but you don't have to attend because you aren't really quite awake at that time - or do we have to take a poll so that no one is uncomfortable at that time, so we might end up not having meetings at all? Everyone must be at peak alertness, or it's a failure....
And most of all, what of those people who are useful only a few hours a day - it is unfair and "timeist" to force them to work except a tthe times they are feeling it.
And what of the ultimate - the holy grail of the healthy yet time challenged - the person who has no good time at all to be productive? It is discrimination of the highest order to force them to work - they need to be compensated at the level of the career they identify with, yet are too time challenged to work.
There are outliers (in both directions). Any job that expects any kind of alertness or creative output should adapt the work times for individuals. Doing anything else is simply accepting that you won't get the best work out of people and whichever manager decides on it should be willing to explain it to the shareholders and auditors.
Good luck with that idea. The problem with the Snowflake productivity time dictates is that it might be productivity, but is an exact excuse people can use for laziness.
I don't even accept that people can't adjust. My inherent best productivity times are from about 8 p.m. to 2:30 a.m. Justy about useless for the workday. Yet I worked whatever times I needed to through 40 some years and performed very well. That was usually 0800 to 1700, with meetings often coming in at 0600, and various evening times. If I flew from the east coast to the west, and came back a month later, I simply adjusted. I suppose today's snowflakes can't do that, because time zone differences would surely kill them.
You must be young, perhaps a millennial in order to thing that 9am is "onerous".....but that's they way the real world works my friend.
If you want to make a healthy living, you need to face up to that quick.
The days of sleeping till noon are for teens still living at home, as an adult, you need to go to bed earlier and get up for real world hours.
The whole snowflake work thing is right up there with this grading thing. And it isn't new, although much more prevalent today. Snowflake might find an employer that puts up with their demands for a while, but when the going gets tough, they aren't the ones staying at work. And moving back with mommy and daddy only works so long - unless they are willing to destroy their retirement savings just so snowflake can pot and be unemployed because snowflake's job isn't perfect.
I worked with some snowflakes, the one's who had the "NO one's gonna take advantage of ME!" attitude. I don't work overtime, I don't work over break, over lunch, I don't go on field trips, I don't deal with the suits, blah blah blah. Then a downturn happens. Bye snowflake! The difference between the snowflakes of earlier times was they stuck the job out until layoff time. Millennials today quit on their own and move back home.
Not that you'd ever convince them - too many years of participation trophies have destroyed their responsibility gland.
Perhaps. Or perhaps - like me - one may only accept jobs without onerous requirements on hours worked. You want me to be in at 9am for a quarterly review meeting? Sure. You need me in by 9am every morning. Nope.
That's okay, there are plenty more capable people who can do what is simply beyond your ability.
Slashdot Mirror
No crime, no punishment, no solution
If that were actually true, America would have by far the world's lowest crime rates. It doesn't. In the developed world, it has one of the highest crime rates. You should read up on "evidence based reasoning".
You are conflating some of the silly and stupid things we have put people ln jail for, and making a broad generalization that since at one time, simple marijuana possession could get you 30 years or so is now the same thing as this.
In addition, you have made a rather interesting leap to assuming a lot of things about me.
n addition, you've presented a mighty fine non-sequitur which is that since 'Murrica jails a lot of people that no more should be jailed because we jail a lot of people.
Our current CC system is DESIGNED to be insecure, because Visa and MasterCard have no incentive to fix it, and actually benefit from additional fees for chargebacks. Blaming the merchants (who bear much of the cost of fraud) and/or end users (who also bear part of the cost) is silly.
You are correct - no incentives. I propose adding some real nice and effective incentives.
... back to work waiting until the next breach.
You are completely missing the point. With a proper 2FA or 3FA system, disclosure of CC#s DOES NOT MATTER, because there would no longer be any reason to pretend they are "secret". In fact, the CC#s themselves would matter so little, that we could just print them directly on the cards.
Isn't "proper" the issue? I use 2 factor for a lot of my online life. I also decline any storage of my card options - but I know damn well they store the CC info anyhow. Right down to that 3 digit number on the back of the card. That's a 2FA, I get texts on my phone for authorization as well. There's your 3FA. I have ot use my zip when I use my gas card outside of my local stations. Its all CC security theater.
I've more often relied on my card issuers to keep things clean as their algorithms note any purchase that is out of my normal patterns, and an actual human calls to verify the transaction. Same with any big ticket purchases. They put a hold on the account and the phone rings immediately. The only time this has been a real problem was once when my wife tried to fuel her car in one city at the same time I was fueling mine in another. I trust the CC issuer a hella lot more than any business I deal with.
But the situation is what it is. Businesses shouldn't be allowed to store CC numbers period. And as I learned a long time ago, some times you only get results when you make your problem someone else's problem. And that person is the person who can fix it.
Back to waiting for the next breach.
The CEO of these companies are going to have to face some prison time.
No, that is not the solution. America already imprisons far more people than any other country, four times more than China, Russia, or Iran.
No crime, no punishment, no solution, the situation continues just the same as it has occured for years. Perhaps a stern talking to is in order, and a promise to go to their room and think about what their company has done to millions, and back to work waiting until the next breach.
Send one of them to a max security prison toe get a little butt boning time, and we'll see the problem fixed in no time.
The crudeness of this post was quite intentional.
There's a difference between being flexible and learning new things...and.... management rewriting the app every year or two in some new language and never getting around to releasing it.
As long as I got paid....
What's Kotlin? (Feminine hygiene? Geeks should'nt name products...)
HAR! its a new programming language (2011) https://kotlinlang.org/ So there aren't too many with 10 years experience....
I have far more than 10 years experience bullshiting experience I don't have. I first coded *, 12 years before it was specified.
That's what they're asking for when they ask for that. It's simply code for 'must be willing to sling bullshit'.
If you have to do it, learn from it. Not just technical, bullshit skills are lifelong useful. Who knows? You might end up a consultant.
Well, my boss, when he had the chance to meet people before they dealt with me, would always tell them "Just remember, don't bullshit a bulshitter." So I guess I qualify. 8^)
Seriously - anyone at all who can put two thoughs together knows that teh intertoobz has bee collecting our data for years now - I have no idea how this is supposed to be news. While the user can keep some of the tracking and dta grabbing from happening, overall, the Internet has zero privacy, and the more extreme attempts at cloaking just make a person interesting.
Being willing to learn new things is different from being required to constantly shift gears.
How am I supposed to get any good at Yesterdays-Framework.js when management suddenly decides we need to "pivot" to Framework-du-Jour.js?
Hard to say. Over my career I simply learned and adapted to what I needed to do. I actually enjoyed learning new things - I suspect that might be the difference between myself and many/most people. There are rewards for being flexible and open to learning new things.
A "unicorn" is mostly just someone who's been around for more than a few years and kept learning in a broad range of areas. There are plenty out there.
Hopefully there are more of those unicorns coming through the pipeline. I've found so many people simply don't want to learn new things. That won't work in the future, and to a large extent hasn't worked for years. Lifelong learning is the key, and a big part of being a Unicorn is a desire to learn new things. I've seen people lose their jobs because they refuse to learn new things, or learning them poorly when forced.
To some extend, everybody should be a "full stack developer" although this doesn't prevent anybody from specializing in a specific field.
And 100 percent of people should be above average. Just funnin'.
Using people only specialized in specific fields raises the chances of cluster-fuck solutions because nobody gets the big picture and the implications on how components interact.
I have seen it over and over, web developers without any knowledge of network call implications, etc. etc.
Yeah - I mostly agree. Its good to have at least a couple people who know enough about everything to act as a reality check for and to the specialists. But everyone? not happening.
This "full stack" buzzword just reminds me of want ads looking for people with 10 years of experience in Kotlin, plus extensive COBOL experience. Good luck with that,
Well, it's better than the Republican health plan - "Please die quickly!"
Life is long and hard. It's even longer without a sense of humor. But hard to feel sorry for ya if you don't have one.
And you're competing globally against people who are, your job gets outsourced.
Congratulations on discovering why the global village only works well if it's tuned.
THis idea that 'Murrica is failing becauxse oof our work hours - Any citations? As well, can you cite the work conditions with hours worked in trh countries that are eating our lunch?
Allow me to start, since you might be stressed.
While it certainly isn't a dead lock as to flexible work schedules that employees only work duringh their peak performance times, there are indeed only 24 hours in a day - so the average number of hours in a day are of interest. After all, the more hours worked are likely to indicate that not all of those hours are peak time. \ So your thesis is that America is working too much and at the wrong times.
In 2011 the average American was working 1,703.55 hours in a year. W'll for the moment accept that as indicating imminent failure.
In the 1950's the Average American worked 1,920 hours per year. Just sayin'
In France in 2011 the average work week was 1,475.79 per year - that's only a little over 28 hours per week.
UK is similar to the US at 1,650.40 hours per year.
Germany the average is 1,406.25 hours per year - that might argue to your thesis. Germany is an economic powerhouse especially considering it's size and population.
Netherlands a little more on average than France.
Now on to Asia.
Japan is averageing 1,706.25 hours per year - similar to the US
Canada 1,707.88 hours also similar.
Taiwan - its heading up 2,144.40 hours per year.
Singapore - 2,287.20 hours per year. still trending up
Hong Kong - closing in on 2,400 hours per year.
Sauce: https://www.theblaze.com/news/...
While not directly addressing the peak performance hours - which you are going to give us the citations in your next post, I'm reading the situation as rising economies doing it with cheap labor as companies and countries are happy to expolit that fact. Some of the Asian countries like South Korea were well known for Insane hours along with a rising economy. But one thing is for certain, If you are working many more hours per week, it stands to reason they will be more likely to be in a non-optimum time.
It should work about as well as Adobe's creative cloud.
I thought that was one of the selling points of Obama care. Didn't Pelosi make some bs comments about how now that people had guaranteed healthcare they didn't need to worry about full time jobs and could pursue art and other crap?
Life is long and hard. It's even harder when your humor gland is missing.
So hot tubs cause cancer now
How many hours/day would you say you walk around with a hot tub in your pocket ?
I've been accused of having hot tub in my pocket when I was just happy to see someone.
Yeah. the best workers are all just out of college. Probably all of the news and complaints is just that fake news. And that dear friend is interesting indeed. You should take this to the world at large to show this to be the case. Colleges are even trying to end this tyranny of parents who never left their children grow up. You can save them a lot opf money by letting them know it isn't the youn'uns - its the old ones. Good luck.
Improve your skills, become marketable, hoist yourself up by your own petards, and join the economy as a maker and not a taker.
What the hell does this drivel actually mean? Improve ones skill and then be blown up by a bomb you created?
Sounds like a replacement for Obamacare.
hoist yourself up by your own petards
You know this phrase means killing yourself, right? Seems less than helpful advice.
Well, it's better than the Republican health plan - "Please die quickly!"
No, it won't be overturned, quickly or otherwise. Because of the way Prop 65 works. And those grill lines ... restaurants that grill stuff already have to have the warning signs, due to prior lawsuits.
The law allows no balancing act. That's left as an exercise for the user.
Doesn't change that it is silly. Obesity is a cancer risk and is caused by food intake. Therefore we must put the warning on all food products.
I still think they should put the warning that coffee drinkers live longer than non-coffee drinkers. http://www.sandiegouniontribun...
At least that has some research behind it, not massive doses given to rats and somehow determining without any study that it is a human carcinogen.
Humans have eaten the offending compound since we started to eat cooked food. You would think there would be a clear association by now.
But overall - it gets a big whatevah, don't care because it is likely bullshit.
As noted in my previous post, that does depend. There are companies that offer flexitime and there are cultures that are highly successful outside the UK/US paradigm. Flexible hours and a good work culture improves competitiveness and some countries are cashing in on that.
Now, if you want to stay in the US, you have to live by US rules. Same with the UK. And most companies are rigid and, well, I wouldn't call it medieval as some Japanese and European corporations have operated successfully from 900 AD until the present. Clearly there were attitudes from back then obviously worked on competitiveness. Nonetheless, there is a certain feudal aspect to it, and indeed that's where most clock development came from - feudal organizations wanting to manage the time of others as much as possible.
If you live in such a world, you have to play by those rules, however inefficient they are. And they are inefficient.
If you want to play by different rules, you've got to find a country that plays by them, a job that is economic to hold there, and a way to be accepted.
So if I read you right, we should come in when we feel like it, and leave when we feel like it, and our success wil be assured....and because Murrica sucks! Sign me the hell up!
Hmm...I take it we grew up getting a trophy for showing up, and raised to think the world revolves around you didn't we?
I've got some bad news for you sunshine....unless you wanna live your live in a box under the freeway, you'd better learn quick that YOU had to adjust to how the rest of the world works and deal with it.
Unless you are independently wealthy already, that's just a fact of life.
Millenials think they are all going to be as rich as Musk and Bezos because of reasons. Like their mere existence. I blame self-esteem culture.
Hi stereotypical uniformed grandpa character.
You do know that the type of person you are referring to laughs at your pejorative.
It turns out, lots and lots of companies don't particularly care if you arrive at work at 6am or 10am, as long as you put in a 40-hour week. Sure, that doesn't fit all jobs because in some jobs you need someone to cover those hours. But not in all jobs.
For example, the "meh, get in by 10ish" policy is actually quite frequent for software development and similar IT-related fields....you know, the core audience for Slashdot.
And there are second and third shift jobs, and food service jobs that start at all manner of times.
Point is you show up for work when you are supposed to show up.
In fact, every real job I have had in the last 20 years has taken this approach. It turns out giving employees some time flexibility is a very cheap benefit to offer, and this day-to-day flexibility makes the employees more willing to stay late or work overtime when the need arises, instead of having the employees fixated on a timeclock.
And as that number of years would indicate, I'm not a Millennial. So get off my lawn and start working for decent employers.
While that is interesting, not all work is that way. And never will be. If I were to use my own experience, I would often come in early for meetings, stay late for work or dinners. Experiments and presentations happen when they happen. My computer work wasn't on a strict schedule either. And I was compensated well enough to retire at 55 in today's world.
But people are too worried that da man will take advantage of them I suppose. And I wonder if some of thes folks who are incapable of working other than specific hours might have a metabolism problem in which case I shouldn't be so mean.
Yes, that is how the world works. Problem is, it's inefficient. Which means that whichever company stops working like that first will out-compete those who don't.
This is based on a faulty assumption that if you are not performaing at your peak - the result is failure.
That different people are at their best at different times is well known. I worked at two places - one in the 1970s and one in the 1980s that had core hours. People used it more for personal convenience than for their personal peak hours. But it was there. It disn't make us a bit less or more competitive. It was only a choice. Probably because peak performance time is a bit of a canard. I've performed miracles when I've had bad colds and felt shitty but had to come to work anyhow.
And if you simply must be at peak performance to perform properly - nah, that isn't going to work out.
I work to the real world's schedule, but it's the schedule set by nations with a failing economy that can't keep up with those who work differently.
Yes, when the epitaph for the western world is written, it will surely say The west fell because of a 9 to 5 schedule. Comeon!
The 9am work time exists because that's the time that people in their 50s, on average, become most awake and those were the ones in management positions when the working day drifted towards standardisation.
Oh my Gawd - You probably believe that Air conditioning is sexist too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The average time for different age groups to reach peak awareness is basically later for younger people (teenagers are basically useless before 11am). This has been studied for ages and is well known.
So what? Most people don't need peak awareness in their work. Simple proficiency is fine. Here's a question. Since we are geting to the point of demanding that a person set their hours because of when they are maximally alert - should we do this for everything? There's a meeting, but you don't have to attend because you aren't really quite awake at that time - or do we have to take a poll so that no one is uncomfortable at that time, so we might end up not having meetings at all? Everyone must be at peak alertness, or it's a failure....
And most of all, what of those people who are useful only a few hours a day - it is unfair and "timeist" to force them to work except a tthe times they are feeling it.
And what of the ultimate - the holy grail of the healthy yet time challenged - the person who has no good time at all to be productive? It is discrimination of the highest order to force them to work - they need to be compensated at the level of the career they identify with, yet are too time challenged to work.
There are outliers (in both directions). Any job that expects any kind of alertness or creative output should adapt the work times for individuals. Doing anything else is simply accepting that you won't get the best work out of people and whichever manager decides on it should be willing to explain it to the shareholders and auditors.
Good luck with that idea. The problem with the Snowflake productivity time dictates is that it might be productivity, but is an exact excuse people can use for laziness.
I don't even accept that people can't adjust. My inherent best productivity times are from about 8 p.m. to 2:30 a.m. Justy about useless for the workday. Yet I worked whatever times I needed to through 40 some years and performed very well. That was usually 0800 to 1700, with meetings often coming in at 0600, and various evening times. If I flew from the east coast to the west, and came back a month later, I simply adjusted. I suppose today's snowflakes can't do that, because time zone differences would surely kill them.
You must be young, perhaps a millennial in order to thing that 9am is "onerous".....but that's they way the real world works my friend.
If you want to make a healthy living, you need to face up to that quick.
The days of sleeping till noon are for teens still living at home, as an adult, you need to go to bed earlier and get up for real world hours.
The whole snowflake work thing is right up there with this grading thing. And it isn't new, although much more prevalent today. Snowflake might find an employer that puts up with their demands for a while, but when the going gets tough, they aren't the ones staying at work. And moving back with mommy and daddy only works so long - unless they are willing to destroy their retirement savings just so snowflake can pot and be unemployed because snowflake's job isn't perfect.
I worked with some snowflakes, the one's who had the "NO one's gonna take advantage of ME!" attitude. I don't work overtime, I don't work over break, over lunch, I don't go on field trips, I don't deal with the suits, blah blah blah. Then a downturn happens. Bye snowflake! The difference between the snowflakes of earlier times was they stuck the job out until layoff time. Millennials today quit on their own and move back home.
Not that you'd ever convince them - too many years of participation trophies have destroyed their responsibility gland.
Perhaps. Or perhaps - like me - one may only accept jobs without onerous requirements on hours worked. You want me to be in at 9am for a quarterly review meeting? Sure. You need me in by 9am every morning. Nope.
That's okay, there are plenty more capable people who can do what is simply beyond your ability.