But per my point, when did they arrive at work and when did they leave? At google, the main rewards seem to be tied to (hour I leave - hour I arrive) * days worked per week.
At many places (Google for example) your performance rating will be about 90% hours, 10% what you got done in those hours. It's a perception game, created by the lack of effective metrics for productivity other than hours.
Rotating spacecraft solve the microgravity problem. The trip time issue is a different issue entirely. But assuming you're smart and use a ramscoop to feed an ion thruster to push you along at a wimpy 1/100th of a gravity, you can make the trip to alpha centauri in something like 50 years. You're barely into noticeably relativistic territory there.
You wrote all of this but haven't heard of rotating spacecraft? Centripetal acceleration is the well known solution to this problem. 1g is all you need, doesn't require much of a rotational speed at all, and can be done for very low energy cost to the mission.
I'm still saving up! Now by the time I have the money, I won't be able to get one! (Or based on the rarity, the price will always climb faster than I gain money!)
That effect is caused by living in microgravity, not exposure to deep space. We have the technology today to build ships that do not require the crew to live in microgravity.
Google can't really kill the 20% time because they don't technically own those hours. Googlers average 65 in the office * 80% company = 52 hour workweek, plus 13 that goes to 'personal' projects (which are supposed to help the company too).
Obviously you have to do your testing based on deltas. Did the teacher improve the students? How much? The bigger the delta, the bigger the reward. So quality teachers who choose to take on difficult students have the most to gain. Ordinary teachers who teach high achievers likely get nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. But as you say, it's not the bosses money, ergo he is not the employer.
The more you pay for an employee with negative productivity, the worse the situation, the better it gets to pay more for two employees instead.
Indeed, easily gamed, as suggested by the parent to whom I was replying.
Not if the 80 hour employee produces less, or even negative work due to exhaustion. Which happens, almost all the time.
The margin on 80 vs 40 is typically negative, not positive.
The employer doesn't think they are paying for negative productivity. What they are actually getting is a different story.
I'm pretty sure none of that is relevant to the point I was making. If anything, they make my point stronger.
But per my point, when did they arrive at work and when did they leave? At google, the main rewards seem to be tied to (hour I leave - hour I arrive) * days worked per week.
At many places (Google for example) your performance rating will be about 90% hours, 10% what you got done in those hours. It's a perception game, created by the lack of effective metrics for productivity other than hours.
We don't measure lives in hours? I'll remember not to celebrate my next birthday.
1 is untrue. The 80 hour employee is going to cost you much more. Paying for negative productivity is very expensive in the long run.
I'd guess their solar storm insurance provider. And they shouldn't have to sue, but when the dollars get that big they will probably have to.
Rotating spacecraft solve the microgravity problem. The trip time issue is a different issue entirely. But assuming you're smart and use a ramscoop to feed an ion thruster to push you along at a wimpy 1/100th of a gravity, you can make the trip to alpha centauri in something like 50 years. You're barely into noticeably relativistic territory there.
You wrote all of this but haven't heard of rotating spacecraft? Centripetal acceleration is the well known solution to this problem. 1g is all you need, doesn't require much of a rotational speed at all, and can be done for very low energy cost to the mission.
I'm still saving up! Now by the time I have the money, I won't be able to get one! (Or based on the rarity, the price will always climb faster than I gain money!)
Thanks to C, time and distance really are interchangeable.
That effect is caused by living in microgravity, not exposure to deep space. We have the technology today to build ships that do not require the crew to live in microgravity.
It's a route optimization problem, sort of like traveling salesman. Getting the route done in less than 12 parsecs is really good.
There are cake makers who can print your digital images as frosting. Tasty!
Google can't really kill the 20% time because they don't technically own those hours. Googlers average 65 in the office * 80% company = 52 hour workweek, plus 13 that goes to 'personal' projects (which are supposed to help the company too).
They're only on project 357 of 1000. They still have 643 to go, and aren't likely, statistically speaking, to have hit their next win yet.
I believe the claim is that those other companies had competent project management going on.
But in the long long run, crippled people destroy your opponent's economy. That's why the chinese poison our children's toys with lead.
Obviously you have to do your testing based on deltas. Did the teacher improve the students? How much? The bigger the delta, the bigger the reward. So quality teachers who choose to take on difficult students have the most to gain. Ordinary teachers who teach high achievers likely get nothing.
Well, our sun isn't the kind that goes nova. That chance is zero. I know people in the brain repair research area. That chance is greater than zero.