I've been at both ends of the spectrum and my conclusion is about 20 hours of work a week is a ideal.
40 hours/week or more makes me tired, and 0 makes me bored, causing general malaise and lethargy.
3 x 8 hours or 4 x 6 hours is about perfect. Just enough to get interesting, but not enough to be fatigued.
... and an executive deciding he has to "do something", else when it does blow up he did NOT do "something".
Reminds me of interesting story I heard somewhere:
Research (sorry this is an anecdote I don't have a reference) showed that the death rates of wounded soldiers in Vietnam was a lot higher than (again, can't remember detail) the Falklands War. Upon trying to figure out why, researchers found that in Vietnam, medical support were on the scene a lot quicker, and their immediate response is to try and "do something" to save the patient.
In the Falklands, wounded ground soldiers were isolated for much longer periods, and hence there was nothing that could be done. But the irony is that the Falklands soldier had a higher chance of survival precisely because in many cases, the best response to a bullet wound is to stem the bleeding and let the body fix itself.
So the summary is, doing nothing can often work better than doing something. It is just unintuitive, so no-one ever accepts doing nothing as a viable option
The medallion system is a market-based system that tried to solve that problem.
Can't comment on Medallions, but with our Plates, there was no free market about it. Each time the State Gov wanted to review Plate numbers, the taxi lobby would go full force to block any attempts to increase them. And it worked every time.
Do you have an idea that might work better? The problem of "too many taxis" may not exist for your city now, but if the market was completely opened up it could become a major problem very fast. Good luck trying to close the barn door at that point.
What stops to many fish and chip shops from opening? Or Shoe shops? The real free market has already solved that problem, and Uber is closer to that ideal that the old taxi monopoly.
Who gives a fuck about Taxi companies?
If taxi drivers simply swapped over to Uber, it would be win-win. Customers get imprvoed service, drivers keep their jobs, and fuckwits who imposed the shitty taxi services on us for decades go bankrupt.
Given that this is specifically about NYC, which I've done a bit of study on, it's actually worse than you say.
Similar story here. The Taxi plate was up to about $400k prior to Uber, but this was driven by a corrupt industry that invested huge dollars in lobbying to keep the plate pool deliberately small.
Technology has made the whole concept of taxi plates obsolete. It was a form of regulation to try and keep some sanity in an era where there zero surveillance or tracking. These days with electronic driving records, insurance histories, GPS, and camera in everyone's hand, there is simply no need for such outdated monopolies.
If hipsters want to change the law into a race to the bottom for owner-operators, then the first thing they must do is buy back those medallions at a fair price. People have worked their entire lives to pay for a single medallion, a bunch of parasites who believe the law doesn't apply to them are rapidly making them worthless.
Medallions, or plates as our equivalent is here, are an investment choice. People chose that investment as a way to try and make some money and it was short-sighted.
If you chose to put money into an industry with one of the worst reputations ever, that was just ripe for tech VC to disrupt and destroy your investment, then it's you have no-one to blame but yourself.
Nazi Germany was a threat in 1938, should we also invade them now?
I shall clarify for the pedants. Saddam was not really a threat to us when we made the decision to invade his country.
Just because the ask you to use your real name doesn't mean you have to.
I have a couple of FB accounts with nothing on them, and that I never log onto, purely for using on those websites that want to use FB accounts to log in with.
The problem was that my bother skied. And he knew, from painful, first-hand experience, that if you are skiing down a mountain, and you hit just the tiniest bare spot--just the tiniest patch of dirt or rock--it feels like your ski has been grabbed by a bear trap..
Bullshit. Youtube ski stunts, and you'll see all sorts of tricks on all sorts of surfaces other than snow...
Batman is not real, so why not just have every character fly around with 8 arms and become invisible on a whim? Because all good fiction is tied to the fact that there is some real elements, and the more consistent those elements are with the world you already know, the more engaged you become in the story.
Remember when Saddam had some complex masterplan for building chemical and nuclear weapons? And Al Qaeda were criminal masterminds? Now it is ISIL (The Tiny Penises) that have sophisticated methods that only our authorities can figure out if you give them unlimited powers.
I feel that this terror threat is vastly over-stated. Saddam was not a really threat (a little but not that much). Al Qaeda weren't really a threat (sure they killed people, but hardly enough to roll over your way of life for), and now The Tiny Pensis are a threat (no they aren't).
Don't even call them that. Call them The Tiny Penises, and every time you see them on TV, or someone mentions them at a dinner party, laugh out loud and say "It's the tiny penises!". Then make lots of tiny penis jokes.
Being tough guys with a tough sounding name is working in their favour. I suspect ridicule will assist in reducing possible future recruitment.
Akbal: "Hey Ahmed, I'm thinking of joining ISIS".
Ahmed "Haha you want to join The Tiny Penises?! Why do you have a tiny penis?"
Akbal reconsiders and joins goes back to playing Counterstrike instead.
It's not racism, it's the monkeysphere!
No-one wants to admit it, but the monkeysphere is the reason for a lot of these types of problems. It really should be part of the school curriculum.
It seems Anonymous haven't learnt from the whole RIAA/MPAA debacle.
As you say, you can't win at whack-a-mole, you need to give the moles Ebola and let them do your work for you.
There was terrorism before airports, therefore we should not protect airports....
The Paris terrorists were French citizens, they had the Internet.
Communication is the key to coordinating any major operation. The removal of any communication channel can only be a positive.
All good points, and I didn't mean to sound like a dick, it just seems like a lot of one way traffic lately.
FWIW, working in IT most people I work with are immigrants and they're mostly decent people. But I do believe that there is a critical point with introduced cultures where both too little and too much bring adverse affects. The trick is finding the sweet spot in the middle.
Running away can allow you to gather, take a few breaths, re-group and figure out how to attack the problem in the long-term...
Or as has been the case for the last few decades, move to a nicer a country and simply forget about it.
I think more of the burden lies with refugees. Sure you're welcome to shelter in my house while you regroup, but that invitation will expire, so start thinking about a plan to go home.
Maybe refugee camps could double as military conscription centres? We'll take you in, but you get 6 months of training then we send you back to try and sort your problems out yourself.
I'm not sure it's the same thing. Evacuation of fighting troops so they can fight again is one thing, but a nation of civilians under attack, simply running away and hiding elsewhere not interested in fighting for their homes is another.
What do Syrians expect to happen here, just to flee and get someone else to sort out there problems for them? I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but at some point someone has to stand-up for themselves. Why does that always seem to be us?
I'm a bit naive in such matters, but what I don't get is why running away from your country's problems is considered acceptable behaviour? When Hitler came knocking, my grandparents generation didn't run away. They stood their ground and fought to the last.
I can't help but think if all those millions of refugees stood their ground instead of running away, they might actually have a good chance of defeating these idiots. How does running away fix the problem?
Slashdot Mirror
I've been at both ends of the spectrum and my conclusion is about 20 hours of work a week is a ideal.
40 hours/week or more makes me tired, and 0 makes me bored, causing general malaise and lethargy.
3 x 8 hours or 4 x 6 hours is about perfect. Just enough to get interesting, but not enough to be fatigued.
... and an executive deciding he has to "do something", else when it does blow up he did NOT do "something".
Reminds me of interesting story I heard somewhere:
Research (sorry this is an anecdote I don't have a reference) showed that the death rates of wounded soldiers in Vietnam was a lot higher than (again, can't remember detail) the Falklands War. Upon trying to figure out why, researchers found that in Vietnam, medical support were on the scene a lot quicker, and their immediate response is to try and "do something" to save the patient.
In the Falklands, wounded ground soldiers were isolated for much longer periods, and hence there was nothing that could be done. But the irony is that the Falklands soldier had a higher chance of survival precisely because in many cases, the best response to a bullet wound is to stem the bleeding and let the body fix itself.
So the summary is, doing nothing can often work better than doing something. It is just unintuitive, so no-one ever accepts doing nothing as a viable option
The medallion system is a market-based system that tried to solve that problem.
Can't comment on Medallions, but with our Plates, there was no free market about it. Each time the State Gov wanted to review Plate numbers, the taxi lobby would go full force to block any attempts to increase them. And it worked every time.
Do you have an idea that might work better? The problem of "too many taxis" may not exist for your city now, but if the market was completely opened up it could become a major problem very fast. Good luck trying to close the barn door at that point.
What stops to many fish and chip shops from opening? Or Shoe shops? The real free market has already solved that problem, and Uber is closer to that ideal that the old taxi monopoly.
Who gives a fuck about Taxi companies?
If taxi drivers simply swapped over to Uber, it would be win-win. Customers get imprvoed service, drivers keep their jobs, and fuckwits who imposed the shitty taxi services on us for decades go bankrupt.
Given that this is specifically about NYC, which I've done a bit of study on, it's actually worse than you say.
Similar story here. The Taxi plate was up to about $400k prior to Uber, but this was driven by a corrupt industry that invested huge dollars in lobbying to keep the plate pool deliberately small.
Technology has made the whole concept of taxi plates obsolete. It was a form of regulation to try and keep some sanity in an era where there zero surveillance or tracking. These days with electronic driving records, insurance histories, GPS, and camera in everyone's hand, there is simply no need for such outdated monopolies.
If hipsters want to change the law into a race to the bottom for owner-operators, then the first thing they must do is buy back those medallions at a fair price. People have worked their entire lives to pay for a single medallion, a bunch of parasites who believe the law doesn't apply to them are rapidly making them worthless.
Medallions, or plates as our equivalent is here, are an investment choice. People chose that investment as a way to try and make some money and it was short-sighted.
If you chose to put money into an industry with one of the worst reputations ever, that was just ripe for tech VC to disrupt and destroy your investment, then it's you have no-one to blame but yourself.
Right now, pay phones outnumber taxis in Los Angeles by several orders of magnitude.
I think that says more about Los Angeles than the pay phones...
Nazi Germany was a threat in 1938, should we also invade them now?
I shall clarify for the pedants. Saddam was not really a threat to us when we made the decision to invade his country.
And ISIL has killed more people in Syria and Iraq than the police in the US have. Or are you saying that only first world, western lives count? .
In domestic policy matters, yes.
Seriously social media is useless for small business.
You say that as if it is new information. FB has always sucked, and always will.
Just because the ask you to use your real name doesn't mean you have to.
I have a couple of FB accounts with nothing on them, and that I never log onto, purely for using on those websites that want to use FB accounts to log in with.
That all have tiny penises....
The problem was that my bother skied. And he knew, from painful, first-hand experience, that if you are skiing down a mountain, and you hit just the tiniest bare spot--just the tiniest patch of dirt or rock--it feels like your ski has been grabbed by a bear trap..
Bullshit. Youtube ski stunts, and you'll see all sorts of tricks on all sorts of surfaces other than snow...
He never said it was, and the comments on that page already highlight that false assumption.
How does it feel to be that guy?
Batman is not real, so why not just have every character fly around with 8 arms and become invisible on a whim? Because all good fiction is tied to the fact that there is some real elements, and the more consistent those elements are with the world you already know, the more engaged you become in the story.
Remember when Saddam had some complex masterplan for building chemical and nuclear weapons? And Al Qaeda were criminal masterminds? Now it is ISIL (The Tiny Penises) that have sophisticated methods that only our authorities can figure out if you give them unlimited powers.
I feel that this terror threat is vastly over-stated. Saddam was not a really threat (a little but not that much). Al Qaeda weren't really a threat (sure they killed people, but hardly enough to roll over your way of life for), and now The Tiny Pensis are a threat (no they aren't).
To put it in perspective, the Police in the US have killed more civilians this year than The Tiny Penises have in France.
Terrorists are shitty humans, but it's not enough to give up for freedom and privacy for.
Don't even call them that. Call them The Tiny Penises, and every time you see them on TV, or someone mentions them at a dinner party, laugh out loud and say "It's the tiny penises!". Then make lots of tiny penis jokes.
Being tough guys with a tough sounding name is working in their favour. I suspect ridicule will assist in reducing possible future recruitment.
Akbal: "Hey Ahmed, I'm thinking of joining ISIS".
Ahmed "Haha you want to join The Tiny Penises?! Why do you have a tiny penis?"
Akbal reconsiders and joins goes back to playing Counterstrike instead.
It's not racism, it's the monkeysphere!
No-one wants to admit it, but the monkeysphere is the reason for a lot of these types of problems. It really should be part of the school curriculum.
It seems Anonymous haven't learnt from the whole RIAA/MPAA debacle.
As you say, you can't win at whack-a-mole, you need to give the moles Ebola and let them do your work for you.
There was terrorism before airports, therefore we should not protect airports....
The Paris terrorists were French citizens, they had the Internet.
Communication is the key to coordinating any major operation. The removal of any communication channel can only be a positive.
All good points, and I didn't mean to sound like a dick, it just seems like a lot of one way traffic lately.
FWIW, working in IT most people I work with are immigrants and they're mostly decent people. But I do believe that there is a critical point with introduced cultures where both too little and too much bring adverse affects. The trick is finding the sweet spot in the middle.
Saddam was also weak, but the truth is always the first casualty of war.
That's a rather simplistic way of looking at it.
Running away can allow you to gather, take a few breaths, re-group and figure out how to attack the problem in the long-term...
Or as has been the case for the last few decades, move to a nicer a country and simply forget about it.
I think more of the burden lies with refugees. Sure you're welcome to shelter in my house while you regroup, but that invitation will expire, so start thinking about a plan to go home.
Maybe refugee camps could double as military conscription centres? We'll take you in, but you get 6 months of training then we send you back to try and sort your problems out yourself.
I'm not sure it's the same thing. Evacuation of fighting troops so they can fight again is one thing, but a nation of civilians under attack, simply running away and hiding elsewhere not interested in fighting for their homes is another.
What do Syrians expect to happen here, just to flee and get someone else to sort out there problems for them? I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but at some point someone has to stand-up for themselves. Why does that always seem to be us?
I'm a bit naive in such matters, but what I don't get is why running away from your country's problems is considered acceptable behaviour? When Hitler came knocking, my grandparents generation didn't run away. They stood their ground and fought to the last.
I can't help but think if all those millions of refugees stood their ground instead of running away, they might actually have a good chance of defeating these idiots. How does running away fix the problem?