That really depends where you are. In metro regions like NYC, Boston, and I imagine, many others, the cost of one regular (i.e. not IMAX, 3D etc) ticket is $15-$20, and that excludes popcorn and soda. For me, I'd have to watch around 5 movies a *year* for it to pay itself. That said, there is no chance in hell that it'll last that even half as long.
The issue is that the modern workplace, with so many meetings etc, does not even *allow* people to focus. There have been tons of studies showing that humans aren't capable of multi-tasking, much less when one is already getting several calls, hundreds of emails, and meeting invites all at the same time. I, for one, don't miss my consulting job.
The problem is that they say that performance has improved. But by how much? If only by 5%, then what benefit is that? It'll mean that employees are effectively getting a 25% bonus and little to show for it; and labor is typically one of the most expensive parts of an operation. By bumping the costs by an additional 25% you, as an organization, are making yourself less competitive and more difficult to survive.
Another point worth mentioning. To quote the article "employeesâ(TM) motivation and commitment to work increased because they were included in the planning of the experiment, and played a key role in designing how the four-day week would be managed so as not to negatively impact productivity." So, wait. Did productivity increase, or just not decrease? As I'm sure you know (but perhaps the author did not), they're vastly different things. Without knowing what changed it's hard to know if this is a financially viable solution. The article then goes to say "Employees designed a number of innovations and initiatives to work in a more productive and efficient manner, from automating manual processes to reducing or eliminating non-work-related internet usage". But why don't they just do this anyway and make people more efficient? (as an aside, I'd argue that internet at work can be beneficial as it let's one rest their head so to speak. But obviously too much internet is wasteful. Not sure if there have been any studies on this...)
Lastly, pure capitalist ideology simply says "if you want to survive, be profitable". How or why is irrelevant. Increasing costs to an already expensive component of an organization does little to help the much-maligned "bottom line" and help you be competitive against those with cheaper labor.
Look, I can definitely appreciate the idea of "less work can increase productivity" (after all, people who work 80+hrs are probably only marginally more productive than those that work 40, while making everybody miserable at the same time), but to assume that simply cutting off a work day will somehow magically solve our work-life balance problem -- while maintaining productivity -- is just foolish.
"...trialled a four-day working week over March and April, working four, eight-hour days but getting paid for five."
Yeah, no shit they're happier. You know what would make them even happier with an even better work/life balance? Get this...work three days a week and get paid for five! The experiment, if you can call it that, was pointless and proved nothing except that people would rather work less than more. I could have told you that. For free, too!
If they can show that the employee's productivity as a whole has increased enough to compensate for their effective 25% wage increase (or at least a substantial part of it), then fine. Good for them, even. But unless that happens, this is yet another socialist pipe dream of "work less, get paid more", which has yet to work out in the real world. Now, to be fair, they do recognize this and are seeking ways such that this does not adversely impact productivity (e.g. automating manual processes etc), but why not just do that anyway and improve the organization's efficiency and competitiveness?
Watched the video expecting it to be a 12-year-old, but no, it's a grown woman. How on earth could she not have known that she'd get into trouble for posting this before release? Did she think she was entitled to a world exclusive hands-on preview of the device because her dad is an Apple engineer?
She never signed the NDA, and 99.999% likely she never even read it. He, on the other hand, did. It was his lack of judgment that caused these issues, not her entitlement (which, from my brief glimpse of the video, doesn't appear to be any different than most millenials).
It's the speed, not the logic or computation: do 1+1+1 rapidly, you'll get the same problem. Do it slowly, and you'll be fine. That being said, this is a silly oversight. Should not have happened.
And Roth. Don't forget the Roth. While it's a post-tax contribution, the earnings from said investment are not taxed. Investing in tax-free capital gains when young can mean you get to keep TONS of money when you retire.
While I do sympathize with what your comments, I fundamentally disagree.
Would truly malicious software actually allow itself to be uninstalled? If the Kaspersky people are competent at what they do, and if they are doing it for Putin, then you are in a world of hurt. The question of "Should you uninstall?" is relatively trivial compared to the big questions of "Are you able to uninstall the software?" and "How can you be sure you really got rid of it?"
You're right, If they really worked for Russia, I'm sure uninstalling it would be as futile as resisting an alien invasion. But:
"It's a big deal," says Blake Darche, a former NSA cybersecurity analyst and the founder of the cybersecurity firm Area 1. "For any consumers or small businesses that are concerned about privacy or have sensitive information, I wouldn't recommend running Kaspersky."
Really? The NSA is concerned about our privacy now? Honestly, this stinks as political propaganda (on our part). Furthermore, I had a chat with an acquaintance / friend in computer security a couple of days ago where we literally talked about just that (he worked for Kaspersky). In short, he had great things to say about the people at Kaspersky (incredibly smart and talented people) and agreed with my statements above. Also, he's 100% American, born and raised.
It could very well be that the upper echelon of KL is in cohoots with Putin, but like I said, this whole thing stinks of political propaganda. Either way, the best thing is to use an OS that doesn't rely on antivirus (Linux / Mac OS FTW:-)
What most people don't realize is that, even if you were in a plane crash, there's a very good chance you'll
survive. Heck, even JAL 123, which slammed at full speed into a mountain, had survivors. Of course, survivability depends highly on location of seating, weather conditions etc. I imagine HL would be similar with the benefit of not being forced down by gravity, but with the cost of not being able to glide...
On a separate note, I've heard of the book. Apparently, the author lived at Amherst, MA area and makes lots of references to there. I went to umass, so it should be a fun read:-)
Discovering I have asperger's (now known as high functioning autism) was one of the (if not THE) most life-changing events of my life (no joke). Not only has this book helped me understand myself, but I'm hoping it'll help me cope with all my still significant social and dating issues. I'm 1/3 of the way through, so we'll see. Any hints and tips from fellow aspies welcome.
> So you went to the prof and he would put a check by your name and tell you how to up the resource.
How can he tell someone cheated as opposed to figured it out for him / her self?
They are. Last time I set foot in a BB (aside from cutting through to get to the mall), everything was way overpriced and definitely not competitive with Amazon. Occasionally you find good deals, but for the most part not (which would explain why the stores I've been to have been empty). In fact, it appears that a big reason why they're seeing any profit at all is because of the Nintendo Switch.
They're going the way of the dodo, and if this is what they're trying to pull to get more $$, then good riddance.
Why is "wife" associated with "nagging" more often than not? In my case, I find that I associate "wife" with the words "loving & caring."
I guess I am lucky, no?
Based on my experience I'd say yes, you are. I have personally observed MANY women constantly nag at their significant others for something (not doing the dishes, not preparing the meal well, screwing up an appointment etc). I have yet to see ONE guy do the same thing to their wife/girlfriend when they fuck up. When a male friend of mine would complain that his gf does X, I would often suggest for him to say something and complain. This is often met with a "why bother?"
Scold a man for not doing the dishes? Good for you for not letting him be a lazy ass! Scold a woman for not doing the dishes?... good luck. Let me know what happens.
Of course, I could be surrounded by a shitty, biased sample, but that's definitely my observation.
Preparing for being modded as troll by SJWs in 3...2...1..
One thing I've learned in social science is never trust research -- or at least give it a good read before making any comments. In fact, I actually left the econ PhD a decade ago after seeing that pretty much all research done in this field is a giant form of confirmation bias: "Keep working on it until it makes sense", they'd tell me. Or "Make sure the results are in line with what you'd expect and consistent with literature" and so on. I have yet to see someone confirm someone else's economic theories -- only their own. And it wasn't my school either: I wish I could remember the details, but I recall reading a paper way back when from Princeton that had methodological errors in it that I was amazed it was even taken seriously, much less published.
Personally, The reason that I like Hayek and Sowell is that it's based on logic and reasoning. Then again, I am biased, so there's that...
Better yet, read Economics in One Lesson. It's effectively an extension of the broken window hypothesis you point out, but applies it to various different contexts. Very eye opener and makes you wonder why people are hellbent on protecting any and all jobs, regardless of their actual contribution to society (hint: if your job can be easily replaced by little kiosks, you're no longer a contributor).
Slashdot Mirror
That really depends where you are. In metro regions like NYC, Boston, and I imagine, many others, the cost of one regular (i.e. not IMAX, 3D etc) ticket is $15-$20, and that excludes popcorn and soda. For me, I'd have to watch around 5 movies a *year* for it to pay itself. That said, there is no chance in hell that it'll last that even half as long.
The issue is that the modern workplace, with so many meetings etc, does not even *allow* people to focus. There have been tons of studies showing that humans aren't capable of multi-tasking, much less when one is already getting several calls, hundreds of emails, and meeting invites all at the same time. I, for one, don't miss my consulting job.
The problem is that they say that performance has improved. But by how much? If only by 5%, then what benefit is that? It'll mean that employees are effectively getting a 25% bonus and little to show for it; and labor is typically one of the most expensive parts of an operation. By bumping the costs by an additional 25% you, as an organization, are making yourself less competitive and more difficult to survive.
Another point worth mentioning. To quote the article "employeesâ(TM) motivation and commitment to work increased because they were included in the planning of the experiment, and played a key role in designing how the four-day week would be managed so as not to negatively impact productivity." So, wait. Did productivity increase, or just not decrease? As I'm sure you know (but perhaps the author did not), they're vastly different things. Without knowing what changed it's hard to know if this is a financially viable solution. The article then goes to say "Employees designed a number of innovations and initiatives to work in a more productive and efficient manner, from automating manual processes to reducing or eliminating non-work-related internet usage". But why don't they just do this anyway and make people more efficient? (as an aside, I'd argue that internet at work can be beneficial as it let's one rest their head so to speak. But obviously too much internet is wasteful. Not sure if there have been any studies on this...)
Lastly, pure capitalist ideology simply says "if you want to survive, be profitable". How or why is irrelevant. Increasing costs to an already expensive component of an organization does little to help the much-maligned "bottom line" and help you be competitive against those with cheaper labor.
Look, I can definitely appreciate the idea of "less work can increase productivity" (after all, people who work 80+hrs are probably only marginally more productive than those that work 40, while making everybody miserable at the same time), but to assume that simply cutting off a work day will somehow magically solve our work-life balance problem -- while maintaining productivity -- is just foolish.
"...trialled a four-day working week over March and April, working four, eight-hour days but getting paid for five."
Yeah, no shit they're happier. You know what would make them even happier with an even better work/life balance? Get this...work three days a week and get paid for five! The experiment, if you can call it that, was pointless and proved nothing except that people would rather work less than more. I could have told you that. For free, too!
If they can show that the employee's productivity as a whole has increased enough to compensate for their effective 25% wage increase (or at least a substantial part of it), then fine. Good for them, even. But unless that happens, this is yet another socialist pipe dream of "work less, get paid more", which has yet to work out in the real world. Now, to be fair, they do recognize this and are seeking ways such that this does not adversely impact productivity (e.g. automating manual processes etc), but why not just do that anyway and improve the organization's efficiency and competitiveness?
Watched the video expecting it to be a 12-year-old, but no, it's a grown woman. How on earth could she not have known that she'd get into trouble for posting this before release? Did she think she was entitled to a world exclusive hands-on preview of the device because her dad is an Apple engineer?
She never signed the NDA, and 99.999% likely she never even read it. He, on the other hand, did. It was his lack of judgment that caused these issues, not her entitlement (which, from my brief glimpse of the video, doesn't appear to be any different than most millenials).
It's the speed, not the logic or computation: do 1+1+1 rapidly, you'll get the same problem. Do it slowly, and you'll be fine. That being said, this is a silly oversight. Should not have happened.
And Roth. Don't forget the Roth. While it's a post-tax contribution, the earnings from said investment are not taxed. Investing in tax-free capital gains when young can mean you get to keep TONS of money when you retire.
While I do sympathize with what your comments, I fundamentally disagree.
You're right, If they really worked for Russia, I'm sure uninstalling it would be as futile as resisting an alien invasion. But:
Really? The NSA is concerned about our privacy now? Honestly, this stinks as political propaganda (on our part). Furthermore, I had a chat with an acquaintance / friend in computer security a couple of days ago where we literally talked about just that (he worked for Kaspersky). In short, he had great things to say about the people at Kaspersky (incredibly smart and talented people) and agreed with my statements above. Also, he's 100% American, born and raised.
It could very well be that the upper echelon of KL is in cohoots with Putin, but like I said, this whole thing stinks of political propaganda. Either way, the best thing is to use an OS that doesn't rely on antivirus (Linux / Mac OS FTW :-)
Wait, they do hairdryers? And table fans? and cars?? What next, a sphere!?
What most people don't realize is that, even if you were in a plane crash, there's a very good chance you'll survive. Heck, even JAL 123, which slammed at full speed into a mountain, had survivors. Of course, survivability depends highly on location of seating, weather conditions etc. I imagine HL would be similar with the benefit of not being forced down by gravity, but with the cost of not being able to glide...
That's very interesting, thank you.
On a separate note, I've heard of the book. Apparently, the author lived at Amherst, MA area and makes lots of references to there. I went to umass, so it should be a fun read :-)
by Tony Attwood.
Discovering I have asperger's (now known as high functioning autism) was one of the (if not THE) most life-changing events of my life (no joke). Not only has this book helped me understand myself, but I'm hoping it'll help me cope with all my still significant social and dating issues. I'm 1/3 of the way through, so we'll see. Any hints and tips from fellow aspies welcome.
> So you went to the prof and he would put a check by your name and tell you how to up the resource. How can he tell someone cheated as opposed to figured it out for him / her self?
Exactly, it's all piratebay's fault and has nothing to do with the fact that most movies now are shit.
They are. Last time I set foot in a BB (aside from cutting through to get to the mall), everything was way overpriced and definitely not competitive with Amazon. Occasionally you find good deals, but for the most part not (which would explain why the stores I've been to have been empty). In fact, it appears that a big reason why they're seeing any profit at all is because of the Nintendo Switch.
They're going the way of the dodo, and if this is what they're trying to pull to get more $$, then good riddance.
Police: "So, why did you hack the computer?"
Guy: "I'm sorry sir, I can't help it. It's in my DNA"
...bold mine.
Why is "wife" associated with "nagging" more often than not? In my case, I find that I associate "wife" with the words "loving & caring."
I guess I am lucky, no?
Based on my experience I'd say yes, you are. I have personally observed MANY women constantly nag at their significant others for something (not doing the dishes, not preparing the meal well, screwing up an appointment etc). I have yet to see ONE guy do the same thing to their wife/girlfriend when they fuck up. When a male friend of mine would complain that his gf does X, I would often suggest for him to say something and complain. This is often met with a "why bother?"
Scold a man for not doing the dishes? Good for you for not letting him be a lazy ass! Scold a woman for not doing the dishes? ... good luck. Let me know what happens.
Of course, I could be surrounded by a shitty, biased sample, but that's definitely my observation.
Preparing for being modded as troll by SJWs in 3...2...1..
Next question.
One thing I've learned in social science is never trust research -- or at least give it a good read before making any comments. In fact, I actually left the econ PhD a decade ago after seeing that pretty much all research done in this field is a giant form of confirmation bias: "Keep working on it until it makes sense", they'd tell me. Or "Make sure the results are in line with what you'd expect and consistent with literature" and so on. I have yet to see someone confirm someone else's economic theories -- only their own. And it wasn't my school either: I wish I could remember the details, but I recall reading a paper way back when from Princeton that had methodological errors in it that I was amazed it was even taken seriously, much less published.
Personally, The reason that I like Hayek and Sowell is that it's based on logic and reasoning. Then again, I am biased, so there's that...
Exactly. For once I'm happy to see the congress actually take proactive action and move in a productive direction.
Once again, the headline is totally misleading. Anyone capable of talking can talk to animals.
Agreed. It's when animals talk to you that I'd be concerned.
Yes, I was. That being said, I was referring to the study on luggage wobbleness, not on the attached video. Not sure why I left the comment there...
For more insight on why pointless make-work jobs are NOT "good for the economy", you can read The Parable of the Broken Window.
Better yet, read Economics in One Lesson. It's effectively an extension of the broken window hypothesis you point out, but applies it to various different contexts. Very eye opener and makes you wonder why people are hellbent on protecting any and all jobs, regardless of their actual contribution to society (hint: if your job can be easily replaced by little kiosks, you're no longer a contributor).
Never once has one of them simply decelerated and pulled over to the shoulder.
My dad has...it almost killed us all.
People who tow trailers have known about this for decades.
I wonder how much money was spent on this, rather than, say, cancer research. Sigh...