No, he's being coy and manipulating the fact that there isn't such a study to throw out an obvious truth. There really isn't a definitive study saying the 8 hour day works and longer days don't. 8 hours is really a political beast -- workers were exploited into working ABSURDLY long work days, six days a week, is crap conditions. Strikes and worker-friendly legislation targeted 8 hours.
There are a plethora of writing that productivity goes down with over-work, but there's no clear number of hours which constitute that.
The sweet spot might be 4 hours a day. Depends on the work, depends on the worker, depends on external factors. Maximizing worker productivity is an industry and a branch of psychology. Consulting on it is also an industry, and we know from watching Dogbert's success as a consultant what that means -- find out what the last guy said and say the opposite.:) You can find all sorts of writing on this, especially outside the world of peer-review. Here's a fun exercise -- try and find something definitive on the productivity of "open" office layouts.
But we do know that worker productivity goes down when workers are overworked. What constitutes overwork is what's not clear.
This is not as likely as you might think. The whole "imposter Syndrom" thing is generally about/experienced by the people who set very high standards for themselves and don't accept failure. They excel and when they fail a little they focus on that.
Talentless people often think they're great. it's people who can do something and are not perfect who feel like imposters.
I am far more interested in the percentages by company. The feeling that you're not good enough, not coming up to the level expected of you, etc. is almost certainly hugely affected by management style. But I don't have data on that and intuitive assumptions like that are sometimes dead wrong. You might want to work at a place with a low Imposter count because the managers are supportive and praise people. Or you might want to work at a place with a HIGH imposter count because that's where the smarter people are. Or it might have more to do with the type of projects. A person working at google might think "I'm doing great work -- I am the real thing" at google because they do interesting things, but think "I am a fraud -- I do crap" at Saleforce.com because.... well, they produce salesforce.com.
It's just not clear. I'd like to see more info along these lines.
Are we talking the home-made apple-pie lobby, or the commercial apple-pie lobby, which is secretly controlled by the salt, cornstarch, and high-fructose corn syrup lobby? (And also possibly the not-many actual apples in the apple pie lobby.)
This would work if we didn't pay for their healthcare. But we do, since (in the US) we're pooled in the same insurance group as them.
So, no. Don't slowly eat yourself to death because that costs ME money. If you want to kill yourself, please do so quickly and inexpensively in a way which causes little mess: Stick a note on the outside of a thick plastic bag, move the plastic bag to the receiving area of the morgue, get in the plastic bag, seal the bag up tight, and THEN eat yourself to death.
Or be a healthy productive member of society and make good choices.
Thinking about this more, it's good that they published this. This is essentially a null result. The really desirable number to come out of this would be "Go on a low fat diet and live longer even when you're initially unhealthy!" They didn't see that. That would be a really medically useful result.
And they didn't get that. They got bupkis. And it's REALLY GOOD that they published their bupkis, since most studies where there's no interesting result don't get reported which is really bad for science.
But dressing up bupkis like it's something is bad for the lay world and also for stupid scientists/doctors, of which there certainly are quiet a few. Most competent people in the field (I would hope) would just see this and realize they cannot claim going on a diet is going to fix everything. You still need to tell your patients to go on a diet, but you can't say it's gonna immediately be roses and daffodils forever, once they do that. Unless you have to tell them that to get them to go on a diet....
15k people is actually pretty good. Unless the completely muffed the statistics, they really have proven that of people who respond to this survey, the ones who are on a diet (likely because they are SICK) satisfy some other test (which may or appropriate here) which implies they will live less long than people who don't watch what they eat (presumably because they don't HAVE TO) in this particular way.
That and a quarter will buy you something from a cheap gumball machine.
And yet we do -- we hire CS majors. They do not know how to write business software, how to gather requirements, how to look at the costs to the organization and design solutions.
CS majors are, at virtually all the second and third class schools around, taught to code and understand code/computers, not how they work in our companies or fro our workers.
You are absolutely right in your quote. We should not be looking for untrained people to write our software. A CS degree generally only addresses part of the lack of competence.
Grasshopper, you miss the important details: that regulation was written by AT&T. All that regulation was penned by AT&T lawyers. Then they bought politicians who passed it into law. The affect is that unless you're a big established company, you cannot enter the market, much less compete.
This is not a left-right thing. The is a corporations writing laws thing. It happens all the time, in all industries. The laws protect the people with established revenue streams in ways you don't see because you're not in the industry. From telecom to hair braiding, there are laws to make sure competition is lessened. The politicians passing them (left, right, and center) have no idea how destructive they are, because they are just doing what they are told by their donors.
Meanwhile, AT&T experiences the opposite of "hardship." They exist in a complex world only they can navigate. One THEY designed. And they have no competition and can charge whatever they like.
Different chemicals may cause different issues, but all sweet drinks cause the same hunger response. Sweet on your tongue makes you eat more -- seems to be true for all primates. We know this from monkeys studies.
So diet drinks increase your caloric intake -- it's not the drink itself which does it, but the calorie intake goes up just the same. Drink diet soda, and get fat. Maybe not as fat as on sugar drinks, but certainly more fat than on water.
Dude, let's go back to that first paragraph. Skype is now dying. I am forced to use it at work and it is genuinely worse than the MicroSoft product it replaced. Nokia is TOAST.
Microsoft may be planning many things with who knows what good intentions. They'll still gonna destroy github.
I suspect part of what Microsoft is doing here is seeing who downloads what, in what order, after what stimulus, from what referencing page, etc.
Using this allows them to figure out what FOSS software to steal/rebrand, and what communities can be disrupted by messing with what FOSS product.
If this is the case, a starting point as a defense would be to set up a bounce site which pulls github for you, so no referrer/cookies passed. Such a site could, over time, replace github, but replacing github would take work and money, whereas partially insulating us from microsoft tracking would be trivial.
This is great. But so was A75. And I don't see any pickup of that. I'm looking in the Chromebook space. They all seem to be based on MUCH older ARM designs.
I see blurbs saying N Billion (with a B) ARM 53 cores have been used in things. Where are those? In Chromebooks? Or are these things really pitched at the set-top box/smart TV/embedded device market?
I have an old, Samsung series 3 Chromebook. It's 6 years old. And I'd love to replace it, but it's years old and I don't see ARM-based Chromebook with double the speed specs. No doubling in 6 years?
My series 3 is really, really light. 1.1kg. From my standpoint, that's the real benefit of ARM in a Chromebook -- less heat/less power means less metal and a lighter battery. I can get a much faster Chromebook, but that means intel and generally significantly HEAVIER devices.
So will we really see these kinds of chips moving into Chromebooks? Have we already?
This is the page I've always gone to for benchmarks, but it's a year behind: https://zipso.net/chromebook-s... However, in 2017, the processors really hadn't changed much since 2012. Will improvements in ARM have any real benefit in the Chromebook space?
No, more like indentured servitude. But it does indeed suck for the workers involved.
I very much agree that we should make H-1Bs much more expensive. We should be bringing rock stars from other countries, not drones. But I also think we should be increasing the rights/protections of the H-1B workers.
We have a stupid, petty, transparent president. As the poop hits the fan about how he took what looks a LOT like illegal money from AT&T, he will sign to show he's not being bought, provided the Dems push the AT&T connection hard.
if it fails, they can use it as an issue against the whole Trump party.
If it succeeds, they can use that as a selling point for the Dems.
But it it fails OR if it succeeds, in every race, they can use a vote against network neutrality against the candidate. And any Republican who votes FOR this will lose money from big donors in the form of AT&T and Comcast.
Win, win, win.
This is not a pointless vote. This is good chess while being helpful for the country at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
I ask not to be a dick but rather because I'm generally interested -- can you point us to a study on this?
No, he's being coy and manipulating the fact that there isn't such a study to throw out an obvious truth. There really isn't a definitive study saying the 8 hour day works and longer days don't. 8 hours is really a political beast -- workers were exploited into working ABSURDLY long work days, six days a week, is crap conditions. Strikes and worker-friendly legislation targeted 8 hours.
There are a plethora of writing that productivity goes down with over-work, but there's no clear number of hours which constitute that.
The sweet spot might be 4 hours a day. Depends on the work, depends on the worker, depends on external factors. Maximizing worker productivity is an industry and a branch of psychology. Consulting on it is also an industry, and we know from watching Dogbert's success as a consultant what that means -- find out what the last guy said and say the opposite. :) You can find all sorts of writing on this, especially outside the world of peer-review. Here's a fun exercise -- try and find something definitive on the productivity of "open" office layouts.
But we do know that worker productivity goes down when workers are overworked. What constitutes overwork is what's not clear.
They are never going to admit to ANYONE that they feel like imposters. That's not what Imposter Syndrome is about.
This is not as likely as you might think. The whole "imposter Syndrom" thing is generally about/experienced by the people who set very high standards for themselves and don't accept failure. They excel and when they fail a little they focus on that.
Talentless people often think they're great. it's people who can do something and are not perfect who feel like imposters.
I am far more interested in the percentages by company. The feeling that you're not good enough, not coming up to the level expected of you, etc. is almost certainly hugely affected by management style. But I don't have data on that and intuitive assumptions like that are sometimes dead wrong. You might want to work at a place with a low Imposter count because the managers are supportive and praise people. Or you might want to work at a place with a HIGH imposter count because that's where the smarter people are. Or it might have more to do with the type of projects. A person working at google might think "I'm doing great work -- I am the real thing" at google because they do interesting things, but think "I am a fraud -- I do crap" at Saleforce.com because .... well, they produce salesforce.com.
It's just not clear. I'd like to see more info along these lines.
Microsoft's Skype for business is a buggy pile. It replaced Microsoft's Lync at my firm, which was a buggy pile.
Skype for business is a much buggier pile. I would like to have Lync back, even though I hated it.
Are we talking the home-made apple-pie lobby, or the commercial apple-pie lobby, which is secretly controlled by the salt, cornstarch, and high-fructose corn syrup lobby? (And also possibly the not-many actual apples in the apple pie lobby.)
This would work if we didn't pay for their healthcare. But we do, since (in the US) we're pooled in the same insurance group as them.
So, no. Don't slowly eat yourself to death because that costs ME money. If you want to kill yourself, please do so quickly and inexpensively in a way which causes little mess: Stick a note on the outside of a thick plastic bag, move the plastic bag to the receiving area of the morgue, get in the plastic bag, seal the bag up tight, and THEN eat yourself to death.
Or be a healthy productive member of society and make good choices.
Either one is fine.
Thinking about this more, it's good that they published this. This is essentially a null result. The really desirable number to come out of this would be "Go on a low fat diet and live longer even when you're initially unhealthy!" They didn't see that. That would be a really medically useful result.
And they didn't get that. They got bupkis. And it's REALLY GOOD that they published their bupkis, since most studies where there's no interesting result don't get reported which is really bad for science.
But dressing up bupkis like it's something is bad for the lay world and also for stupid scientists/doctors, of which there certainly are quiet a few. Most competent people in the field (I would hope) would just see this and realize they cannot claim going on a diet is going to fix everything. You still need to tell your patients to go on a diet, but you can't say it's gonna immediately be roses and daffodils forever, once they do that. Unless you have to tell them that to get them to go on a diet....
15k people is actually pretty good. Unless the completely muffed the statistics, they really have proven that of people who respond to this survey, the ones who are on a diet (likely because they are SICK) satisfy some other test (which may or appropriate here) which implies they will live less long than people who don't watch what they eat (presumably because they don't HAVE TO) in this particular way.
That and a quarter will buy you something from a cheap gumball machine.
You can install malware on just about anything.
And yet we do -- we hire CS majors. They do not know how to write business software, how to gather requirements, how to look at the costs to the organization and design solutions.
CS majors are, at virtually all the second and third class schools around, taught to code and understand code/computers, not how they work in our companies or fro our workers.
You are absolutely right in your quote. We should not be looking for untrained people to write our software. A CS degree generally only addresses part of the lack of competence.
This is really good advice. I don't think you can follow it as a rule, but trying to follow it in general will provide better in-house solutions.
Grasshopper, you miss the important details: that regulation was written by AT&T. All that regulation was penned by AT&T lawyers. Then they bought politicians who passed it into law. The affect is that unless you're a big established company, you cannot enter the market, much less compete.
This is not a left-right thing. The is a corporations writing laws thing. It happens all the time, in all industries. The laws protect the people with established revenue streams in ways you don't see because you're not in the industry. From telecom to hair braiding, there are laws to make sure competition is lessened. The politicians passing them (left, right, and center) have no idea how destructive they are, because they are just doing what they are told by their donors.
Meanwhile, AT&T experiences the opposite of "hardship." They exist in a complex world only they can navigate. One THEY designed. And they have no competition and can charge whatever they like.
Different chemicals may cause different issues, but all sweet drinks cause the same hunger response. Sweet on your tongue makes you eat more -- seems to be true for all primates. We know this from monkeys studies.
So diet drinks increase your caloric intake -- it's not the drink itself which does it, but the calorie intake goes up just the same. Drink diet soda, and get fat. Maybe not as fat as on sugar drinks, but certainly more fat than on water.
Yes. This is utterly obvious.
"My doctor says not to drink coffee, now that I have (cancer|high blood pressure|been infected by a xenomorph)."
So many crap studies show the same thing. Same with wine, same with beer, etc. Often the studies aren't crap, but the reporting on them is.
See the chocolate study hoax as an example: https://www.npr.org/sections/t...
Because every single person on the planet prefers something else to it.
Dude, let's go back to that first paragraph. Skype is now dying. I am forced to use it at work and it is genuinely worse than the MicroSoft product it replaced. Nokia is TOAST.
Microsoft may be planning many things with who knows what good intentions. They'll still gonna destroy github.
I suspect part of what Microsoft is doing here is seeing who downloads what, in what order, after what stimulus, from what referencing page, etc.
Using this allows them to figure out what FOSS software to steal/rebrand, and what communities can be disrupted by messing with what FOSS product.
If this is the case, a starting point as a defense would be to set up a bounce site which pulls github for you, so no referrer/cookies passed. Such a site could, over time, replace github, but replacing github would take work and money, whereas partially insulating us from microsoft tracking would be trivial.
This is great. But so was A75. And I don't see any pickup of that. I'm looking in the Chromebook space. They all seem to be based on MUCH older ARM designs.
I see blurbs saying N Billion (with a B) ARM 53 cores have been used in things. Where are those? In Chromebooks? Or are these things really pitched at the set-top box/smart TV/embedded device market?
I have an old, Samsung series 3 Chromebook. It's 6 years old. And I'd love to replace it, but it's years old and I don't see ARM-based Chromebook with double the speed specs. No doubling in 6 years?
My series 3 is really, really light. 1.1kg. From my standpoint, that's the real benefit of ARM in a Chromebook -- less heat/less power means less metal and a lighter battery. I can get a much faster Chromebook, but that means intel and generally significantly HEAVIER devices.
So will we really see these kinds of chips moving into Chromebooks? Have we already?
This is the page I've always gone to for benchmarks, but it's a year behind: https://zipso.net/chromebook-s...
However, in 2017, the processors really hadn't changed much since 2012. Will improvements in ARM have any real benefit in the Chromebook space?
I think the raspberry PI is not a good option for most households because they are quite slow.
But double-NATing is the way to go. Two different physical routers from different companies.
No, more like indentured servitude. But it does indeed suck for the workers involved.
I very much agree that we should make H-1Bs much more expensive. We should be bringing rock stars from other countries, not drones. But I also think we should be increasing the rights/protections of the H-1B workers.
"Without practice"? I think it's way, way, way too much practice in a short time which makes it fall off.
That or leprosy.
We have a stupid, petty, transparent president. As the poop hits the fan about how he took what looks a LOT like illegal money from AT&T, he will sign to show he's not being bought, provided the Dems push the AT&T connection hard.
This is utter doublespeak. in areas of the US, the local Internet providers are either monopolies or duopolies.
There's no one to open competition to without regulation forcing it open.
No that's not quite right.
if it fails, they can use it as an issue against the whole Trump party.
If it succeeds, they can use that as a selling point for the Dems.
But it it fails OR if it succeeds, in every race, they can use a vote against network neutrality against the candidate. And any Republican who votes FOR this will lose money from big donors in the form of AT&T and Comcast.
Win, win, win.
This is not a pointless vote. This is good chess while being helpful for the country at the same time.