THANK YOU. Everyone should do this. Just go to Google and see for yourself that there is NOTHING. NO study. NO evidence.
Don't you think an actual scientific study documenting negative productivity would show up as the very first link? Or on the first page at least? Maybe the 2nd page, or the 3rd?
Nope. Nothing.
Does productivity decline? Yes of course.
Does productivity GO NEGATIVE after 8 hours? There is no evidence for that.
If companies could really get MORE WORK DONE by cutting hours and PAYING PEOPLE LESS, don't you think they would have noticed before now?
I am not claiming ignorance. I have searched for the "study", and have found nothing. A study of such profound economic and scientific significance would be cited a million places. It would be world changing. It would be trivial to find.
The only plausible explanation is that no such "study" was ever published, and it doesn't exist.
Therefore, I state my INFORMED opinion, with supreme confidence, that you are completely full of bullcrap.
You can prove me wrong with a single citation. Just a link. Put up or STFU.
Of course I get less done per hour as I get tired. But do I fall further behind? No. I have never felt that.
And in computing those mistakes tend to take longer to undo than if nothing had been done... ie negative work.
If you are using TDD and regression tests, those mistakes should be caught as you make them. Even if you don't, you can alway rollback your Git repository.
There are some very old systematic studies done by Ford and others...
Citation?
the additional hours make the overall result worse
I can believe a productivity drop, but you are claiming NEGATIVE productivity after X hours. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you provide... nothing.
There are a lot of idiots that do not know this though.
People that refuse accept assertions without evidence are not "idiots". Quite the opposite.
Its a bit misleading though on the numbers. They had a little over 10 thousand responses, which for their overall user base is probably statistically significant, but not for individual companies registered on there.
This is a common misunderstanding about statistics. You do NOT need a lot of samples for statistical significance, and the number of datapoints needed is usually far below what people intuitively expect.
If you want to improve predictions, it is generally far more important to improve the representativeness of the samples, and design the questions to elicit a proper response. Increasing the sample size does little.
Then finally, what is the rate of imposter syndrome among other profession?
Very good question. Without knowing this, the results of this survey don't really mean much.
Um, isn't the whole point of this tariff to try to push companies like Apple to manufacture stuff in the USA instead of China?
That is the point. But it is not the result. Tariffs lead to retaliation. It makes no sense for companies to set up separate manufacturing in every country where they do business, rather than in a single efficient factory. Doing so raises prices. The only question is if it is cheaper to just pay the tariff instead.
Apple may decide to assemble some phones in America, but with automation this will create few jobs. Meanwhile, other companies will move operations OUT of America, as Harley-Davidson is already doing. Boeing will likely move some manufacturing to China, to avoid losing the entire Asian market to Airbus. Many semiconductor companies will do the same. Brazilian soybeans have already gone up in price while American soybeans are falling.
All of this leads to inefficiency, fragmentation, despecialization, higher prices, lower wages, and lower living standards.
It is considered as such by some. So is San Francisco which is even farther away than Santa Cruz.
The "valley" in Silicon Valley is Santa Clara Valley. Neither San Francisco nor Santa Cruz is in the valley. SCV is bounded by the Santa Cruz Mountains on the west (the city of Santa Cruz is on the other side of these mountains) and the Diablo Range on the east.
the same hackneyed notion which has never been proven to be feasible.
Car platoons were tested in traffic on I-95 in Southern California in the 1990s. They work fine. They don't even require self-driving, just sensors and intelligent braking.
As a free trade supporting fiscal conservative, I would love to see a realignment in American politics. I have recently heard some of my liberal friends saying tariffs and subsidies are bad, just because Trump supports them, and they ignore the fact that Bernie advocated the same dumb policies.
If the Democrats can combine social tolerance with sensible economic policies, and the Republicans can concentrate all the stupidity into one party, that would be wonderful.
My wife has an app business, and we have sent many emails back and forth to Apple's support staff. A 30 day delay in response is fairly typical and marking a message "URGENT" makes no difference. They are just way understaffed and disorganized. No conspiracy theory is needed here.
We call that "bumper to bumper" traffic. It is neither innovative nor desirable.
No. Human "bumper to pumper" traffic averages one or more car length between cars, has a wide range of speeds as cars speed up and slow down in an "accordion effect", and... most importantly... humans react poorly when the traffic actually begins to clear, hesitating for many seconds before accelerating. 1000 cars, each adding 5 seconds of delay, and you have an hour long traffic jam.
All of this is caused by human inattentiveness, lack of situational awareness, and slow reaction times. None of these apply to computers.
California's helmet law is not about "safety". It is an underhanded way to ban scooter-sharing. A helmet requirement would make it much more difficult for the scooter companies. How can they possibly keep a helmet with each scooter? If riders are expected to bring their own helmets, it would make it much more of a hassle, and require people to plan ahead.
One example is Santa Monica. They just spent $100M on their "Big Blue Bus" system, and are getting far below the expected ridership. There are not even enough riders to cover the running costs, much less the immense capital investment. So now some hot shots come along with some cheap scooters, which are far more convenient and fun than the bus, and are stealing even more of their riders. The buses obviously were poorly planned and have a broken business model, but, hey, it's the government, so they can just use laws to ban competition, and claim it is about "safety".
Self-driving cars can drive in tight "platoons" that greatly increase the carrying capacity of roads. They can anticipate traffic movement and light changes, so they smooth the flow of traffic. So, no, congestion won't get worse, because congestion is a result of human behavior.
Also, the last several times I have used Lyft, there was an option to share the ride, in exchange for a 20-30% discount. I clicked on it every time. If I was in my own car, I would have driven alone. So it is not at all clear that SDCs will mean more cars on the road. Small self -driving vans carrying 6-8 people can replace both buses and many cars.
Waiting for technology is the sign of failure of planning and thought.
Assuming technology won't improve is an even bigger failure. Projects like California's $100B train will take decades to finish, yet are focused on fixing yesterday's problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course you will fail to make good use of it and claim that it does not demonstrate anything.
I will indeed, because ... it doesn't demonstrate anything.
There is nothing on that Wiki page that contradicts anything I have said, and nothing that supports the OP's claim.
I have no idea why you bothered to link to it.
Care to try a little harder? How hard can it be to provide one little citation to a world changing scientific study? Yet you can't.
I read a German study a while ago ...
Citation?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=overtime+causes+loss+of+productivity
*cough*
THANK YOU. Everyone should do this. Just go to Google and see for yourself that there is NOTHING. NO study. NO evidence.
Don't you think an actual scientific study documenting negative productivity would show up as the very first link? Or on the first page at least? Maybe the 2nd page, or the 3rd?
Nope. Nothing.
Does productivity decline? Yes of course.
Does productivity GO NEGATIVE after 8 hours? There is no evidence for that.
If companies could really get MORE WORK DONE by cutting hours and PAYING PEOPLE LESS, don't you think they would have noticed before now?
You're the one claiming ignorance
I am not claiming ignorance. I have searched for the "study", and have found nothing. A study of such profound economic and scientific significance would be cited a million places. It would be world changing. It would be trivial to find.
The only plausible explanation is that no such "study" was ever published, and it doesn't exist.
Therefore, I state my INFORMED opinion, with supreme confidence, that you are completely full of bullcrap.
You can prove me wrong with a single citation. Just a link. Put up or STFU.
I don't feel up to digging up studies
Everything you say after this sentence is meaningless. Once you dismiss the importance of actual evidence, you no longer have any credibility.
When you push beyond that, you get slightly more tired and work slightly less efficient overall.
Thanks for stating the obvious. But that is NOT what the GPP is claiming.
That's not an extraordinary claim, it is a mainstream 101-level claim
Nope. It is complete BS. It is false.
Take some responsibility for your ignorance and attempt to look shit up before you tell people it needs a citation.
I did attempt to look it up. I found ... nothing. Because there is no "study".
There is no evidence, and asking me to prove a negative is illogical and intellectually dishonest.
Bro, google it
"Google it" is not a citation. Quite the opposite, it is the last refuge of a bullshitter.
it's a thing
No it isn't.
the fact that you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean we are lying.
I don't think you are lying. I think you are lazy and misinformed.
Jesus Christ you big brains are so stupid some times.
My brain is normal sized (roughly 1400 cc).
It has been discussed on slashdot ad nauseum.
Indeed it has, and always in an evidence free context.
He doesn't provide evidence
Indeed, and that is all that matters.
you must have felt this?
"Feelings" are not evidence.
Of course I get less done per hour as I get tired. But do I fall further behind? No. I have never felt that.
And in computing those mistakes tend to take longer to undo than if nothing had been done... ie negative work.
If you are using TDD and regression tests, those mistakes should be caught as you make them. Even if you don't, you can alway rollback your Git repository.
There are some very old systematic studies done by Ford and others ...
Citation?
the additional hours make the overall result worse
I can believe a productivity drop, but you are claiming NEGATIVE productivity after X hours. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you provide ... nothing.
There are a lot of idiots that do not know this though.
People that refuse accept assertions without evidence are not "idiots". Quite the opposite.
It kind of bothers me a little to see so many people talk about imposter syndrome (AKA Dunning-Kruger).
No. IS and DK are OPPOSITES.
Imposter Syndrome: You think are dumber than you really are.
Dunning-Kruger: You think you are smarter than you really are.
Its a bit misleading though on the numbers. They had a little over 10 thousand responses, which for their overall user base is probably statistically significant, but not for individual companies registered on there.
This is a common misunderstanding about statistics. You do NOT need a lot of samples for statistical significance, and the number of datapoints needed is usually far below what people intuitively expect.
If you want to improve predictions, it is generally far more important to improve the representativeness of the samples, and design the questions to elicit a proper response. Increasing the sample size does little.
Then finally, what is the rate of imposter syndrome among other profession?
Very good question. Without knowing this, the results of this survey don't really mean much.
But I agree, there is something severely wrong if you find it as often as here.
Then how high should it be? What is a "normal" level of imposter syndrome?
Do you have any evidence that other skilled jobs have lower levels?
Also, is it possible to have both Imposter Syndrome and Dunning-Kruger Syndrome? Or are they mutually exclusive?
Um, isn't the whole point of this tariff to try to push companies like Apple to manufacture stuff in the USA instead of China?
That is the point. But it is not the result. Tariffs lead to retaliation. It makes no sense for companies to set up separate manufacturing in every country where they do business, rather than in a single efficient factory. Doing so raises prices. The only question is if it is cheaper to just pay the tariff instead.
Apple may decide to assemble some phones in America, but with automation this will create few jobs. Meanwhile, other companies will move operations OUT of America, as Harley-Davidson is already doing. Boeing will likely move some manufacturing to China, to avoid losing the entire Asian market to Airbus. Many semiconductor companies will do the same. Brazilian soybeans have already gone up in price while American soybeans are falling.
All of this leads to inefficiency, fragmentation, despecialization, higher prices, lower wages, and lower living standards.
It is considered as such by some. So is San Francisco which is even farther away than Santa Cruz.
The "valley" in Silicon Valley is Santa Clara Valley. Neither San Francisco nor Santa Cruz is in the valley. SCV is bounded by the Santa Cruz Mountains on the west (the city of Santa Cruz is on the other side of these mountains) and the Diablo Range on the east.
Santa Clara Valley
the same hackneyed notion which has never been proven to be feasible.
Car platoons were tested in traffic on I-95 in Southern California in the 1990s. They work fine. They don't even require self-driving, just sensors and intelligent braking.
Your citation is paywalled.
As a free trade supporting fiscal conservative, I would love to see a realignment in American politics. I have recently heard some of my liberal friends saying tariffs and subsidies are bad, just because Trump supports them, and they ignore the fact that Bernie advocated the same dumb policies.
If the Democrats can combine social tolerance with sensible economic policies, and the Republicans can concentrate all the stupidity into one party, that would be wonderful.
My wife has an app business, and we have sent many emails back and forth to Apple's support staff. A 30 day delay in response is fairly typical and marking a message "URGENT" makes no difference. They are just way understaffed and disorganized. No conspiracy theory is needed here.
It's a free trade / taxes / mass immigration issue.
Actually, according to many economists, it is a technology issue.
Now, you can argue that my wages will start climbing as a result of this
No, you can't argue that. As Americans replace jobs designing smartphones with jobs sewing t-shirts, wages will go down, not up.
High tariffs mean higher prices and lower wages.
Every complex problem has a solution that is simple, obvious, and wrong. Protectionism is one of those solutions.
We call that "bumper to bumper" traffic. It is neither innovative nor desirable.
No. Human "bumper to pumper" traffic averages one or more car length between cars, has a wide range of speeds as cars speed up and slow down in an "accordion effect", and ... most importantly ... humans react poorly when the traffic actually begins to clear, hesitating for many seconds before accelerating. 1000 cars, each adding 5 seconds of delay, and you have an hour long traffic jam.
All of this is caused by human inattentiveness, lack of situational awareness, and slow reaction times. None of these apply to computers.
California's helmet law is not about "safety". It is an underhanded way to ban scooter-sharing. A helmet requirement would make it much more difficult for the scooter companies. How can they possibly keep a helmet with each scooter? If riders are expected to bring their own helmets, it would make it much more of a hassle, and require people to plan ahead.
One example is Santa Monica. They just spent $100M on their "Big Blue Bus" system, and are getting far below the expected ridership. There are not even enough riders to cover the running costs, much less the immense capital investment. So now some hot shots come along with some cheap scooters, which are far more convenient and fun than the bus, and are stealing even more of their riders. The buses obviously were poorly planned and have a broken business model, but, hey, it's the government, so they can just use laws to ban competition, and claim it is about "safety".
Self-driving cars can drive in tight "platoons" that greatly increase the carrying capacity of roads. They can anticipate traffic movement and light changes, so they smooth the flow of traffic. So, no, congestion won't get worse, because congestion is a result of human behavior.
Also, the last several times I have used Lyft, there was an option to share the ride, in exchange for a 20-30% discount. I clicked on it every time. If I was in my own car, I would have driven alone. So it is not at all clear that SDCs will mean more cars on the road. Small self -driving vans carrying 6-8 people can replace both buses and many cars.
Waiting for technology is the sign of failure of planning and thought.
Assuming technology won't improve is an even bigger failure. Projects like California's $100B train will take decades to finish, yet are focused on fixing yesterday's problems.
real estate
3 out of 4 real estate agents quit or go inactive within two years of starting. Reason: they are making way less money than they expected.
I have a real estate license. I do an occasional transaction for friends and family, but am otherwise inactive.
All have better hours and WAY better pay.
Absolute hogwash.