Would you people seriously just *stop* doing unpaid work already?!?!
-
Because overworked employees are not productive. Nor happy. No matter how much they fake it. Productive and happy people think better and produce better code.
Jeremy Falcon
Not with all programmers. Some devs, specially young single mid-20s type devs like to work overtime (even without pay) and 50-60 hour weeks would not be unusual to them, nor does it affect their productivity all that much.
Regards, Nish
Blog: voidnish.wordpress.com
-
Ah... see I have helped you down the road to recovery, now you have moved on from denial to anger. I cannot give you the answers you need to find them on your own.
That's a cop-out, and an arrogant one. You need to explain exactly what you mean, or you are just blowing hot air. You keep talking about how I handled things the wrong way, and then refuse to say what I should have done differently. You keep saying that I acted irresponsibly, and then refuse to say what a responsible course of action would have been. Unless you can explain what you think I should have done differently, I'm going to have to assume that you're just concern trolling.
-
That's a cop-out, and an arrogant one. You need to explain exactly what you mean, or you are just blowing hot air. You keep talking about how I handled things the wrong way, and then refuse to say what I should have done differently. You keep saying that I acted irresponsibly, and then refuse to say what a responsible course of action would have been. Unless you can explain what you think I should have done differently, I'm going to have to assume that you're just concern trolling.
Not liking what I say doesn't mean it is trolling. Not giving you answers isn't a cop out. I was trying to bow out of this conversation, but insinuations of trolling should not be ignored. I saw Alaric_ jumping in as well and primarily I am concerned that he and I do not start to triangulate on you. I never said nor implied nor insinuated you are irresponsible go reread. Expecting me to provide you detailed answers as to how you should have handled a difficult situation long since passed is not realistic nor fair to me. Here is what you need to digest. The answers to your questions do not matter. Asking them and considering he possibilities is where the growth lies. A lot of these kinds of things do not have a right answer now or then - how could I give you one? If you want to have a philosophical conversation I can indulge. But I wont go for further insinuations.
-
Not liking what I say doesn't mean it is trolling. Not giving you answers isn't a cop out. I was trying to bow out of this conversation, but insinuations of trolling should not be ignored. I saw Alaric_ jumping in as well and primarily I am concerned that he and I do not start to triangulate on you. I never said nor implied nor insinuated you are irresponsible go reread. Expecting me to provide you detailed answers as to how you should have handled a difficult situation long since passed is not realistic nor fair to me. Here is what you need to digest. The answers to your questions do not matter. Asking them and considering he possibilities is where the growth lies. A lot of these kinds of things do not have a right answer now or then - how could I give you one? If you want to have a philosophical conversation I can indulge. But I wont go for further insinuations.
Rowdy Raider wrote:
I never said nor implied nor insinuated you are irresponsible go reread.
You need to take a deep breath and go back and read what you said. You did imply that I acted irresponsibly, you accused me of causing a co-worker to get fired because I didn't handle things properly (without saying what I should have done), and you only offer up advice along the lines of "go read up on emotional intelligence." Regardless of what you intended, you were being insulting and arrogant. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I think it's a bit ironic that you are refusing to take responsibility for what you said.
Rowdy Raider wrote:
I could argue that the more responsible approach is to manage the situation, NOT take actions that end up with the company losing two valuable employees. .
Do you really not see what you are saying there? You seem keen on pointing out the psychology of others but seem blind to your own. Physician, heal thyself.
-
Childish.
Jeremy Falcon
-
it's weird (and this is just a pretest not a contestation) how many time is wasted on trying to state something that is simply wrong, and being wrong do not make you silly, but make the sentence "Brain is a muscle" silly. This is semantic, just say: "Hey, I am not silly. I just wrote something silly" and all the discuss stop there. Hey, we are human, we make errors such as missing "like", and we have an ego, that could be offended, it happen, just that. Saying "is a" followed by "and like a" make a shift from language to metalanguage, the "and" make that shift. English is not my mother tongue, I am sure I am doing error here too. The pretest is because maybe is for the ego that one pretends to stay on deadline, or at least this is my experience, I want to show I am good and I can do it in time, is not always a matter of money. Again, I am human, and I will stop doing unpaid work. I just did a silly thing ;) p.s. I am trying to sound smart because a silly thing to argue about, but I like to sound smart, I do not care if I am not, or maybe that is my fail (to care) and I want to change it.
Daniele Cruciani wrote:
p.s. I am trying to sound smart because a silly thing to argue about, but I like to sound smart, I do not care if I am not, or maybe that is my fail (to care) and I want to change it.
I actually like your reply. The fact is, he was being argumentative and taking things way too literally. Whereas you're not. Sure, we all have egos, but to get caught up on one silly little word when anyone with any real intelligence knows what I mean is just being anal.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Your words mean nothing from me until you do something useful with your life.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
Cute Mike. Enjoy being you, I'm sure you have tons of friends offline.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Very clearly you do not talk to people that aren't programmers.
Jeremy Falcon
-
You're welcome.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Come on - he's not arguing semantics - you said the brain is a muscle - it is not in the least bit like a muscle. The only respect it is in any way like a muscle is that its efficiency seems to be increased with increased use, up to a point. saying "the brain is a muscle" is like saying "a toenail is a human" because they both grow when healthy.
PooperPig - Coming Soon
He's being pedantic over semantics. Anyone that doesn't rot in front of a computer and knows how to talk to people should know better that any fool already knows what he said. It was a pointless post and argumentative. Plain and simple. And I don't expect most people on here to know since they don't have any social skills. Keep in mind, I don't think your post was argumentative. Just referring to his.
Jeremy Falcon
-
I have to ask, what do you care what the salaried employees do? It's their time not yours.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
jeron1 wrote:
I have to ask, what do you care what the salaried employees do?
The real problem of course is that it means that the professionals don't understand the impact of that on the business. There are probably many but some include - There is an expectation that everyone should work those hours - Some employees don't want to work that long but do because of the expectations. - Some employees cant work that long but feel like they are not contributing. - Some employees that work that long, like doing so, but resent the ones that don' also do it. - The above two impact moral in various ways. And moral is something that has been proven to impact productivity. - When a normal work week consumes all the time that employees have then when an emergency develops something will fail because there are no hours left. - Often such extra work is never added into the project thus there is no way a business can create an accurate project plan. - The loss of a employee can hurt a normal project but, because employees have extra time, they can make up for that. Obviously when there is no extra time no one can make up for it. - Over work very likely means cutting corners, which can impact quality. Doesn't of course mean that it it crap but it is unlikely that it as good as it could have been.
-
No.Unbillable.Work! If the customer isn't paying for it, the customer doesn't get it. Call me crazy, but I bill for every single hour I work...like I am supposed to. It infuriates me when I get into a project with salaried employees that commit "heroic effort" to making their screw ups not look like screw ups and make my 40-45 hour a week billable commitment look diminished. I had a guy tell me first thing when we got in that he was working until 2:00 this morning completing something because the customer ballooned our scope but held firm to the original deadline. What does project management tell said customer when he did this? "Ok." The real problem is that giving project management what they want just reinforces to them that it is ok to start death marches; your reward for completing one is that you get to start your next. I get paid or you do not get work done. No. Unbillable. Work. STOP IT!!!!
"I need build Skynet. Plz send code"
I'm in agreement here. If this becomes the norm in the industry it's going to run the same destruction my other job had: In architecture the client is basically asking for a Rolls Royce, yet willing to pay only for a Mini. And then as the project continues adds to it, modifies it, asks for 100's of throwaway alternative designs, to the point where the actual amount of work going into it (at the end of several years) is equivalent to a passenger liner instead of the original under-quoted Rolls Royce. And the trouble is that everyone's been doing it for so long now, that that is what every single client expects! If an architect refuses he will simply loose that project as well as any future projects since the client then just goes to the guy down the street who's perfectly willing to work himself to death for the bare minimum pay. Used to be a lucrative career, now it's more like 16 hour days with pay you'd expect for a labourer. So if this is where the programming industry is heading, be sure to rather go with those far-east sweat shops like most architects are also now doing!
-
He's being pedantic over semantics. Anyone that doesn't rot in front of a computer and knows how to talk to people should know better that any fool already knows what he said. It was a pointless post and argumentative. Plain and simple. And I don't expect most people on here to know since they don't have any social skills. Keep in mind, I don't think your post was argumentative. Just referring to his.
Jeremy Falcon
It was pointlessly pedantic, yes, but slightly less so than you're thinking. (And semantics is concerned with meaning, so arguing over semantics is not by any means automatically something to be dismissive of, given that the meaning is often the whole point.) Granted it is a somewhat silly objection, but why is it a little less silly than you're thinking? Because your original claim is kind of oddly put together. The original statement you made (loosely) takes the form of a logical argument that's actually based on interpreting "brain is a muscle" in a fairly literal fashion, and falls apart into meaninglessness if you do not. Here's what you said: "The brain is a muscle. And like any other muscle, it can be overworked and destroyed." So you are essentially making this logical argument: 1. The brain is a muscle. 2. Muscles can be overworked and destroyed. 3. Therefore, the brain, being a muscle, can be overworked and destroyed. In other words, whatever you meant to say, you didn't actually say "The brain is kind of like a muscle in that it can be overworked and destroyed." Instead you implied that the brain's capability for overwork and destruction actually comes from its being a muscle. This in turn implies either a mistaken understanding of the biology involved, or, if the original premise is meant to be symbolic, it is a case of the logical fallacy known as "argument from analogy" ("X is like Y in one respect, and therefore it is like Y in some other respect as well."). (Unless the only similarity referred to in the first claim is nothing more than its capacity for overwork and destruction, in which case you basically said "The brain can be overworked and destroyed. And like anything else that can be overworked and destroyed, it can be overworked and destroyed.") How's that for pedantic overanalysis? :)
-
Your words mean nothing from me until you do something useful with your life.
Jeremy Falcon