|
Bonuses? You mean the $50 gift card to a restaurant I got after working 12+ hours a day, 7 days a week for 2 months straight? On my subsequent annual review, I was told I was the best developer they had and because of that, I was getting a raise .5% higher than average. I left not long after that.
|
|
|
|
|
I was working for an outfit that demanded 45+ hours/week. After two months of that I took 4 hours off on a Friday and had to deduct that from accrued vacation time. When I refused to work another 12 hour day I got fired, which turned out to be one of the best bonuses I ever got!
|
|
|
|
|
Additionally, it sets expectations that the OP and others that may not be inclined to sell their soul have to suffer with.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd have to agree.
It really surprised me: I had always been in an environment where you ate at your desk, worked long hours, some weekends - mostly unpaid, but for the occasional "thank you" - then I started a new job with a different company and on the first day I was told (with some impatience) that they were waiting to lock up the building at 17:02.
On the second day, one of the order processing ladies "had a quiet word" and told me to stop working my lunch hour. They suspected that if I didn't they would have to start... 
So I found myself working 09:00 to 17:00 (13:00 on Fridays) even after I was given the key to the building with a full hour off for lunch. And b*gg*r me! I was getting more done... 
I think it has two effects: you focus better while you are working, and the breaks let you relax and become more creative at the same time. So much so that I don't work a full hour any more: I take regular breaks and do something different - come here for example - and it works.
Counter-intuitive, I know.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Counter-intuitive, I know.
It's true though. The brain is a muscle. And like any other muscle, it can be overworked and destroyed. We need to give our "thinking" brains some to rest and recoup to always be on our A game. The folks that rot in front of their computer and drug themselves up on coffee tend to act more like zombies than anything else. You just can't beat rest to keep the brain sharp.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: The brain is a muscle. And like any other muscle...
I agree that the brain needs rest and all that but let's not be silly... it ain't a muscle. 
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Mullikin wrote: it ain't a muscle.
Wrong. You're just arguing semantics, but it functions just like a muscle. When you work a muscle it becomes stronger. When you work your brain it becomes quicker and clearer. When you overwork either, they both break down and become damaged.
Do some research before dismissing it, or else you'll get stuck in old ways of thinking. Here's a quick Google to even get you started...
http://kids.frontiersin.org/articles/20/your_brain_is_like_a_muscle/[^]
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: You're just arguing semantics
I'm not arguing anything... You made a statement that is totally false. The brain is an organ not a muscle. PERIOD. I agree that the brain (like muscles) needs to be "exercised" to become / stay strong but physiologically the brain is totally different than a muscle.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
|
|
|
|
|
Yup, you're arguing semantics. I know they technically work different, that's common sense. Seriously Mike, no duh. Any fool knows that. Guess what, circles and squares are different too. Are you trying to sound smart by finding something that silly to argue about? Everyone knows they're different. But they are both shapes they both work like shapes. Like I said, you're arguing semantics simply because I didn't use a word such as "like" in my original post when comparing the two.
Do me a favor, argue about not arguing some more. That would be swell.
And speaking of semantics, muscles are organs too.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pot, meet kettle.[^]
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're welcome.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
you said it's a muscle. very clearly. and it is not. get over it.
|
|
|
|
|
Very clearly you do not talk to people that aren't programmers.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 18-Aug-15 18:18pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Your words mean nothing from me until you do something useful with your life.
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
|
|
|
|
|
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? 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
