baseball arguably does a terrible job at solving this.
the minor league system pays significantly less than poverty wages. incentivizing kids to go that route instead of getting an education is terrible.
which is why so many dont, and go to college on scholarships anyway, which leads us right back where we started.
the right analogy to make IMO is ice hockey, especially the canadian model. There, you have well funded and professional-like "minor leagues" (called juniors close to same thing). you can't get paid but in the tier 1 leagues you have very little if not zero personal living expenses, it's like being on a full-ride at a big college program with room and board included. In canada, it's seen as the route potential NHLers take instead of continuing with school. you're not allowed to be paid, but there's a rule in place that for every year you play in that league you're owed one full year of college paid for. If you age out of the league and dont make it as a pro, you at least get 2-4 years of free college to go get the rest of your life together as compensation.
The US Junior system has some of those attributes but is more geared towards getting kids into NCAA scholarships. The thing there though, IMO, is that the money involve in that sport is right about at that sweet spot where i'd argue a full ride to school like notre dame or penn state is about right for the level of compensation owed.
all opinions above are my own, in the context of a former D1 ice hockey athlete who thinks the football players should probably be paid.
The Canadian Major Juniors are a great model. Of course, there also players who try out at MJ camps with their names obscured as not to jeopardize their NCAA eligibility.
Baseball's history of labor abuse ( read up on the history of free agency ) is why the Minors are a terrible mechanism.
minimum wage is minimum wage (IMO?), the business losing money only dictates how long that position will exist for, not change the compensation owed for performing employed work.
in minor league baseball, who's indepent teams may be anywhere on the spectrum of losing or making money but who are also affiliated with parent organizations that make hundreds of millions, there is a plethora of literature lately that accuses them of paying significantly less than US minimum wage. In many cases it appears the players pay them for the right to play when it's all done.
in the college hockey example i referred to, the D1 teams/leagues usually have decent revenue from tickets and tv deals but it's not a ton and i'd take a shot in the dark that most programs are pretty much breaking even after scholarships, staff, and facilities are accounted for. In that environment, having an athlete get "paid" maybe a $40k/year total package in scholarship, room and board, playing equipment and facilities use, and cash per diems on road trips is both above minimum wage and probably no more than they could reasonably expect if the league was "pro" and had nothing to do with college.
you kinda can in a lot of universities with big programs. There's a lot of "sports marketing" and "sports science" majors now that get a little loose with requirements and rigor. when done right, they can be good tools to prep athletes for life after playing (agents, marketing, phys ed instructors and coaches, etc.) but they also run the risk of being places for the football team to sleep through class and get an A for working out and attending video.
when people are living (and budgeting) paycheck to paycheck, with low interest rates, the prices go up a bit more than 1:1. It becomes all about what monthly payment you can afford.
that's not true at all in my experience. In the past we've had "bug bash" type activities, or used that lower-hanging fruit as training opportunities. As an architect i've sometimes grabbed tasks like that just to stay fresh but also out of the way of the prioritized team backlog.
Bug bashes are a bit like cool down periods in my experience – if your focus is 100% on features all of the time then every now and then you need to catch up on open bugs or piled up tech debt. I'd argue these types of activities are not necessary at all when all stakeholders contribute to the scope of each iteration (see https://simplabs.com/blog/2020/06/17/failing-and-winning-at-...). Still, if a bug isn't taken on for x weeks or months, I'd say 99% of the time it never will be and can just as well be closed since it's ignored anyway.
Yep, ShapeUp describes an open "Cool Down" period between cycles, where people are free to work on whatever they want - favorite bugs, features, docs, developer tools, etc.
They discuss how everyone maintains their own personal list of what's important to them and use that to drive their work.
But maintaining a single, centralized list of everything has little value. Anything important is already being tracked in the roadmap, including bugs impacting customers of sufficient priority.
It really is worth reading the ShapeUp book, it provides a good, alternate view of commonly-held beliefs.
ShapeUp is great! I don't think a cool-down phase is good though – if something is important to someone and it is indeed important for the business but still doesn't get planned in any iterations that means either
a) it's not actually important compared to other things so having someone work on it in a cool down phase is likely not well-spent time
or
b) there is a dysfunctional team/organization in which important stuff doesn't get prioritized correctly (typical example for this being 100% product management driven organizations in which refactorings etc. never get any time assigned)
I work in an org that is looking to provide a lot of the same experiences both within salesforce and outside of it, and I'm looking at this make sharing those components easier. Imagine if you have a calculator and it could be used by both your client relations team (working in salesforce) and on your retail-facing web site.
right now we write two UIs and hook them up the same service. now maybe we get to write one UI.
The public is far more at risk with the CIA around to begin with, so long as it continues to carry out bullshit interventions around the world that so often come back to bite us. The primary impediment to enumerating these risks is the CIA's lack of transparency.
as an early riser myself, what bothers me about this is that I personally feel like I'm only talking about because someone else is making a big deal out of it. I don't think I go out of my way to bring the topic up, but I'm constantly getting people saying things like "omg I saw when you sent that email/made that commit/whatever, do you ever sleep", and then I gotta say something like "well I was up at 5 so I knocked it out before I drove in..." and now it's a thing we're talking about and I'm the crazy guy.
It feels like a much bigger issue to late-risers than early-risers.
I really wish I could sleep by 2am. It would make life possible.
My natural sleep pattern is 5am-12. I've literally spent the last decade trying to solve it. Until, I gave up.
it's been a conscious effort on my part and I'm still very susceptible to falling off the wagon for a week at a time. I don't think it's very natural for people tbh. I was always a late worker and still kind of am when the shit really hits the fan, but I am a believer that when I have to put in the extra hours, I'm usually more efficient in the morning that late at night. That motivates me to keep trying.
Move to a new time zone and that 'natural' 5am-12 would shift to match that time zone. So, it's really not about biology it's about how you set up your environment.
That said, as long as it's working for you great! Just don't assume it's impossible to change if it's causing you problems.
This is not your fault, as you really do not know the lengths and depths and tears and effort it has taken for me to change my sleep pattern to be consistent. But there is no "assumption here".
A main problem is - even when i've had to be awake at 9am every day (yes awake at 9am, not working at 9am) it causes me to fall really ill. Mentally and physically your body feels wrecked and it doesn't matter how tired you are, you wake up at night.
I now, after a decade, manage a sleep cycle that doesn't change every day by a few hours and I can just about function enough for meetings.
I can just about get to 1pm meetings and it's taken so much effort just to be able to get here!
I've written nearly 4 articles covering the different strategies i've used to be able to wake up early in the morning. I've slept through some of the most important things - which led me in my final exams to just stay up all night to get to 9am exams incase I wouldn't wake up.
What has worked is accepting that it is a genuine disability and problem. And as you say, adjusting my environment to suit my sleeping issues. Unfortunately, changing time zones doesn't work. But it's a nice theory (I've already tried this).
I'll be posting my articles soon which documents every strategy i've tried over the last decade, in hope it might help someone find a solution for them.
I personally know someone that lived on a 28 hour day for a while (6 * 28 / 7 = 24). He was able to keep a fairly normal workday during the week but over the weekend he was crashing in the day. It only worked because he was religious about managing light levels at home with blackout blinds and sunlamps on timers.
If your willing to try just about anything it might be worth a shot, but you end up making a lot of sacrifices and must keep a very tight schedule.
I've been on a non-24 hour rhythm :). My sleep would change every day by 4-6 hours.
I've had shutters for my windows so no light could get in the evening, light simulation alarm clocks, only used the computer for a maximum of 8 hours a day and got rid of my smart-phone so I had an old fashioned phone, to reduce phone use. I don't drink coffee or tea. Melatonin, sleeping tablets, waking up every day at the same time and going for a run.
Fyi, waking up every time at the same day makes me ill because I still can't sleep early even if i've had a lack of sleep for several nights before.
You can't crash at weekends either. Because if you crash at weekends it messes up your sleep cycle completely and you'll start Monday having slept at 6am on Sunday night.
A tight schedule means you have to do it every day. Then there's the other problem that happens when you crash out - you're really groggy for days.
When I was in school, I'd crash out at 4pm on a Friday night and wake up at 7am the next day. I'd have headaches and feel so drained. And I'd still go to my weekend job.
It's not a lack of motivation.
If you know anything about this guy and the strategies he uses, please do share. Always looking for suggestions.
You might be able to tweak it 45 minutes though by living at the edge of the time zone. But you have to figure out if you’re staying up with the sun or your work schedule.
If you stay up until the sun is nearly up then the eastern edge means the sun is up longer before you have to be at work. But if it’s N hours after you get home, then you’ll see more daylight on the western edge which might be more healthy for you.
For me I don’t want to move if the sun isn’t up yet. I need to move farther south so my winters aren’t as rough.
Does this change at all when the clocks go back / forward? How long does it take you to adjust then?
In my opinion the 2am is just a conceptual thing and there is nothing concrete about it - we change it twice a year and most people adjust fairly quickly.
It should be a bigger deal to late-risers because, you know, a typical schedule of work and socialising isn't compatible with rising late. This is particularly galling because it appears that late-risers are not uncommon.
Early risers speaking on the issue don't have anything interesting to say.
Just goes to show that as careful as we ought to be to make sure what we say is reasonable, we should also be careful to keep our interpretations charitable.
I think the superior->subordinate part of this is a much bigger offense than two equals breaking a no-dating policy. The situation leaves the manager and the company at risk of all kinds of harassment and abuse allegations.
one of the caveats of the question though is the people who are put there already know exactly what they need to build and how to build it; so you don't need 20 phd's to re-solve the chemistry and engineering challenges. It's almost purely a (still not solvable with 20 people) manufacturing problem.
This also assumes that as each step is solved, it doesn't require a continued human presence. I.e. if you develop electricity, the electrical plant needs to be automated and run itself without human (or computer) interaction. The laws of entropy are going to come into play eventually. You might not be able to keep everything working for long enough to make meaningful progress.
They may know exactly how to build something and what they need, but as I understand it they would not get full documentation about the island itself. What resources are where and what the composition of ore exactly is. So they have to develop an understanding of resources they have and that requires a laboratory and sensitive equipment.
Either way I think that lots of machinery has to be supervised 24/7 and they can work only 12h a day per rules so they would probably be left with only 10 simultaneously active workers. With 10 workers I would say it's just impossible.
different states' laws can have a major impact. I have no experience with insurance in MA, but in Michigan 2k/yr per car would be considered fairly cheap. My insurance is routinely near the cost of the car payment itself, and I have a good record and multi-product discounts with my provider.
We definitely have a problem here in this state though.
the minor league system pays significantly less than poverty wages. incentivizing kids to go that route instead of getting an education is terrible.
which is why so many dont, and go to college on scholarships anyway, which leads us right back where we started.
the right analogy to make IMO is ice hockey, especially the canadian model. There, you have well funded and professional-like "minor leagues" (called juniors close to same thing). you can't get paid but in the tier 1 leagues you have very little if not zero personal living expenses, it's like being on a full-ride at a big college program with room and board included. In canada, it's seen as the route potential NHLers take instead of continuing with school. you're not allowed to be paid, but there's a rule in place that for every year you play in that league you're owed one full year of college paid for. If you age out of the league and dont make it as a pro, you at least get 2-4 years of free college to go get the rest of your life together as compensation.
The US Junior system has some of those attributes but is more geared towards getting kids into NCAA scholarships. The thing there though, IMO, is that the money involve in that sport is right about at that sweet spot where i'd argue a full ride to school like notre dame or penn state is about right for the level of compensation owed.
all opinions above are my own, in the context of a former D1 ice hockey athlete who thinks the football players should probably be paid.