3000 emails per week of course.
Assuming 3000 emails in an 8 hour workday, 5 days a week, this is one email every 48 seconds on average, all the time. And if you compress its handling into part of the day, it means spending approx. 2 hours when you spend 2 seconds per email. How does this "represent a few seconds of distraction here and there a worst"?
I frequently come back from a week out of the office and have several thousand unread emails. Keeping up with that amount of crap as it comes in is a tolerable waste of time
You get thousands of emails a week and dealing with that is just fine unless you are on vacation?
With your attitude of "the audience is dumb", you should work at a network.
Not sure how you are getting from the factual statement I made to the phantasy you are projecting on me.
The audience's actions being prompted by people with cue boards, etc., of course.
Then you won't be reading slashdot any more either, right? Because the Sheldon Cooper characterizes epitomizes a significant fraction of the posts here - myopic, minimal empathy and a retreat to 'logic' that is really just selfish rationalization.
Thanks, I've been grappling with words for this for a while after having started to work in a really nerdy place. It's ok, but strangely aggravating, and you put it very well, especiall the last part. There's also no use in pointing it out to some people, it simply does not register, just like on
Missing modpoints again so quoting the AC +1 informative:
Speaking as a university researcher
I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment of your post, but in research ethics the concept of coercion is often taken much more broadly than it might be in typical parlance.
The idea is that if the incentives for research participation become too large, someone might not be able to rationally turn down an offer, and might be compelled to do something they do not want to do. I.e., you can coerce someone with rewards that are too large, just as you can coerce them with punishments that are too large. The idea is to prevent people from feeling like they sold their soul to the devil.
Where this gets complicated is that what is considered to be a coercive incentive depends on the potential participant's circumstances. So if you're homeless, you might feel compelled to do something you wouldn't otherwise do because you're desperate. I've been on research proposals where $35 or so USD was considered coercive because that amount of money was so large for the area of the world that they were recruiting from at the time.
I'm not sure how this intersects with this story--I agree that in itself, there's nothing wrong with recruiting homeless individuals. You also don't want to deny them opportunities that others have. But by the same token, you don't want to take advantage of their circumstances to make an undignified proposal something they can't refuse (not saying it is undignified, just that it probably needs more scrutiny, which it may or may not have had).
Oddly obligatory XKCD. To rebut your snark, with a minimal breeding pool and sufficient preservation, we could live on eating each other for millions of years. Might as well be forever with those time frames.
No, It was What If and you are misremembering it.
WTF are you rambling about?
Mai-lüf-terl. Exactly three syllables...
Maybe he referred to the official "Binär dezimaler Volltransistor-Rechenautomat" which does sound as if Hitler had moved to a career in CS
Interesting, thanks. I would guess that it's a nerd thing and probably there were earlier cases, but now I am intrigued.
Yes they do, but the headline was rewritten by the
Now I envy your nick. And yeah, so Austrian it makes me a little homesick.
After gettin the flack for the may/May typo already, the headline was edited by the editor and was not my fault. Mine had sucked as well though
Not a German but maybe an Austrian