Whenever they reboot, respin, retcon, or remake something I love, I'm usually just happier watching what I love. The original Red Dwarf episodes are amazing. If a recombobulation ever does come to be, have a watch party and pop in the classic.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Do you want installers to be unemployed 1/4 of the year?
At every technology company I'm aware of, 55 hour weeks are normal. Someone who works 40 hours isn't going anywhere professionally.
Not my experience at all. I've been a software engineer for 10 years. 40-45 hour weeks are the norm for me, and I make sure my boss knows it. I'm 100% satisfied with my pay, job security, and opportunities.
I've done 50+ hour weeks maybe 30 times in my career. Twice I went a month without a day off, which sucked until I got my bonus check.
I don't think it's that simple, even ignoring the difficulty of finding another job. I've been a software engineer for 10 years, and I've had to pull a few stretches of 55-60 hour weeks. Most engineers I know have done it; we don't like those periods but most of us really like our jobs overall.
In the OP's situation, I'd ask the boss to prove that it's reasonable to expect the company to become profitable under the proposed plan. Ask about dates, revenue, and customer commitments or at least verifiable customer interest. Make sure the boss considers the diminishing returns of working extra hours, and the need to recharge after a burst of extra hours. Working more hours can boost productivity for a while (depending on what you do), but not indefinitely. Personally, I can do 60 hour weeks for about a month before I become so sluggish and dumb that there's no point. Then I need a 4-5 day weekend and a return to 40 weeks for a while -- like 2 years. Cash helps too.
If the boss's plan is likely to work, I'd go for it. If boss won't do that, or tries and fails to be persuasive, start looking for a new job. The company is probably going to fail anyway.
If stock as payment comes up, don't accept it without doing your own research into the value of it. Startups are notoriously hard to price, and the manager may (honestly or not) be inclined to overestimate it.
As a software engineer, this makes sense to me. I haven't met many other engineers who don't like their jobs. Those who do, quit and do something else. I suspect it helps that before you get called "engineer" you build some widely usable skills, and we get paid pretty well even early in the career. So if you don't like it, you have some flexibility in finding something else. Try that in a field with highly specialized (or no) skill, or less ability to save money.
That article really pissed me off. I'd been reading about some of the studies they mention...
A study by the American Institute of Medicine concluded that a link between thiomersal in vaccines and neuro- developmental disorders --including autism - was 'biologically plausible'
In a related U.S. study, researchers found a 'statistically significant' association between thiomersal in vaccines and children with problems such as attention deficit disorder and speech and language learning delays.
Is there an extra page in the British version of Strunk & White that says you should never identify a study or quote more than two words?
How can they mention (I will not call it "cite") studies that are inconclusive on some aspects of a vaccine link, and fail to mention that every study which is rigorous enough to reach a conclusion has concluded there is no link?