|
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? 
|
|
|
|
|
No no, true words coming from a self employed man 
However, all joke aside, I think your right. But I also think it matters what you do, a research project it might be a bit different than in a boring this must be done as fast and correct as possible thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Not necessarily: when you are "fresh" you make less mistakes, so you don't have to go back so much and fix them - which can take more time than getting it right in the first place.
See? I said it was counter-intuitive!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
They do make mistakes, but people like Euler won't care anyway. It seems like the couldn't stop, as they really couldn't imagine doing anything else. He is describing doing maths when his grandchildren sat in his lap.
While most of us do things that we know what to do, its just to get it done. After work we generally want to do something completely different, like solving CCC or whatever. 
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: 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...
Well said. I have never known that not to be the case.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Nope. NOT counter-intuitive. Some years back I read an article about productivity. The author said we should schedule our work efforts at 60% of our total time. The "free" time allows us to relax, to think about what we are doing, to work "smarter", and to improve both our products and our processes. In the short term it appears to be a productivity drain, but in the long term the company gets more results from us.
Problem is too many managers don't understand results, they understand butts-in-seats. By this superficial mentality, 70 hours/week is a performer, 40 hours/week is a slacker.
After reading that article I started scheduling all my projects at 60% utilization. I took a LOT of flack from clients who believed that a 160 estimate for one person meant that the product would be delivered in 4 weeks.
The end result? Better products delivered exactly when promised. Lower defect rates, less hours, and happier people. This doesn't mean we didn't have crunch time, but we had a lot less of it, and people feel better about putting in the extra hours when necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
I've long advocated for a system where, at review time, effort is rewarded differently than accomplishment.
In my system, at the end of the year/quarter/whatever, the company would have a policy that says you get x% of any overtime worked back as a 'time-off' bonus (because effort should be recognized).
However, when it comes to raises and so on, it's all about what you accomplished. Don't care if you worked 90 or 30 hour weeks; did you accomplish less than, equal to, or more than what would be expected of someone at your level, and make salary adjustments based on that.
Of course, HR drones' heads exploded when asked to consider two dimensions of things...
|
|
|
|
|
Funny you should say that: in the late '80s, I wrote some stuff for British [pa]Telecom, and the last part of the project involved me actually being on site for a few weeks, during which I learned that the working day there consisted of the following:
1. Start of working day: 09:00.
2. Show up for work: 09:15. Go to cafeteria. Breakfast.
3. Start working: 09:45.
4. Elevenses: 11:00. Go to cafeteria.
5. Work some more: 11:20.
6. Lunch: 12:00. Go to cafeteria. And f*** it - have a few beers, too.
7. Work some more: 13:15.
8. Afternoon tea: 15:00. Go to cafeteria. Have coffee to recover from the beer at lunch.
9. Work some more: 15:20.
10. Go home: 16:30.
11. End of working day: 17:00.
...and the amount of work I did during that period was staggering. I came to dread the cafeteria -- in fact, after a few days, work began to feel like a vacation. It was astounding.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
