> "Imagine wanting to watch a video on how to help one of your loved ones who is choking and you get 10 unskippable ads before you can watch the video."
Someone pop this in a time capsule and label it "peak twitter, early 21st century"
While fortunately I never had to call 911, I'm pretty sure this should be the case.
Whoever answers the phone should be ready to either give you immediate instructions (or transfer you to someone who can do that) until an ambulance/police arrives.
I find it fascinating that we're in an era where there are more elite sportspeople playing deep into their thirties or fourties across many sports that historically saw shorter careers. Ronaldo and Messi in football, Federer and Williams in tennis, Anderson in Cricket, Brady too.
Is this simply a coincidence? Or maybe they're the elite vanguard of a wave of people who experienced most/all of their career during the age of sports science? I wonder if this will be more and more commonplace: if you have that level of talent and discipline, you can stay at that level for longer.
While Brady is definitely an anomaly in American football there is a similar group in tennis that I have been watching with fascination for a while now. When I was young tennis stars were shooting stars that lit up the court for a few years and then retired. Connors, Borg, Lendl, McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi: all were at the top for 3-5 years and then stumbled a few times before retiring.
Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal have collectively dominated mens tennis together for more than 15 years. There is an entire generation of mens tennis players who never reached the upper tier of the sport because these three were so dominant that their only real competition was each other. Also-rans of this era like Murray, Roddick would probably have had their own run at the top in previous decades but just never had a shot against that dominating threesome.
Andy Murray was twice Olympic champion, won 3 Grand Slams and was World No 1 for 41 weeks. His hip injury meant he didn't have the longevity of the others but he was hardly an "also-ran".
I have a theory that these guys started training and competing before the era of smart phones (which i think leads to issues with attention span and confidence) but they also came at a time when sports medicine / sports technology was booming.
The central premise of this article misses the mark, at least as far I see Quiet Quitting. It's less about managers and more about the relationship between an employer and employee. We're seeing time and time again employers cutting employees loose to save the company, or doing everything they can to avoid employees getting more leverage.
> What makes the difference for those who view work as a day prison and others who feel that it gives them meaning and purpose?
What about the middle ground? I know plenty of people who enjoy their job, but they're not going the extra mile because why should they? They're happy to carry their job out to the best of their abilities within the crucial parameter that their abilities extend to the work laid out in their employment agreement with their employer - namely, hours of time and human brain/physical power in exchange for money.
My experience is the opposite - you can easily guide someone on a path to learning how to code, but the 'soft' skills you mention are often impossible to change in someone: like how they interact with peers, or how they approach challenges, or how they learn. These things are infinitely harder to evaluate during interviews but have far greater impact on your impact at work, as far as I can see.
You're mistaking average/good developers for great ones. There is definitely a gap between those and raw coding ability at that point is the one skill that you can't teach without fundamentally changing one's mental state. Soft skills definitely have that same issue, but to a significant lesser extent
Have to admit that as soon as he pulled up a page, looked at the visual layout and said “see there’s not that many features here”, I ducked out. What a strange article.
The irony of the CEO of twitter presenting information supposed to add nuance and context to a debate… using a twitter thread where every paragraph is an open invitation to misinterpretation.
The twitter format is not conducive of a nuanced data-based discussion and never will be, by design.
Nor is there anything in that thread by CEO that shows us he has no incentive to lie and hide behind "personal data not accessible to outsiders". But trust us, they're human! You just can't check!
It's mind-blowing how anyone can be naive enough to believe that, without some sort of personal incentive (e.g. Twitter employee or some dir-level whose bonus depends on the buyout)
I'd say his word is more convincing than the exact opposite position as similarly-baselessly-claimed claimed by Elon, who similarly has a conflict of interest incentivizing him to be dishonest, as well as a vindictive personality driving him towards the same
AFAIK, the duty of the CEO to lie for the shareholders is far outweighed by the duty of the CEO to not lie to the shareholders via SEC filing (or earnings calls, etc)
How is this different than me quoting only bits of a blog post? You can say that you can just reply with the whole quote , but I can just easily quote tweet reply the tweet that gives context. I feel fact the quote tweet is even guaranteed to be unedited and linked to the rest of the conversation.
The difference is that a blog post is presented as a whole, in long form. The author can construct context to have a debate informed by things harder to put into an individual tweet. Long form communication is where nuance lives. Twitter actively seeks to reduce and diminish that because any single tweet has to summarise its ideas in a single character-limited block. I personally think it’s a net negative for the world
I wonder how many stacks of containers are no longer viable (and how many more journeys will be needed) on vessels fitted with those two enormous sails.
I think the answer to that is to build it into a hightop container and make it the last on top of a large stack. Plug ship power into it and control from the main deck.
You could probably mount these on top of some sort of mast so the actual sail clears the containers. You'd lose the space the columns take but that's still a lot less containers lost than the picture suggests.
The problem with using it for container ships isn't necessarily the height (although that could be a problem, as retraction for bridge clearance requirements makes mast engineering a lot harder). The problem is heeling due to the wind. We already have a fairly large problem with containers falling off of ships and being lost at sea, and this could only make it worse.
Hi everyone, I've made a little service to help everyone - rather, everyone who uses Google Calendars for work - analyse the impact that the Pandemic had on meetings. Hope it's useful for you!
> but practicing context switching will also make one more efficient at it
I'm interested in your experience here, have you found that you were able to switch context more effectively with practise?
My own experience is different: when I'm in an environment where I am being constantly switched, I find myself tending to tasks that require less mental effort in anticipation of the switch. It's a death spiral for me and not something I'd like to practise.
Of course I have; I've become increasingly proficient at managing multiple pots on the stove at the same time with experience.
An even better example would be the video game of StarCraft II that I once played frequently that is known for it's high demands of the multitasking ability of the player. If context switching and multitasking could not be trained, players could not become better at that game as they do.
That rings some bells. My observation is that I did not get better at switching, but once I’ve got used to timings of building/preparing something, it greatly reduced the anxiety for not getting things in sync, which in turn removed a decision paralysis (a bit), which kicks in even if I have a plenty of time to plan ahead. I still have trouble with remembering to adjust macro when apm has to be retained at high marks.
> I still have trouble with remembering to adjust macro when apm has to be.
“awareness”, as it is called in StarCraft II, is definitely a skill that improves with training.
Seasoned players remain aware of what other tasks must also be done while they are devoting attention to one and thus allocate their attention better.
I personally never had the panic freezes that some new players have in this game, but I did remember having them in StarCraft I at the initial stages, but as I improved I indeed became more aware.
Brain scans of StarCraft II players at high level also indicated that they actually play large parts of the game not with higher, cognitive function, but with lower brain functions which is another thing that improves with training that the article speaks of in terms of cognition, becoming better at it entails assimilating more and more actions into autonomous reactions allowing for better multi tasking, which certainly also reflects upon cooking and computer tasks when many of the actions become more autonomous.
I wouldn't think of different things in starcraft, or many sauce pans, as context switching.
Instead, if you were to play a different strategy game for 30 min, or prepare a speech for 30 min -- that'd be a more real & problematic context switch.
(I've played starcraft btw, and cook food with many sauce pans.)
It's totally different when you can plan for everything, like when things are deterministic like a game.
In real life, when you need to constantly switch to new problems to solve, it gets really time consumming, and saps motivation.
