If you're only traveling once a year, you can handle a 45 minute wait twice (although yes, it still sucks). If you're traveling once a week, it's a completely different ballpark.

There are sports, like handball, where each coach can call a very short timeout at more or less any time during the game for exactly this purpose. The team and coach gets to spend a minute together to adjust their tactics on the fly, based on what is working, and what isn't.

Otherwise, I agree with the conclusion of this piece, that a manager/leader should tailor their meeting(s) to what is required for their specific team to work best. If the team consists of people that all pro-actively communicate, then the meeting might not be needed. If the team has problems with making deliveries on time, then slightly more shepherding is perhaps needed.

Even still, they use quite a lot of money too.

Charging takes longer yes, and some chargers/vehicles may occasionally malfunction, but nothing newsworthy.

However, I've since come to realize that too many people either just won't care about the implications, or are oblivious of them. I've come to realize that, in practice, relying on the user behaving adequately is going to create too much damage to rely on.

There is a chicken and the egg problem when it comes to designing these things.

I can ask "What do you want the dashboard to look like" and they'll answer "I don't know before I see the data".

Then I'll ask what data they want to see, and they'll respond "What will it look like?", or we'll spend significant time on data collection only to find they never actually want it in a dashboard after all.

By far and away the most time consuming aspect of this entire domain is to find out what users actually want to see, as they almost never have something specific enough when they approach me.

If the employees here (and in the OP) did the same, they could start the strike by the end of one workday, so that no food/cement would be wasted as it it was never prepared.

Is this not possible in the US? Or is this a case of increasing one-uppance as the relationship between companies and employees is _that bad_?

While it does take place in a war zone, you play from the perspective of the civilians that are trapped within a besieged city and struggle to survive. Violence here is incredibly dangerous for survival, and should be avoided at all costs.

* Papers please

You play as a border control employee that must validate that all people crossing the border have the correct documentation. Due to the nature of the environment there will be some guns/violence involved, but it is by far not the main focus of the game. Glory to Arstotzka.

These games may not be to your liking, depending on how hard you are on the "NO gun/violence" requirement. These approach the topics from a more civilian view than other games.

What is the character? What is it doing? What are those? During gameplay, you might reason to possible answers.

One example of this is when our national newspaper (NRK) did an investigation[1] on "anonymized" GPS data, and could easily find the identities of the persons they belonged to.

[1]: https://www.nrk.no/norge/xl/avslort-av-mobilen-1.14911685

I have experienced that the amount of work produced is not linearly correlated with the amount of hours worked. I find that in the periods I work full-time, I get more done per hour than otherwise.

What I have found has the largest (negative) impact on my performance is the context switching that is required when I get back to work tasks. I have to get into that mindset again, which takes time. I've tried to reduce the amount of context switching by grouping work-days and uni-days, but I still notice the difference.

It would perhaps be different if I had time to (sub)consciously think about the problems at work during non-work days, but in my case that is taken by learning other things.

But hey, I like my job a lot, so perhaps full time is not as "soul killing" for me as other people.

Yeah it shows that it is old. The battery and performance is worse than before, but it still lasts the day as I am not using it that hard. I have no legitimate _need_ to upgrade as it stands today.

I guess the frequency of upgrades quite heavily on usage, but I find upgrading every 2 years to be very often.

If Apple were to add this tax or raise it long after launch I could perhaps see this argument.

However, this tax is nothing new. AFAIK it has been like this for _years_. App developers must have known (before starting development) that there is a fee if you were to use the platform.

If you knew a certain street has mafia activity (or other similar taxes), would you make the concious choise of moving your store there? Well, if the business opportunuties are good enough, then it might be worth it. If the mafia suddenly showed up, then the equation could be different. This is just like any other business investment analysis.

If 30% is too much all in all, then it is unsustainable to keep the app store as an option.

I read through the first chapter of PSP now, and this is exactly what I need! Thank you so much for sharing this.

"timing the market" would then be saving up for a long time, then dumping it all in when you think it has hit its low.

To transfer the analogy, it would be like shireboy describes. You would keep up with the news to see what technology is brewing. That does not mean that you have to be the industry expert on every single technology you decide to look into, but you are more aware.

I think your last paragraph can be compared to stopping investing into the market, and rely on interest to keep you growing.