> "They are really good engineers, really indispensable. And then they start to pull 9-5 days"
Worthless slackers.
Worthless slackers.
The article is very unclear, they also quote:
>"Most of my friends at Google work four hours a day. They are senior engineers and don't work hard. They know the Google system, know when to kick into gear. They are engineers, so they optimized the performance cycles of their own jobs," one engineer described.
Probably a lot of cherry picking going on.
I have had periods when my day was six hours: five hours of hard work and an hour of eating lunch at my desk while I chatted with someone, dealt with email, got tomorrow planned, and other overhead. It remains my most effective schedule when I'm doing straight technical work as opposed to people work. That hasn't stopped bosses from wanting me to sit around the office for a couple more hours so other people, who did take regular Facebook breaks and the like, didn't feel like I was a part timer.
What makes you say that?
As a senior engineer, communicating to those less senior is typically much more important than coding. That's how a good senior engineer force multiplies their knowledge and levels up the entire organization.
I don't particularly find this situation to be bad. They are doing the tasks assigned to them, and there is a defacto agreement with the management that they have other things to take care of as well, but will get a ton of shit done when they do work.
Leaving up the post for my own shame.
What, because they work 40 hours per week?
I have a 4x10 schedule (including a weekend day) and I work exactly my assigned hours. The company is paying me for those hours and nothing more--exceptional circumstances excluded, of course--so I feel no qualms about sticking with that. I get to have a life outside of work, too.
I do dislike forums like ArsTechnica where "/s" is prominent, I believe that if you need to write a sarcasm tag to get that across, you likely should not be writing sarcasm at all.
Then again there's people like parent which will miss what I believe to be obvious sarcasm, and I wonder all over again if there's a point to it all.
Sometimes I think we should just not write sarcasm at all on written communications.
That being said I had no problem seeing sarcasm in this example, chiefly because the language was obviously different(how often does one use the word "worthless" to describe people?). I guess it makes for a useful rule of thumb regarding what could be reasonably considered sarcasm.
Hell, people can't decide if The Prince is a satire or not.