To determine the chances of picking the correct answer, we need to know what the correct answer is.
Assume the correct answer is 25%. There are two such choices, so 50% of the choices are correct, so the chance of picking one is 50%.
Assume the correct answer is 50%. There is one such choice, so 25% of the answers are correct, so the chance of picking one is 25%.
Assume the correct answer is 0%. There is one such choice, so 25% of the answers are correct, so the chance of picking one is 25%.
So in each case, assuming that one of the answers is correct leads to the conclusion that a different answer is correct. The problem is self-referential and self-contradictory; there is no correct answer. It’s similar to asking whether “this statement is false” is true or false.
In the real life inspiration for the question, talks with the surgeon in the weeks before the surgery showed to me that he was indeed quite arrogant and brusk in talking to us and answering our questions. On the other hand, he was reputed to be an extremely skilled and respected surgeon. (Undoubtedly those two statements are related.) And despite how I worded the poll, the surgery was not minor (it was a shoulder replacement). I have very mixed feelings about the whole thing. I think his behavior was indeed unprofessional and inappropriate. On the other hand, the surgery was spectacularly successful and has vastly improved my wife’s quality of life.
I’ve spent most of my career working in downtown Chicago, and living in the western suburbs; I nearly always have taken the train to work: usually the Metra commuter train, but for one job, which was a pretty long walk from the downtown Metra station, I took the CTA “L” (subway-style train), as I could get closer to the office on that.
The only time I’d drive in to the office was if I had a meeting or focus groups outside of downtown, to make it easier to get to and fro; the other exception was when I worked at a job in the far southwestern suburbs for 3+ years, and taking public transportation wasn’t an option, so I drove to work.
I’ve commuted by car, with a bike as a backup. I’ve commuted by subway and commuter rail (with a certain amount of walking involved). I’ve commuted by car with no plausible backup. And now i “commute” from my kitchen to my den.
When I see “competitive wages” in a job listing, I automatically think “An insignificant amount above minimum wage.” One might, quite reasonably IMO, think of that as a red flag, but I answered meaningless boilerplate.
My field (actuary) pays a lot more than minimum wage, so that’s not how i read it. I do read it to mean “as low as competition allows, but high enough that you’ll consider it”. Since “higher wages” had never been my first criteria when looking for a new job, i didn’t consider it a red flag, but as boilerplate.
I’ll allow as how my “insignificantly above minimum wage” assumption doesn’t come from experience so much as an overriding cynical attitude about employment matters.
One of the places I was an intern in college was basically on campus (it was like an industry / university partnership sort of thing). My apartment was close enough that I would bike or sometimes walk there. I would only drive if the weather was really bad.
When I was at my last job I intentionally bought a house close enough to work so I could bike there. I rode my bike to work most days, weather permitting.
At my current job I drive, only because it’s too far to bike, and there isn’t really a better option.
Am I the only one who was unable to choose ten in Mean Mr Mustard’s second foods poll? I tried several times, but all it would accept was nine.
I’ve always heard (and said) “another think”, and that’s what I’ve always seen in print. The first time I ever saw “another thing” in print was a year or two back, in a similar discussion in a different forum.
In my last job before I retired, the flexible time for punching in/out was six minutes. If the schedule said to start at ten, you could punch in at any time between 9:54 and 10:06 without being considered “early” or “late”. The same with punching out at the end of the day. Either way, pay was calculated to the minute, so your actual pay for the day could be off by as much as 1/10 of an hour either way.
I’ve worked on the Eastern time zone with people in central and Western US time zones. We always picked times that after everyone usually started and before anyone usually left.
Yeah, sometimes lunch gets moved. But I’ve had plenty of lunchtime meetings even when time zone isn’t an issue.
The worst is when you’re working with people in other countries. For a while I had a regular meeting with attendees from California, China, and the UK. That one was a bitch to schedule.
I had semiregular calls with Bangkok and Mumbai, but because I was in by 6:15 we were able to make things work, more or less. Not that I like being on 6:30 AM calls, but it seemed only fair.
At one of my old jobs, I did a lot of work with a research team which we had, located in Bangalore (which is 10 1/2 hours ahead of me, on Central U.S. time). We’d do a weekly status call at 8am my time, which was 6:30pm their time – slightly inconvenient for all of us, but we were all working from home, so it wasn’t awful. There were times when I had to do calls with them first thing in the morning their time, which was like 9pm or 10pm my time, and that was a little more troublesome for me.
I have a friend who has regular calls with somewhere in India. But he’s on a funny schedule anyway, and i think he takes to them after his partner goes to bed at night. Does 11pm ET make sense?