Getting Work Done

You have a small job that needs doing.  Say the replacement of a fitting in your house or car. 

You have a choice of two workers.  You think the job should take about an hour.  Each of the workmen quotes for the same time, say two hours.  But that’s acceptable, it allows for contingency, the almost inevitable exposing of hidden issues, the development of requirement, and more importantly it is a standard figure that all workers quote for this type of task.  

One knocks off the work in a hour.  Doesn’t tell you she has finished.  Doesn’t bother you with the inevitable little difficulties encountered.  Just finishes the work and goes home.  Great.  But you wish she had told you of these things, so while inner workings exposed you could have got a few other things sorted, without the extra cost of a new start.  You wish she had shown you so you would know what to expect when problems recur.  You wish she had paused to allow review and further improvements.

The other worker keeps you thoroughly informed of every issue, every variation, every achievement.  That’s good, it means that while the box is opened up for the fix, other improvements can be done at virtually zero marginal cost.  But it is bad too, because it is draining of your own time.  And the job itself inevitably takes longer than the first case.

It is obvious and predictable to say the ideal worker should be a blend of the two types. We never have the ideal.

Psychic message Madame Artura

Yesterday I got a message from a real psychic:

"I am now Madame Artura, twitter psychic - send me your bank details and I will send you some guff about one of your dead relatives"

It was routed through the account of near neighbor and local hero Arthur Smith

so clearly not a scam

bank details below for any psychics looking up

NV9JOW 3177VS

Simply Drugs

There seems to be a very basic divide in society. It defines where you stand in the political spectrum, as evident in the major split just this week on drugs policy. The media too prevent these two as the only choices in every debate. Simplistically, where you stand on this basic question is even taken to embody your general attitude to life, whether we will be your friend enemy or be your friend.
I'm not even talking of the obvious and unarguable fact that there is a spectrum of drug power and danger, obviously there is, but I refer to something else, the fundamental attitude toy have to any individual drug ...

It is either prohibit and penalise and punish
or
it is support and offer treatment

The first of these is the choice of the fascist, the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the ignorant anti-scientific blockhead

The second is the woolly liberal, the focus of right wing outrage, the one who wants to spend your hard-earned taxes on benefits and treatments for s scroungers and layabouts.

But there is a third option. A way both groups above can be satisfied. Really. I don't necessarily endorse it but it really needs more press...