Importance, or lack of work contribution? Smaller screen = works less.
Well, if the company gets fined for mismanaging or committing fraud, who do you think they will fire?
A scapegoat is very important.
who do you think they will fire?
10 to 20 percent of the workforce, so the CEO still can get a bonus.
True for the phone and tablet, but for any sort of computer that is not true
I work on a laptop with virtual desktops and I am much more productive that way than with a big screen… Or two big screens.
Everything is in the center of my field of view, I know which VD of my 3x3 grid holds what. It’s much more efficient for me than bigger screens could ever be. And that is not for lack of trying!
It just depends on the person.
You just changed how I think about virtual screens. I feel like Khan being unloaded on by Kirk.
I decided long ago that I liked the single monitor with multiple desktops. But in my head they have always been a line of desktops instead of a grid.
Somewhere there is a mathematician who uses a hyper cube array of desktops…
When I discovered it can be arranged in a grid, it made VDs so much more useful.
Cause a line of the same amount of VDs (9)… Ugh, not fun haha
Even though you can map each to a shortcut, it’s still tougher to use than a grid with directional shortcuts!
Faster switch. Think each column being 1-3 and each row as A-C
B2 is my terminals, B3 is my IDE, B1 is a secondary IDE (for instance, DataGrip), C row is browser windows, A1-2 is temporary, not often used windows, A3 is communication apps. I mostly use A3, B2-3 and C2-3. It’s all mapped in my head so I can instantly switch to whichever VD I need.
Grid VDs club. Although I only use 2x2 because toggle up/down/righ/left is complicated enough for my brain.
I’ll often have documentation on another monitor, so I can full-screen my code and still reference the documentation without switching windows.
The job of people around the CEO is primarily to make decisions. All this huge chain of managers is needed only to aggregate information so that the CEO can make an informed decision. This is how many large companies operate. I would even say that there is a direct correlation between the size of the campaign and the number of monitors at the bottom.
The flip side of sitting behind a huge monitor is that you won’t stay outside with a huge number of your employees if you make the wrong decision. It’s just a different job.
Your description is basically of a “spherical CEO in a vacuum”, ie. the ideal and abstract version of how corporations should operate. It has very little to do with reality
Well, I can only write from my own experience. I’ve worked for several major campaigns in my life. In banks, in telecom operators. And it’s almost always been like this. And where there was none, the campaign collapsed. Not in a moment, of course, because campaigns, like people, do not die instantly, but age and degrade. But as a result, it was.
Have you worked with very many CEOs at SMEs? Based on my experience it seems to match the description, by and large.
there is a direct correlation between the size of the campaign and the number of monitors at the bottom.
From my limited experience, it’s the size/amount of monitors at the top that correlates with company size, not at the bottom. At my 5-person software company, almost everyone works with multiple screens, except one of the three founders who still works mainly on a laptop display at least
