With no single known cure available for a given condition, one of the most useful parameters in case treatment is chosen might just be simple toxicity itself, depending on how the outcomes are judged by the treated, and treator if involved.
In corporations which historically benefit enormously from
regulatory and media influence, it should not be unexpected
for them to obfuscate or propagandize to influencers and the public on topics such as harm vs benefit to consumers, especially when the public is becoming threateningly powerful politically on that exact subject.
If you are in the toxic materials business, nature may be against you and depending on ethics, a very profitable approach has been shown to be not only playing unfairly but underhandedly tilting the playing field in your favor at the same time.
I support the napping for productivity without having artificial stimulants (OK, natural organic drugs) involved.
The studies likely involved mostly habitual users rather than unindoctrinated subjects, but from the abstracts' documentation it is difficult to be sure. Perhaps the researchers did not recognize the distinction and just selected random participants, therefore likely to include mostly habitual users.
When I was a caffeine addict (habitual user) I could also
sleep after ingestion.
In fact without a fix right before bedtime it was more difficult to get to sleep because nominal concentration level was unsatisfied, resulting more in agitation than identifiable craving.
A nice hit would actually help me relax.
I was not the only one who could relate to this as an indication of true addiction, where you need the substance just to be normal.
Complete withdrawal took a few weeks (of hellish tiredness, achiness, and irritability) but after this it was even easier to more alertly conduct high-stamina activities and out-perform my still-addicted colleagues without the toxic load on my system.
Sleep & nap much more productively without it after kicking the habit too.
Sure can write a lot better code when drug (addiction) free as well.
When I do feel it's necessary (never for marathon coding), a single cup of coffee (after I have already been awake 24hrs and need a little boost) naturally keeps my otherwise drug-free system awake for the next 24hrs easily which can be helpful for things like long-distance driving once or twice per year.
As an addict I would have needed two or three times my nominal habitual doses to feel as alert on those same lonely roads.
To me coding does not benefit from this type of non-stop alertness, even if you are working to exhaustion, when tiredness truly comes a plain nap is better whether it is after 6hrs, 12hrs, 20hrs, whatever, then freshly go into another session, exahustion relieved.
Same with driving too, but if the schedule is too tight, a couple times a year will not make you a habitual user like everyday dosage does.
I'd rather drive slow for long hours than exceed the speed limit, waste energy, and prematurely wear out my machinery.
YMMV [0] but just because everybody does caffeine won't make it good for you, especially in the long run.
[0] depending largely on body weight, metabolism, and dosage, and for driving, road speed
That's what I thought when I first started innovating
in the mature technical field of petro/chemical analysis.
It would require a lot of self-dedication.
Since I was already a young performance leader, I stuck with
it and avoided the institutional path where they only accomplish a few hours of progress a day, take breaks, have useless meetings, etc.
Similar to a musical instrument, industrial instruments are never truly mastered, and proficiency declines once the hands are removed from regular use.
This also worked to my advantage since gifted PhD's with high aptitudes seldom can keep their hands on the gear for even one whole decade before they are needed to fill a place on the corporate ladder.
Now after 30+ years, I do not look at ordinary researchers
as loafers, there are some brilliant workers and wonderful experts I can draw upon when needed. Normally you are only allowed to do a limited amount before you run the risk & woe of making co-workers look less productive.
By comparison, I now have "60years" experience compared to
what would have only been about half as many accomplishments
if I had been employed by an oil or chemical company over the same 3 decades.
Plus I own my own technology for decades now.
Not trying to toot my own horn but it is an unfair advantage.
I have thought for a long time that a good choice for
a 50/50 business arrangement is where both parties
feel perfectly comfortable each doing 60% of the actual
needed work indefinitely.
With the right pair, the trust, confidence, and respect
for each other is there, regardless of lopsided contributions from time to time (not forever).
If each is always focused on doing more than 50%,
actually each FEELING like they are always doing more than 50%, and feeling good about it, even though that would be in excess of their compensation by definition, this eliminates some of the biggest doubts you have suffered from.
Plus on those occasions where more than a nominal 100% needs to be accomplished, you will not only be capable and prepared, but it will not even be a stretch.
As others have said, this emphasizes how carefully you need to align with your partner.
I sure have found a lot more discarded PC's than I have toasters.
If you can't produce a system (hardware, software, and "support" if absolutely necessary) which can outlast a toaster by design (decade or two at least), without a need to "upgrade" these elements, then many a consumer would naturally compare your engineering unfavorably to that of the toaster.
If it's an electronic product, the customer rightly expects it to last as long as other familiar electronic products.
If it's an expensive product then the customer rightly expects it to last much longer than comparable items of lesser cost.
For a naturally expensive item like a CNC mill, where many customers will purchase their first one to replace a manual mill which has worn out after a decade or two, they often expect the modern CNC unit to fully replace the older piece with no further consideration (or cost) until the same familiar mode of mechanical wear occurs in another decade or two.
If your software or operating system does not live up to this expectation by design, then you are not giving the customer what they need to begin with.
If an industrial solution truly solves a problem, it stays solved well enough for the operator to move on to concentrate on their core competence (or different unsolved problems) from then on, and only incur insignificant
costs or distractions from the previously unsolved problem.
A payroll or other office system is not that much different, but applies to many more businesses.
Computerizing a formerly manual system, high up-front cost is expected to pay for itself in future efficiency.
If no further features are desired, then the business should be able to rely on electro-mechanical integrity as the weakest point over the following decades. Replacing individual worn-out office machines as needed in the traditional way. Only "modernizing" company-wide on their own initiative and schedule.
If you can not buy brand new machines as needed to continue your present office systems unchanged indefinitely if you want to, this does not mean there is a defect in your
approach just because you need a solved problem to stay solved.
You may just be a victim of a consumer-centric (predatory) IT vendor structure even though you are paying top dollar
for business solutions which are supposed to last.
That's a very different kind of product, though. CNC mill, yes, but internet-connected-something? No. Things that will never be updated and never networked yet must be reliable exists, but are not usually traditional enterprise stuff.
