You record the amount of time it takes people to do a crossword puzzle or play a game of chess. After a while you'll be able to make a distribution graph of how long it takes. Then you can give an accurate estimate along with a probability.
The only reliable way to estimate is to find another relatively similar project and compare it to that. You can say stuff like this new project is roughly similar in scope to Project X but maybe it's about 20% more complicated due to more scope so it will probably take about 20% longer than what Project X took.
The key is to keep data on how long past projects actually took (which not a lot of organizations do). But once you have that real data, you can understand all the unknown unknowns that came up and assume that similar things will come up on the new project.
I had a similar experience. I worked for a place where if you worked 48 minutes more per day, you'd get every 2nd Friday off. This was a unionized place that was pretty strict about not working extra hours due to overtime rules. After being hired, I didn't partake in this but had pretty short workdays. I would start at 8:30 and then leave at 4. It was great. However, pretty much everyone in the company did the system to get the 2nd Friday off. So I tried switching to that and I felt the same. It just felt so much longer.
How did you "run into each other, from time to time"?
This seems to be the key part. There's research that shows that relationships are built via multiple, random encounters. Do you think he still would have dropped by your office if you hadn't had these run ins?
IME I've found there to be the expectation that there's about 10-15% available for negotiation to make the candidate feel like they got a win. Of course, some exceptions may apply.
I really doubt more than 10% of people do weightlifting and have high muscle density. It's likely closer to 0.1% which is why BMI is a good guideline over a group.
I moved away from Victoria to the US 5 years ago and don't regret it at all. Even as someone with only about 10 years of experience I felt like I was nearing the ceiling of earning ability in Victoria. Paired with the ridiculous cost of living for a small city it didn't make sense to continue living in Victoria.
The "tech hub" is kind of laughable with most of it being small startups and only a handful of established companies that may offer more career growth.
The more interesting question though is why didn't timezones develop like this initially? In 1868 there was no telephone to call another continent. There was no airplane for fast travel over long distances.
In retrospect this makes sense but in the late 19th century, no one could have foreseen this use case.
The same thing happened with the Fyre Festival. The organizers didn't face consequences from defrauding the people they sold tickets to. They face consequences from defrauding the investors.
> You need objective, measurable signals if you are concerned that developers might be confused or lying. Otherwise you can just ask us
In an organization with hundreds or thousands of developers, there will be people either lying about how productive they are or genuinely think they are performing above average when they are not. It's like how 80% of people think they're above average drivers.
On the other hand, you may have excellent developers that are overly modest or not loud enough to sell themselves. They are truly exceptional and above the curve and should be rewarded for that. Some of the 20% of drivers that don't think they are above average may actually be above average.
Objective, measurable signals help to find the outliers at the ends of the curve that may otherwise be missed.
Do people writing this type of copy actually believe this?