Old school football managers are often heard to confess they're "as sick as a parrot" because despite the lads "giving it 110 percent", their team has just taken a severe pasting. The problem is, 110 per cent just isn't enough of an overcrank for the modern world we live in. The proof comes in the form of environmental scientist …
One hundred and eiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiighty!
I recently got into an argument with some "online folk" who genuinely believed that "giving 110%" was a valid statement and worthy goal.
They were soon smashed down with something called "reality" and maths but not before one of them pointed out that he won't recruit someone "who only gives 90-100%" because that means "they are cruising". I weep for humanity.
It all comes down to expectation management
It depends what the 100% baseline is: if your employer expects an 8-hour day, are you giving him (/her) 110% if you work an extra 48 minutes?
Even better, if you can start working expected to do sod all, then "giving 1000%" becomes not only possible, but really rather easy.
Next time someone says they want someone to "give 110%", ask them "of what?"
I guess we now know what she does in her spare time
She plays darts.
Unless she's eco-boffing in the Amazinonian rain forest, then it's blow-darts.
If it's eco-boffing
then it's not darts she's blowing
So this entire story was nothing?!
It was zero percent of a story.
No, scratch that! It was -180 percent of a story.
I'm giving this comment 360%
Unfortunately that seems to not be enough. Maybe on a future comment I can give it 530%.
"in which case it's reasonable to suggest the scale is divided by 50 per cent and capped at a peak of 100 per cent."
X / (50% of X) = X / (X / 2) = 2
Or did you mean divide the scale by two and cap at 100%?
In which case footballers are down to 55% and I'm coasting along at only 15% (Monday to Friday, less at weekends).
Makes perfect sense.
Personally, I pay about as much attention to the blathering of so-called "environmental scientists" as I do to the bleating of over-payed sports figures and the teen-singer o't'day.
All have the same agenda ... Rah-rah up the proles for their handler's profit.
pathetic 30 percent
Hey, the 30 percent mark isn't just for Monday. It's a lofty goal for the three following days as well, with Friday hoping for a max of 15 percent.
but if you give that
over the week you have given them 135%!
double digit's effort on a Friday??? you brown-noser...
Looking forward to my "WFH" day tomorrow, personally.
in my defense, I did say "hoping" for 15 percent...
More likely 180 proof
Is it pub oclock yet?
Re: More likely 180 proof
"Is it pub oclock yet?"
Yes, it's already pushing minus 8am on Friday, UK time.
At the end of the day...
At the end of the day, El Reg has to compile all the values into one list, give each a corresponding name based on the source, and add it to the recognised Weights and Measures list.
Mine's the one made of 169% proof PVC.
(yes, I do know there's no such thing as % proof, that's the whole point)
I once had a manager who refused to grade anyone at appraisal time as 'exceeds expectations' or 'greatly exceeds expectations' (which would have resulted in bigger annual pay increase) on the grounds that his expectation was that all his staff would give 100% and they couldn't exceed that! Bastard!
Ditto, but better..
I had a manager who rated me as a "not met expectations", as I had merely "met expectations" (as written down) and he expected me to exceed that.... My brain imploded as I tried to work out the logic and refrain from decking him.
Rocketdyne knows how
Listen to any recent shuttle launch - they run the main engines at 104% except around MAX-Q (http://shuttle.msfc.nasa.gov/MissionProfile.cfm).
It's the same for jet engines. Run 'em up to 100%, then beyond to "military power".
Could argue that it's a fairly general engineering concept that 100% is design output or "can run continuously at this output without damage/overheating/whatever" so anything above 100% is a bonus or that you are acknowledging some future degredation of the system.
100% in the design of rocket engines, is the engine level that allows the engine to be run with zero degradation. Meaning the engine can be receovered and used again with minimal part replacement or maintenance.
However, it is common practice to run the engines at slightly more then this during certain periods of the launch to achieve an increase in thrust. This does entail that you need to spend more on maintenance and replacement parts for the recovered engines, but it tends to work out as being more economical, as the extra thrust allows you to launch extra mass.
Proper technical explanation
Close, but not quite. 100% engine rating on the Space Shuttle Main Engine refers to the original designed output power. As it turned out, over many real world tests, the maximum thrust without degradation on an SSME was around 104%. However it doesn't make sense to redefine what 100% meant, as this renders all previous data incorrect, or requires it to be recalculated.
For a known entity, it never makes sense to redefine the 100% baseline.
Program on telly t'other day had some bod scanning a flock of sheep and reported the pregnancy rate as 181.3% - it actual made sense, as it was an average over the flock, and 1 lamb meant that the ewe was 100% pregnant (you can't be 'a little bit pregnant'), twins was counted as 200%, triplets 300% and so on.
Still an interesting concept though!
Makes sense my arse.
If there are 100 sheep with a pregnancy rate of 181.3% how many sheep are pregnant?
each sheep became pregnant an average of 1.813 times.
Are these vaccuum traversing sheep at a velocity of "x"?
The rate is a simple number 1.183 Lambs Average. It is NOT a percentage of anything.
a Percentage should only be used as a number of something per flock as a decimal fraction. say number of ewes per flock or number of hoggs/gimmers per flock.
El Reg units
percentages, decimals, fractions...pah.
I want to know how many pregnant sheep there were, compared to olympic swimming pools.
So you worked at EDS as well 8-(
The great thing about the '110%' concept is that as soon as someone uses it you can simply disregard anything they ever say.
O level arithmetic (1973)
180% is 70 percentage points more than 110%, but only 64% more.
re: O Level
I was taught (for that very reason of confusion) that you should never ever calculate a percentage of a percentage. You only ever add or subtract the numbers - so if I have a figure of 30% and increase it by 50%, I get 80%, not 45%.
I'm probably not the first to mention it, but going from 110% to 180% is only about a 38, 39% increase.
So when you've giving 180%, each of your %s is worth less than someone going from, say, a monday-morning 30% to a "barely-acceptable by modern management standards" 100%; they're giving >142% more work for their 70% increase in 'how much they're giving'.
And this trend continues as time goes on- going from 100% to 200% is a 100% improvement, but going from 200% to 300% is only an extra 50% better. That's a pretty staggaring drop in quality from the person who says they're 'giving more'.
Lester clearly underestimates footballers and / or humankind as Patrice Evra for one is capable of exceeding the articles stated maximum by half.
110% is sometimes valid
I am still expecting from my boss raise to 110% of what I am making annually now.
God knows what he is expecting from me...
'"I am somebody who if I believe in something, I give it 180 per cent."
That's an impressive 70 per cent improvement on the best efforts of professional footballers'
No - it's a 70 percentage <b>point</b> increase on the effort of a footaballer. It's clearly a ~64% increase.
I trust that the Reg put this in purely to generate vitriolic comments, because otherwise I WEEP FOR HUMANITY.
30% effort on Monday?
That must be a maths fail - please stop exaggerating!
Stop mentioning %s, it confuses me
I'm pretty certain I've heard the bar raised to "one thousand percent" on the Apprentice - probably involved "stepping up to the plate" at the same time
...given it's the Apprentice, raising it 1000% would mean they act like normal human beings and maybe...oh, I dunno....SHUTTING THE F* UP AND DO SOME REAL F*ING WORK YOU DISFUNCTIONAL F*WITS!
Stepping up to the plate?
Presumably that means feet on the table.
"It is in our company's DNA to give 110%"
1) Your company is not organic, it has no DNA
2) Over-unity is not possible.
Both should be hanging offences.
Pedantry over poetry
Joyless but accurate.
Explanation #37 child slavery.
She drags her unwilling offspring along and forces them to do her will..
She Will provide 100% Plus 80% (the kids not that keen) giving her a quota of 180%.
School SAT targets
I was a parent govenor at my sons primary school a few years back. It was a pretty highly achieving school accoriding to SATs results (well, given the background of the intake that wasn't exactly surprising) so the level SATs results were in the high 90%'s and Science had achieved 100% for a couple of years ... so we were very amused when one year the targets for the school arrived from the LEA tell the school that its target was that 102% of pupils achieved level 4 in Science that year! Turned out all the targets were simply autogenerated by multiplying the previous years results by the percentage improvement the LEA was aiming for overall!
@School SAT targets
"given the background of the intake that wasn't exactly surprising"
"my sons primary school"
"the high 90%'s"
You mean the other parents know how to use apostrophes?
They are also possibly au fait with auxiliary verbs.
Well, I give NaN percent!
Only bullshit merchants use this kind of twaddle.
If somebody does absolutely nothing and then one day he twitches his little finger then that is a INFINATE % increase in activity. Something divided by zero is Infinity.
Just don't tell the BS Merchants as they will shortly be exclaiming how they managed to improve the deal by 100 Infinate %. ;)
% = statistics = BS!
- SMASH the Bash bug! Red Hat, Apple scramble for patch batches
- A BENDY iPhone 6, you say? Pah, warp claims are bent out of shape: Consumer Reports
- eXpat Files 'Could we please not have naked developers running around the office BEFORE 10pm?'
- CoTW Emma Watson should SHUT UP, all this abuse is HER OWN FAULT
- Vulture at the Wheel Renault Twingo: Small, sporty(ish), safe ... and it's a BACK-ENDER