Great question @trappology:

❓👉🏻
Do I recommend unlimited vacation days?

Here's my take. Thread 🧵 ⬇️

I do not recommend unlimited vacation. There are problems with it. The most clear, for us, was that with unlimited vacation, the team did not take enough vacation.
When you have an Unlimited Vacation policy, you introduce a significant amount of decision fatigue with taking vacation. When you don't clearly state the amount of vacation, you put that burden on individuals.
With Unlimited Vacation, a strange side effect is that people start to really think about how taking vacation could reflect on them negatively. When you have to choose every time, and how much, vacation to take, you might just end up taking nothing.
So, I do not recommend Unlimited Vacation.

With that said, I believe Unlimited Vacation gets more criticism than it deserves. Some even go as far as to say that Unlimited Vacation is unethical and a way to stop employees taking vacation.
The thing is, in almost all cases, I really believe Unlimited Vacation comes from a good place. Many people had the same idea at the same time, and it was people with a good heart and the right mindset.
The promise and the origin of Unlimited Vacation, in my mind, is the following:

We're all adults, and when we're part of something we really believe in, we should be trusted to manage our energy and our time.
To do our best work, we need to balance work and rest. Sometimes, the most effective thing to do is to take a break. You can come back energized and having solved problems you couldn't solve by working through them.
We should trust our team to know which choice is right. Will you be most effective in the next quarter if you take some time off, recharge, avoid burnout and allow for space for creative thinking? Or, are you energized and enjoying the work, and the best thing is to keep going?
Often, as employers, we don't truly know where people are in life. People come into a new role in totally different places. Some might be burned out already, some may have had a sabbatical and be raring to go. Some might have gone through a tough personal situation.
I believe many approaches to business today place far too much control with the employer, and not enough with employees.

If you create an environment where team members self-directed, motivated, and bought into the mission, then you can benefit by giving them far more freedom.
Unlimited Vacation was founded on the idea that we should take as much vacation as we feel will give us the best results and make us most energized and effective in our jobs (which we are excited about). If you're at a company you believe in and care about, this makes sense.
When we realized that Unlimited Vacation wasn't working, when we observed that people weren't taking enough time off and we acknowledged the psychological burden it put on teammates, we had a very important decision to make:
Rather than Unlimited Vacation:

- Do we scrap it and go back to the status quo? That means quotas for time off.
- Or, do we push on and find a better solution? One that captures the very positive intentions of Unlimited Vacation, and avoids the downsides.
At Buffer, I strongly pushed for us to get creative and think of new ideas instead of Unlimited Vacation.

The result was Minimum Vacation. It seems almost obvious now, but at the time, we could have easily reverted to the status quo. I'm so glad we didn't.
So. I don't believe in Unlimited Vacation. But, I also believe vacation policies are broken in most workplaces.

I think the best option we have right now, is Minimum Vacation.
Here's Buffer's Minimum Vacation approach:

Our vacation minimum is at least 3 weeks (15 work days) of time off throughout the year, in addition to the public and religious holidays you observe.
Minimum Vacation has worked much better for us than both Unlimited Vacation and Traditional Vacation Policies, and I can't recommend it enough.
And with all of that, I'd like to say:

Try those wild ideas. Question the status quo and try improved approaches.

Test whether those new ideas work, and adapt when they don't.

But fight for a new idea, that still improves the status quo. The world needs that innovation.
Further reading from the Buffer blog on our experimentation with Unlimited Vacation and journey to Minimum Vacation:

- https://t.co/o1fDircRVf
- https://t.co/pbvY6UZ95w
- https://t.co/DXA86logPk

More from Tech

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
There has been a lot of discussion about negative emissions technologies (NETs) lately. While we need to be skeptical of assumed planetary-scale engineering and wary of moral hazard, we also need much greater RD&D funding to keep our options open. A quick thread: 1/10

Energy system models love NETs, particularly for very rapid mitigation scenarios like 1.5C (where the alternative is zero global emissions by 2040)! More problematically, they also like tons of NETs in 2C scenarios where NETs are less essential.
https://t.co/M3ACyD4cv7 2/10


In model world the math is simple: very rapid mitigation is expensive today, particularly once you get outside the power sector, and technological advancement may make later NETs cheaper than near-term mitigation after a point. 3/10

This is, of course, problematic if the aim is to ensure that particular targets (such as well-below 2C) are met; betting that a "backstop" technology that does not exist today at any meaningful scale will save the day is a hell of a moral hazard. 4/10

Many models go completely overboard with CCS, seeing a future resurgence of coal and a large part of global primary energy occurring with carbon capture. For example, here is what the MESSAGE SSP2-1.9 scenario shows: 5/10

You May Also Like

Trading view scanner process -

1 - open trading view in your browser and select stock scanner in left corner down side .

2 - touch the percentage% gain change ( and u can see higest gainer of today)


3. Then, start with 6% gainer to 20% gainer and look charts of everyone in daily Timeframe . (For fno selection u can choose 1% to 4% )

4. Then manually select the stocks which are going to give all time high BO or 52 high BO or already given.

5. U can also select those stocks which are going to give range breakout or already given range BO

6 . If in 15 min chart📊 any stock sustaing near BO zone or after BO then select it on your watchlist

7 . Now next day if any stock show momentum u can take trade in it with RM

This looks very easy & simple but,

U will amazed to see it's result if you follow proper risk management.

I did 4x my capital by trading in only momentum stocks.

I will keep sharing such learning thread 🧵 for you 🙏💞🙏

Keep learning / keep sharing 🙏
@AdityaTodmal