PDF | This paper examines the way in which different time perspectives and different scales of observation affect the way in which we think. tvnovellas.info Aug 27, It's not about HOURS my good friend, it's about VALUE. You already started off on the WRONG foot. Ask them how. Breaking the Time Barrier uses an all too familiar story of a web designer who com%2Fdtmtools%2Febooks%tvnovellas.info||target:%20_blank” .
|Language:||English, Spanish, Dutch|
|Genre:||Fiction & Literature|
|ePub File Size:||23.79 MB|
|PDF File Size:||11.71 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Sign up for free]|
“In order to understand the difference between time and value, just read Breaking the Time Barrier. In about an hour,. Mike McDerment will get you up to speed. Start by marking “Breaking the Time Barrier: How to Unlock Your True Earning Potential” as Want to Read: “I believe anyone who provides a valuable service should get paid for the value they deliver. Mike McDerment is the co-founder and CEO of FreshBooks, the #1 cloud. Praise for Breaking the Time Barrier “It's the eternal struggle of the freelance worker: how do you price your work in a way that's fair to both you and the client?.
Jan 18, Claudiu Constantin rated it it was amazing A really practical short book on how to value yourself and the solutions you offer to your clients. I highly recommend it! Dec 03, Sneha Yerra rated it liked it Why did I read this book? Because I'm toying with many ideas about earning a living, among which opening a Tiffin centre, a plan nursery are. So, after a huge break of almost some months , I really wanted to start reading.
Indeed, it is a real puzzle for science. It forms an inescapable part of our lives yet cannot easily be defined. It has fascinated mankind since we first learned to communicate, but there have been no clear answers about its nature. Indeed, some great minds have argued that its measurement is purely a human invention.
Greek philosopher Zeno showed the problem when he tried to define a small unit of distance. To catch a tardy tortoise you can easily run twice as fast and halve the distance between you and the animal in a set period of time.
But if you keep on halving the distance that gap will never equal zero, because half of something is always going to be a finite number, however small. But if there is always a gap between you and the tortoise it is impossible to ever catch up with it -- a conclusion that we know to be absurd by practical experience, even if we have never actually chased a tortoise.
A faster runner will always catch a slower one, sooner or later. Time is intimately involved in this discussion -- since speed is a measure of distance traveled in a set time. So we can apply Zeno's thinking and divide a second into smaller and smaller pieces. If we keep breaking down this gap, making the units half as long as the previous one, then there will always be a finite length for any moment that we can measure.
But if that moment has any size at all, then part of it must be in what we think of as the past and part of it in the future because it will take time to pass any mark or point. We call this tiniest measurable moment "now" and say that it separates past from future. Yet how can it separate anything if parts of it lie simultaneously in both past and future?
Arguments still rage over the meaning of this curious riddle. Is it a fallacious argument -- like the one concerning the tortoise? After all, it may look impossible to catch up with the animal but clearly we know that it is not, so the riddle is flawed in its execution. Others suggest that there may be something even more profound in this realization about time first made 2, years ago.
Is the reason that we cannot clearly identify a moment that is neither past nor future a hint that past and future are a product of human imagination? Is the universe fundamentally timeless and is the distinction between past and future just an illusion brought about by our limited capacity to visualize the cosmos? Virtually every human society that developed a culture has speculated in similarly bemused ways about the nature of time.
The Greeks defined it as a measurement of intervals, which could be of long or short duration. As far back as BC Aristotle had realized the implications of the Zeno paradox.
But he had no better answer, and this choice to divide time into basic units, mirroring many mundane things that form a sequence, such as the human heartbeat, allowed for the creation of sundials, water clocks, and eventually mechanical clocks. We gained a feeling of mastery over time by recording it with increasing skill and so it came to be a powerful element in our lives.
Augustine, many centuries later, was a little bolder and dared to ask the question -- what was God doing before He created the universe? If time was born along with the matter in the universe, as the Bible suggests, then was there any time before that instant, or is God somehow also to be considered timeless?
Intriguingly, this question largely foresees modern scientific concerns about how the cosmos was first created -- the subject of intense debate between physicists and astronomers. There are two basic theories. One is the so-called Steady State idea that the universe has always existed in its present form, perhaps even made by God.
British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle championed this theory though he also invented the name given to the rival theory -- the Big Bang. He hoped that such a daft name would ridicule this alternative concept that says that everything in the universe emerged long ago from one single, tiny point that exploded outward and has gone on expanding across billions of years.
But the Big Bang theory has gathered strong evidential support from modern science and is the widely accepted view today. Hoyle was proved wrong, but ironically, his name is attached to the theory that he so detested -- the ultimate insult. Physics has had to conclude that time somehow began when the universe started to expand and before that instant there was neither matter nor time. However, it was by no means clear to Renaissance thinkers that time emerged from the birth of the universe.
Nor did they even accept that it was an essential requirement to make the laws of nature work. Indeed, the more that science began to comprehend these rules, the more it became aware that time, in our experience moving from the past into the future on a perpetual one-way journey, is not a prerequisite. In fact, virtually every law of physics seemed to work just as well if time flows backwards, moving from the future into the past. This realization enhanced suspicions that time might be a convenience of mind that made us see things as we do rather than a necessity of nature.
Different societies have other concepts of time and it is a mistake to imagine that our modern Western perspective, dominated by timetables and cell phones, is the only way to see things. We have grown up with this one version of reality but there are other, equally valid interpretations. The dreamtime, for instance, is an aboriginal concept still widespread in native Australian culture.
It could not be further removed from twenty-first-century thinking and is extremely difficult to even translate. But, in essence, it regards past, present, and future as coexisting in a timeless void or hidden dimension beyond the range of our normal perception.
For that reason, in dreams and other states of consciousness where we lose touch with the normal sense of awareness, we enter what is in effect another reality where things that once were, still are, and where things that will someday be, have already become. Time spans the infinity of the cosmos and the tiniest moment that we can record.
But it may not even exist.
No wonder it is such a riddle. But it is important to follow the manner with which science has attempted to come to terms with time, piecing together its nature through a series of grand theories and experiments. For these are the stepping-stones upon which today's plans to build a time machine are all based. Throughout the Renaissance, as scientists began to understand the nature of the physical world, there was an uneasy truce between what mattered to most human beings and the things that interested physicists.
Galileo and Newton showed that all the planets of the solar system, including the Earth, rotate around the sun in a wonderful cosmic ballet. Their paths could be mathematically defined, to the point that Newton even argued that God created the universe as a vast clockwork machine that allowed everything that would ever happen to be mapped out into perpetuity. God had wound up the machinations of the cosmos and let it loose for mankind to discover its properties.
By doing so we could make stunning calculations far into the future, because the speeds and times of the orbits of these planets could all be precisely delineated effectively forever. It was these calculations that allowed NASA to work out how to send Apollo spacecraft to the moon, using sums that Newton could have easily done for them.
The same rules allowed the rescue of fated mission, Apollo 13, sending it like a slingshot around the lunar surface and heading back to Earth thanks to the mathematics of the universe and its timeless precision.
However, as these findings seem to prove that ticking clocks were defined by the distant motion of bodies in space, science also found itself in open warfare. It battled religion, fearing that the mathematics of nature might replace the edicts of God. And it battled ordinary people who had always gauged time in simple ways -- from observing the seasons, the growth of crops, and the calendars decreed by the church.
Now scientists were saying that the only true way to measure time was to accurately describe how the Earth revolved around the sun and the exact time it took for our planet to rotate on its own axis.
We had only ever been able to make guesses about such matters before and had inevitably miscalculated to some degree. Scientists wanted to put right those centuries-old mistakes and rearrange the timetable of our lives so that it was in balance with the motions of the universe. In the years leading up to the nineteenth century, ordinary folk were asked to rethink how they should now judge time. For centuries the year had been calculated as having days plus one quarter of a day, hence the extra "leap year" day every four years, but this estimate based on the Earth's orbit was only approximate.
As time had passed the year had slipped out of phase with the way our planet truly moves around the sun, and did so a little bit more each year. So by papal edict in the error was corrected and 11 days were dropped from the calendar. Such was the opposition to meddling with time that this "Gregorian" Calendar found favor only after a long period and with some decidedly odd consequences. For instance, the area surrounding the city of Strasbourg accepted the decree immediately and changed over in November But the city itself stuck to the old calendar for another ninety-nine years -- meaning that when it was New Year's Day in Strasbourg it was already the middle of January just a few miles away.
The chaos that resulted is obvious, not to mention the apparent time traveling -- by crossing the city line, you could walk "into the past.
Such "time riots," as this clash between science and the masses was dubbed, shows just how much concern was being expressed by the ordinary, then generally uneducated, person about any attempt to play with our long accepted way of viewing time. They delayed the introduction of the correctly aligned calendar in the United Kingdom until , almost two centuries after much of Europe.
The old ways of thinking about time have not entirely gone away. For instance, on the Isle of Man in the Irish Sea the world's oldest continuously operating parliamentary democracy a ceremonial reading of laws to the public is still held at Tynwald Hill each year.
It occurs on what would have been midsummer had those 11 days not been expunged two and a half centuries ago. A crucial moment in the understanding of time came with the ability to measure the speed of light -- although, when this happened it was not apparent that there was even a speed to be measured. It had long been assumed that all objects emit "rays" -- which Newton suggested to be streams of particles -- and that these traveled in straight lines to reach the eyes.
Our eyes absorbed the rays and became "excited," thus seeing the object. Because the process happened so swiftly it appeared to be instantaneous. We could detect no varying time lag between viewing our hand held in front of our face or the moon, which is very far out in space. So it was reasonable to assume that light traveled instantly. Research by Isaac Newton in the late s, using prisms to split light and unravel its makeup, led to the underlying truth.
Light does indeed convey information to our eyes. It acts as the yardstick of all events, perhaps even the creator of our perception of time.
How fast it moves is crucial, because this determines whether the past really is gone forever, as is widely assumed. If light flowed like a river, which was then the prevailing belief, then once you were swept past any point in your journey on the way upstream all you could do was keep on moving forward.
But if light has a speed, like a current on a river, then perhaps you can find a way to travel downstream at a faster rate than the current and thereby return to a place that you have sailed past before. That other place would be the past. Since general experience dictates that we do not have the ability to revisit the past, except in our memories, this furthered the belief that light came to our eyes instantly, meaning there was no speed that we could ever hope to overtake.
But that opinion proved to be wrong. In the Danish astronomer Olaus Roemer devised a clever experiment. He used the laws of planetary motion that Newton had set down, the telescope that Galileo had developed for astronomical observation, and the moons of the giant gas planet Jupiter that Galileo had discovered orbiting majestically around their parent.
Bringing all these discoveries together allowed Roemer's test to expose the rules of time as being quite different from those commonly held. Every now and then these moons pass behind the huge mass of Jupiter because its body blocks them from our view on Earth as they orbit.
If light speed was infinite, then the time taken for this period of eclipse should always be the same. But Roemer found that it was not the same.
In fact, once he had tabulated enough measurements he could easily discern a pattern behind them. The eclipses took longer to happen whenever the Earth was moving away from Jupiter because of the relative motions of the two planets around the sun. At different times these same relative motions caused the Earth to move towards Jupiter and when it did so, Jupiter's moons passed behind the planet a little bit faster. His perseverance looked like it would soon pay off after a friend introduced him to a start-up with a health product.
A few months after going solo. The next time Steve spoke with John. Soon after the site went live. The start-up team loved his work. Considering the impact it had I get that feeling sometimes.
Everyone at the company was going to get rich. After all. With a six-figure income looking like a pipe dream. He was determined. Instead he discovered that John had just taken a full-time position. So Steve had to scramble again for new business. Steve was floored. In this case. But what else can you do? Because he was desperate for billable hours.
After probing. Steve put in another call to his buddy John. He hoped things would work out for John. It was a painful day. And right after that. Darkness After hanging up the phone. Steve opened his eyes and looked around his living room.
John had decided he needed the security of a steady paycheck. The world was full All he could see was darkness. With a new kid on the way. He made a promise to himself right then—that he was not going to give up. He began to wonder if he should pull the chute like John.
It was a thought that gave him some relief. Steve sat down on his living room couch. As he sat there contemplating the death of his young business. Steve found that he had a mutual connection with Karen.
But he went to sleep that night determined to find out. John had been handy. Exactly how. Later that afternoon he spoke with Karen over the phone. After briefly sharing his story. After spending a few hours sifting through his list of contacts. After Karen greeted him warmly he settled into his chair. He looked around. Then Karen invited Steve to sketch When Steve was done she gave him a one-word verdict: Web design.
She nodded as their coffees arrived. Impact is how they value my services.
So I look at pricing from their point of view. I asked them to tell me why they thought they needed a website. Steve agreed and he was excited about what Karen was telling him, but lots of questions were flooding his brain. I mean, you spend a certain amount of time on the project. You could. But it starts with me, first, just as it starts with you. You have to forget selling time. The best thing you could do for yourself is to get the concept of time out of your head.
But like a lot of people. But over time I established myself and my credibility. When that happens.
You started your business after many years So if you stay with that pricing model. These are limits…and the truth is. At least for project work. Think of the value you created for that health start-up. Depending on the client. You already had the ability to create value for your clients. And now. Karen was right—his experience with the start-up was something he could leverage.
Should you penalize the client you worked longer for? But your client is interested in getting solutions that work as promptly as possible.
Time is money. You and I share one thing in common—the number of hours in your week is the same as in my week. It will limit you. What if you work quicker for one client than another. It puts you and the client on opposite sides of the table. I could walk around the marketplace with a higher hourly price tag on my forehead than you.
So let me ask you this—have you ever delivered the same thing to one client that you once delivered to another client? I mean. I just charged the client my time for the whole project. I built a little program for one client that I reused in a project for another.
But I was charging less if it took me less time. But those cases are It has significant value to them. Would it make sense for me to charge two hours of installation time? I can install it in a couple of hours and right away it starts having an impact.
I threw all the genius and creativity I could muster into it so I could help my clients increase their revenue. I actually use one of those cost and rate calculators. I know all the numbers for my business. He works out of his apartment and keeps all his costs as low as possible. Arty and Mack are two designers I know.
I have to make sure I can cover my costs. He also spends lavishly and travels the world. Arty runs a lean operation. They both Which is why I see it as my job to look for ways to create value for my clients so that I can charge fees that more than cover my costs. Should a client be asked which lifestyle they want to support? I do care. They care about the value we create for them.
Thing is. You are too we create for them. But slow stretches happen to everyone. I give my business the margin of error our profession demands. But because I charge value-based prices. I certainly want to make more money. Trust me. They are not fun. I know. They want to know what my rate is or how much things are going to cost. Or give them a rough estimate? The truth is. The best thing I can do for the client is to help them explore what they want. Is that what you mean?
And it turns out. I might give them a range. Most people are fine with that. And when you talk about price before exploring what your client is trying to achieve. Both of us should know that the price they are going to pay makes sense based on the value they can expect from my services.
A lot of the time. I want to for the client is to help know the pain they might them explore what they be experiencing. Or cost saving. In an ideal world. What do you do in situations like that? Does that ever happen?
So if she can help the business get even one more client. Sometimes it helps to ask: He also knew that a more beautiful site would increase referrals and. I write them That proposal outlines the scope of the project and includes some options. In most cases. I will do it very rarely.
They appreciate that kind of honesty. The seven mutual benefits of exploring value with your clients 1. Let me show you what I have so far. Karen laughed. That inspires trust During the examination he asked me if it hurt a lot when I flexed my foot a certain way. To establish Point A. I find it helpful to see if we can agree on two points. I had that experience myself a few months ago.
I also ask a lot of insightful questions that demonstrate my expertise.
My knee had been bothering me so I went to a doctor. Point B is where the client wants to go. As soon as he asked that question I knew I had the right doctor. Point A is where the client is now. That relieves a lot of anxiety for them. Without crystal clear alignment. I try to probe for big problems where the stakes are high. The value I create for the client lies in closing the gap between A and B and solving the problem.
That might be sales trending downward or new competitors emerging. Too many service providers focus on small problems. The first thing Lots of inexpensive providers are surprised to lose business to a premium professional like me.
I have a leg up on the competition. And as you know. This is why and how it happens. I wind up taking a different and more impactful approach to what on the surface can sometimes seem like the same project.
So my clients may pay more for my services. I design solutions that are more strategic. Because I dig in and come to understand the problems my clients have. You know the saying. When you walk in and throw out a price. Nobody likes expenses. When clients look at your prices through that lens. Frames the solution as an investment. This is one massive point of difference between my approach and yours. That the return is going to justify the outlay.
The choices address their business needs and goals. When I present my proposal it comes like a menu—with options that have distinct prices. That kind of yes-or- no choice is more likely to result in not going ahead than a choice between various valuable options. And Acting soon is good for you. If a client wants to pay less. As soon as their investment in you translates into real value for them. They will also become champions for you.
I tell you the story of the clothing company I helped last year? I think a lot of designers would have started to spit out prices. So I began to ask them why they wanted to update their They were looking for someone to update the look of their website. That meant redefining the project from a paint job for their website to a complete rebuild from the ground up.
I then started telling them stories about how I had helped some of my other clients increase their revenue by millions of dollars by training their website to sell better. I wanted them to express some clear goals.
They told me they thought the look and feel of it was outdated and probably turning away potential sales. That got them excited. But these were still vague terms. I told them I saw the same potential for them.
They were now seeing how their website could play a much bigger role in helping them reach their company goals than they originally thought. In their case an extra million dollars a year was a realistic goal. By the way. Each element had distinct value. My next step was to go away and work up a proposal for solutions to hit their goals.