The Anti-Logic Primer™
by AGAAS
ih-laj-i-kul: 1. contrary to or disrespectful of the rules of logic; unreasoning; absurd.
The Mr. Spock character and Star Trek® are registered trademarks owned by CBS and Paramount Pictures Corporation.
Several terrific troubleshooting methodologies aren't listed below. They're in the other primer. These are the less-than-terrific ones. Fear not, because the methods shown here remain strangely popular, even if they don't make a lot of sense. In fact, these approaches remain some of the most commonly attempted forms of troubleshooting.
The Anti-Logic Primer is a light-hearted look at how we humans respond to problems, and also interact with others. But reality is not always so funny. Delays, waste, unnecessary frustration, and anger can result when we do not apply the proper problem-solving approach and attitude. Although imperfect approaches may eventually accomplish the task at hand, there are real costs to poorly disciplined, reactive, or lethargic troubleshooting. This can mean that:
- Facts are slowly (and possibly never) recognized.
- Assumptions become too numerous, or without proper basis.
- Production slows, costs increase, mistakes multiply, and customers are lost.
- Organizational politics elevate an individual's or group's needs over that of the greater organization and its customers.
- Records and notes are not kept, resulting in wasteful and repeated efforts later.
So why would anyone adhere to problem solving styles with such defects? Reasons vary, but a key one is that we often don't know any better way. Most of us really enjoy the feeling of accomplishment after solving a difficult problem, but it can be "painful" to initially take ownership of a problem in the beginning. You may be busy already, or have just finished working on a problem (possibly one where you had no influence in its original cause). Or, maybe we were part of the cause, but ego or fear of repercussions might lead us from announcing our error to the world, only to now have to fix it.
There are other reasons, but when one understands the outcomes and the better alternatives, it really is illogical to keep doing things in a poor manner. It's almost like we are living in a parallel universe of our opposite selves!
Click on a link below to jump to a topic.
.
Behavior's Effect On Anti-Logic
10% Inspiration, 10% Perspiration, 80% Pic-in-nic Baskets
All Play and No Work
10% Inspiration, 10% Perspiration, 80% Pic-in-nic Baskets
All Play and No Work
Anti-Logic Methodologies
It's possible. You might find it.
It's probably true that, eventually, you will find the solution to any problem by just jumping right in and trying things, although it could take you the better part of your lifetime to get there. Then again, it's also still possible you might never resolve the problem. Now don't get us wrong: hard work usually yields good results. But focusing that work in a careful, methodical way would be better than starting randomly. Problem solving with a plan can take some practice and forethought, and for a while at least, this may make it look like little progress is being made. However, the time and effort spent on some quick analysis and strategy is usually worth it.
Return
Return
Go Now!
Impatience. Impetuousness. Downright panic.
These types of behaviors are rooted in emotion, and while there is something to be said for rolling-up the sleeves and getting down to work, it's usually best to know in advance what likely outcomes can be expected. Those who fly in airplanes or work in hospitals have small libraries of procedures to handle virtually any problem conceivable. In the off-hand chance you don't have such a resource, there's nothing wrong with taking a moment -- even in an emergency -- to consider two or three courses of action, and picking the best one. Given a choice between poor action or no action, the latter might even preferable.
Return
These types of behaviors are rooted in emotion, and while there is something to be said for rolling-up the sleeves and getting down to work, it's usually best to know in advance what likely outcomes can be expected. Those who fly in airplanes or work in hospitals have small libraries of procedures to handle virtually any problem conceivable. In the off-hand chance you don't have such a resource, there's nothing wrong with taking a moment -- even in an emergency -- to consider two or three courses of action, and picking the best one. Given a choice between poor action or no action, the latter might even preferable.
Return
There is often a better way of doing things.
If 10 slices of cheese pizza are good, then 20 slices must be twice as good.
There's a theory that a problem cannot be solved at the level from which it was created, meaning that while something relatively easy can cause a problem, it might be considerably more difficult to actually solve the problem, as it may require external views and measurements that take time and resources. Past fixes might no longer apply, due to many small incremental changes in the system, or a few larger ones, either of which might require new or better ways to test and verify.
Suppose back in the old days, you had to program a computer a few bytes at a time. That may have been sufficient in 1964, but it might not be so practical today. A solution from 1964 cannot be updated for today by just throwing more and more punchcards at the problem. At some point, a rethink is needed. At what point in your "modern" system did a the paradigm change? Has such a change ever occurred?
Return
There's a theory that a problem cannot be solved at the level from which it was created, meaning that while something relatively easy can cause a problem, it might be considerably more difficult to actually solve the problem, as it may require external views and measurements that take time and resources. Past fixes might no longer apply, due to many small incremental changes in the system, or a few larger ones, either of which might require new or better ways to test and verify.
Suppose back in the old days, you had to program a computer a few bytes at a time. That may have been sufficient in 1964, but it might not be so practical today. A solution from 1964 cannot be updated for today by just throwing more and more punchcards at the problem. At some point, a rethink is needed. At what point in your "modern" system did a the paradigm change? Has such a change ever occurred?
Return
Original photo by the ESA's Cassini-Huygens space probe with inverse colors.
Two kids are arguing…
Kid #1: "You're a dweeb!"
Kid #2: "No I'm not. YOU'RE a dweeb!"
Kid #1: "Prove it!"
Ah, memories.
You may know that the Greek letter ᴨ (Pi) represents the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. You might also know that the ratio has no final value -- it's an irrational number, as mathematicians would say, because its divided result seemingly goes on forever. Some people proudly recite 20, 40, or maybe even 100 digits of ᴨ from memory. The world record is actually around some 100,000 digits (yes, from memory). We'd rather polish a parade square with a toothbrush.
But others apparently took our advice, used some Lateral Thinking, and let a computer do the work. As of 2026, Pi has since been calculated to 314 trillion digits, an impressive leap from our report in 2016 when it had been verified to a mere 13.3 trillion. That's nice to know, just in case you are doing some circular cuts on your woodworking project this weekend.
Though theories and near-proofs abound, no one really knows if Pi has a final resolution to its digits, yet for all practical purposes, the decimal places are infinite. But is that really provable? Though a fun debate, there comes a point where something just cannot be proven in any practical sense, and if that's the case, why try? (again, we're talking practical application)
You'd probably have a better chance of discerning if your little brother is a dweeb or not.
Return
Kid #1: "You're a dweeb!"
Kid #2: "No I'm not. YOU'RE a dweeb!"
Kid #1: "Prove it!"
Ah, memories.
You may know that the Greek letter ᴨ (Pi) represents the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. You might also know that the ratio has no final value -- it's an irrational number, as mathematicians would say, because its divided result seemingly goes on forever. Some people proudly recite 20, 40, or maybe even 100 digits of ᴨ from memory. The world record is actually around some 100,000 digits (yes, from memory). We'd rather polish a parade square with a toothbrush.
But others apparently took our advice, used some Lateral Thinking, and let a computer do the work. As of 2026, Pi has since been calculated to 314 trillion digits, an impressive leap from our report in 2016 when it had been verified to a mere 13.3 trillion. That's nice to know, just in case you are doing some circular cuts on your woodworking project this weekend.
Though theories and near-proofs abound, no one really knows if Pi has a final resolution to its digits, yet for all practical purposes, the decimal places are infinite. But is that really provable? Though a fun debate, there comes a point where something just cannot be proven in any practical sense, and if that's the case, why try? (again, we're talking practical application)
You'd probably have a better chance of discerning if your little brother is a dweeb or not.
Return
Statistically, turning left in a car is several times more dangerous than turning right. If you said this to someone who had never been in a car before, and without regard to any additional facts, that person might presume that right turns are the only turns worth making, and therefore, you should never turn left ever again. Technically speaking, you might be safer, but that next Interstate trip might take an awfully long time.
A quick presumption saves a few seconds, but it might cost a great deal more time in the future. Some presumptions are good. The sun comes up in the east, and sets in the west. (Usually, at least. Someone at the North Pole might take issue with such generalities.) Your left shoe typically fits only on your left foot. Toilet seats will always be left down. Well, 1 or 2 out of 3 isn't bad.
But with problem solving, use care with presumptions — ANY presumption. The solutions to difficult problems are often missed because something is presumed to be functioning when it really isn't. In fact, in our experience, one of the leading ideas that resolves problems is by carefully reviewing what was ruled-out previously, where an incorrect conclusion was made.
Suppose: I am an expert in conveyor belts. After reviewing a conveyor belt in your factory, I see the belt is moving. I've seen many conveyor belts before, and this looks like any other working conveyor belt. Therefore, the conveyor belt seems to be working properly, and can be ruled out as the cause of any problem. But what if the belt is slipping, or moving imperceptibly too slowly? Or what if some contaminant has dripped onto the belt, causing it to slip only on a certain spot? Making a quick conclusion, which is easy to do when rushed or tired, might lead you to make a conclusion that is entirely wrong, yet then causing large amounts of resources to be spent on other things that were never a problem in the first place. Don't be put-off if someone insists upon checking your conveyor belts again, even though they were thought to have been proven good in the first place.
Return
A quick presumption saves a few seconds, but it might cost a great deal more time in the future. Some presumptions are good. The sun comes up in the east, and sets in the west. (Usually, at least. Someone at the North Pole might take issue with such generalities.) Your left shoe typically fits only on your left foot. Toilet seats will always be left down. Well, 1 or 2 out of 3 isn't bad.
But with problem solving, use care with presumptions — ANY presumption. The solutions to difficult problems are often missed because something is presumed to be functioning when it really isn't. In fact, in our experience, one of the leading ideas that resolves problems is by carefully reviewing what was ruled-out previously, where an incorrect conclusion was made.
Suppose: I am an expert in conveyor belts. After reviewing a conveyor belt in your factory, I see the belt is moving. I've seen many conveyor belts before, and this looks like any other working conveyor belt. Therefore, the conveyor belt seems to be working properly, and can be ruled out as the cause of any problem. But what if the belt is slipping, or moving imperceptibly too slowly? Or what if some contaminant has dripped onto the belt, causing it to slip only on a certain spot? Making a quick conclusion, which is easy to do when rushed or tired, might lead you to make a conclusion that is entirely wrong, yet then causing large amounts of resources to be spent on other things that were never a problem in the first place. Don't be put-off if someone insists upon checking your conveyor belts again, even though they were thought to have been proven good in the first place.
Return
If you've ever watched 70,000 football fans stream into a stadium 1 hour prior to the game, something interesting happens:
i. Those thousands of people invariably criss-cross past each other in the most unpredictable, random, and unplanned way imaginable.
ii. Notwithstanding number i. above, they all make it to their seats on-time, and to their precisely assigned seat no less, and with a $10 $15 $20 hot dog in hand.
(Check back in the year 2030 for an update on hot dog prices).
Out of apparent confusion can sensible and predictable patterns occur, even with seemingly chaotic systems. But sometimes, such as in a leaderless environment, or in a new situation without a process or precedent to follow, the need to act gives way to strange results. A flexible, challenging Skunkworks environment is one thing, where creativity and new requirements are the norm. But all tasks must have a goal, and a way to accomplish that goal. When everyone knows what the goal is, and has a reason to contribute, even apparent chaos can yield results. But take away that purpose, or how to accomplish it, and you might be left to the irrationality of a crowd.
Artificial Intelligence adds a new angle to productive chaos, allowing discovery of information or patterns that could not have been recognized by just human minds alone, due to its astonishing power to analyze. Do not suppose that a messy-appearing or chaotic environment does not have some design to it. But you may have to view it differently to see the design or pattern, if even just to allow for the possibility that one exists.
Return
i. Those thousands of people invariably criss-cross past each other in the most unpredictable, random, and unplanned way imaginable.
ii. Notwithstanding number i. above, they all make it to their seats on-time, and to their precisely assigned seat no less, and with a $
(Check back in the year 2030 for an update on hot dog prices).
Out of apparent confusion can sensible and predictable patterns occur, even with seemingly chaotic systems. But sometimes, such as in a leaderless environment, or in a new situation without a process or precedent to follow, the need to act gives way to strange results. A flexible, challenging Skunkworks environment is one thing, where creativity and new requirements are the norm. But all tasks must have a goal, and a way to accomplish that goal. When everyone knows what the goal is, and has a reason to contribute, even apparent chaos can yield results. But take away that purpose, or how to accomplish it, and you might be left to the irrationality of a crowd.
Artificial Intelligence adds a new angle to productive chaos, allowing discovery of information or patterns that could not have been recognized by just human minds alone, due to its astonishing power to analyze. Do not suppose that a messy-appearing or chaotic environment does not have some design to it. But you may have to view it differently to see the design or pattern, if even just to allow for the possibility that one exists.
Return
Go ahead and take on several tasks. After all, doing a little bit of everything is still productive, plus it allows you to make progress on several fronts. Right?
We've all done it. We have said we're "multi-tasking". Some of you might even be surprised to see this concept located in the Anti-Logic Primer. But it has been established that no human can really do more than one thing at a time. Witness: Driving and texting. Watching TV while cooking dinner. Patting your head and rubbing your stomach (to up this challenge, also try hopping on one foot at the same time). When you multi-task, what you're really doing is briefly ignoring one or more ongoing tasks while doing another, hoping that those short absences of attention won't have any ill consequences before you can return to them.
If it takes you 1 hour to paint a room, and you have 5 rooms to paint, you cannot multi-task and paint all 5 rooms in 1 hour, or 3 hours, or even in 4.5 hours. One way or another, it's going to take you 5 hours to do the job (ignoring any possible benefit of process improvements). Ask yourself, how can multitasking a group of tasks really be all that different?
Interruptions are a way of life today, and it can be truly difficult or even impossible to completely finish one task properly, before going on to the next. If anything, some controls might have to be applied to ensure that some work is actually getting done at all.
Wasting time and resources, especially when you have to return to a task that you stopped days or months ago, will certainly take more time than if it had been possible to work on just the one task to its final completion. Work space may also get used up with all those half-completed projects. Worse, you may have to re-learn knowledge or facts you had gained but since forgot, as you were not able to make records of your activities.
Work (and life) rarely lets us finish a complex task all at one time, but we should try, and if that isn't possible, then we should try to make it as easy for ourselves as possible to return to the task at a later time. You can do this by documenting what you had learned and accomplished to that point. This need not take much time, or that part of the task will never get done either. Simply jot down your progress at the stopping point, and any significant hurdles you had encountered getting there, and file it with the work you've completed to that point.
Return
We've all done it. We have said we're "multi-tasking". Some of you might even be surprised to see this concept located in the Anti-Logic Primer. But it has been established that no human can really do more than one thing at a time. Witness: Driving and texting. Watching TV while cooking dinner. Patting your head and rubbing your stomach (to up this challenge, also try hopping on one foot at the same time). When you multi-task, what you're really doing is briefly ignoring one or more ongoing tasks while doing another, hoping that those short absences of attention won't have any ill consequences before you can return to them.
If it takes you 1 hour to paint a room, and you have 5 rooms to paint, you cannot multi-task and paint all 5 rooms in 1 hour, or 3 hours, or even in 4.5 hours. One way or another, it's going to take you 5 hours to do the job (ignoring any possible benefit of process improvements). Ask yourself, how can multitasking a group of tasks really be all that different?
Interruptions are a way of life today, and it can be truly difficult or even impossible to completely finish one task properly, before going on to the next. If anything, some controls might have to be applied to ensure that some work is actually getting done at all.
Wasting time and resources, especially when you have to return to a task that you stopped days or months ago, will certainly take more time than if it had been possible to work on just the one task to its final completion. Work space may also get used up with all those half-completed projects. Worse, you may have to re-learn knowledge or facts you had gained but since forgot, as you were not able to make records of your activities.
Work (and life) rarely lets us finish a complex task all at one time, but we should try, and if that isn't possible, then we should try to make it as easy for ourselves as possible to return to the task at a later time. You can do this by documenting what you had learned and accomplished to that point. This need not take much time, or that part of the task will never get done either. Simply jot down your progress at the stopping point, and any significant hurdles you had encountered getting there, and file it with the work you've completed to that point.
Return
Belligerence. Stubbornness. Downright obstinance.
Who really has the right-of-way on an issue?
There are legitimate reasons to go with an absolute opinion of one - experience, facts not known to others, risk, urgency, etc. But usually, at least if time allows, a second opinion is well-advised.
The commander of a naval task force can certainly make any decision without help, but every ship in the convoy has a captain, and every captain has a first officer. Requesting a contribution from others, based on facts, can at times be very helpful and possibly avoid a suboptimal decision. And why not? The collective intelligence of a group is (almost) always greater than that of an individual, so long as the group is organized (see Random Chaos). It's the same for the leader of a company, organization, or country.
For years, Cisco Systems® strived to make strategic decisions with teams, rather than individuals. Though potentially more time-consuming, this method leverages all the experiences and backgrounds of a group of people. You can rule-out ideas later, but listening to as many ideas as possible can lead to amazing things.
On a good day, you may be the biggest car on the road. On a bad day, you may be staring down something bigger than you. Stay flexible, and know when to stay the course, and when it's time to give someone else the right-of-way.
Return
Who really has the right-of-way on an issue?
There are legitimate reasons to go with an absolute opinion of one - experience, facts not known to others, risk, urgency, etc. But usually, at least if time allows, a second opinion is well-advised.
The commander of a naval task force can certainly make any decision without help, but every ship in the convoy has a captain, and every captain has a first officer. Requesting a contribution from others, based on facts, can at times be very helpful and possibly avoid a suboptimal decision. And why not? The collective intelligence of a group is (almost) always greater than that of an individual, so long as the group is organized (see Random Chaos). It's the same for the leader of a company, organization, or country.
For years, Cisco Systems® strived to make strategic decisions with teams, rather than individuals. Though potentially more time-consuming, this method leverages all the experiences and backgrounds of a group of people. You can rule-out ideas later, but listening to as many ideas as possible can lead to amazing things.
On a good day, you may be the biggest car on the road. On a bad day, you may be staring down something bigger than you. Stay flexible, and know when to stay the course, and when it's time to give someone else the right-of-way.
Return
Behavior and Logic
You don't really need to eat a good meal before work. We all know the breakfast of champions, that 1st tier brain-food: coffee and a donut. And you can always follow that up with a heavy meal at lunch too -- you know, to help settle down for a nice afternoon nap during the conference call. (This would be sarcasm.)
Food is fuel for your mind. You may not have a picture of the Food Pyramid on your refrigerator anymore (or possibly ever), but it's worth noting that a balanced diet will give you the energy and nutrition your body needs to get through the day, including those moments of hard thinking. Sure, you can eat a whole bucket of fried chicken by yourself. For lunch. Just consider what your body usually needs to stay alive and alert. Folks working outside during the summer will have a different diet than those sitting at a cube in the winter, but in any case, try to give your body the best fuel available.
If you are not getting enough rest, are frustrated with problems, and have been subsisting on whatever is left in the vending machine, you are much more likely to make errors or slow your abilities. We don't want to tell anyone what to eat. And besides, there's nothing wrong with a pizza lunch every now and then. Nor is there with having the leftovers for dinner for a double-pizza dose that day. But for most other days, and certainly when you have to be on your "A" game, think about your rest, some degree of exercise, and what nutrients your body will be living on for the next 24 hours. Doing all three is proven to enhance your ability to concentrate, and make you feel better overall. Just sayin'.
Return
Food is fuel for your mind. You may not have a picture of the Food Pyramid on your refrigerator anymore (or possibly ever), but it's worth noting that a balanced diet will give you the energy and nutrition your body needs to get through the day, including those moments of hard thinking. Sure, you can eat a whole bucket of fried chicken by yourself. For lunch. Just consider what your body usually needs to stay alive and alert. Folks working outside during the summer will have a different diet than those sitting at a cube in the winter, but in any case, try to give your body the best fuel available.
If you are not getting enough rest, are frustrated with problems, and have been subsisting on whatever is left in the vending machine, you are much more likely to make errors or slow your abilities. We don't want to tell anyone what to eat. And besides, there's nothing wrong with a pizza lunch every now and then. Nor is there with having the leftovers for dinner for a double-pizza dose that day. But for most other days, and certainly when you have to be on your "A" game, think about your rest, some degree of exercise, and what nutrients your body will be living on for the next 24 hours. Doing all three is proven to enhance your ability to concentrate, and make you feel better overall. Just sayin'.
Return
"So, you want to help me and Bob design our own version of Pacman this Saturday night?"
"Um, no, I think I might just go to that party after all…"
Ever use eBay®? How about YouTube®? It's amazing how fast 6 hours can pass by in just one sitting.
What about reading news? Or email? On both your PC and your smart phone. And now, we have AI to both help and distract us.
You might think you know where we're going with this: "Oh boy. This primer is about to tell me what I should not be reading, and then go into a boring lecture on how I should get back to work."
We wouldn't think of it. Really.
In fact, most of this lecture that we're not going to give you, wouldn't even be your fault if we did. (Sorry for the double-negative, but the humor factor is key here.)
The Information Age is over, and the Discarding Age has arrived. With meetings, conference calls, video, emails, texts, instant-messages, clouds, passwords, and keys, not to mention good ol' paper documents, it's amazing what we have to accomplish every single day just to make sure we are communicating. And then, you still have to actually do your job.
But the challenge is really one of discipline. It isn't realistic to say you won't check the news all day long. We'd go so far as to say that you probably should check the news, just in case there's something you need to know about. But try this: read 2 or maybe 3 articles, at most. That's it. Get it out of your system, and then get on with your day. If something more catches your eye, read it later. Or, just read the headlines.
Practice rejection of information. Chances are, you've read much of it all before anyway. It isn't unusual for most news to largely be a re-shuffle of yesterday's news. And for those click-bait articles, do you really need to see another Top-Ten list? Ask yourself: Who's article is it? Why was it created? Would you agree with its conclusions? If not, does it really matter? Do you remember details from any recent click-bait article you've read…or from one ever? What if you just skipped this one, since you're likely to forget it all in 5 minutes anyways? And think of all those advertisements you won't have to endure watching.
Email is similar — try checking it no more than 3 times per day. Local policy may differ here, but we would suggest that the sender of an email should not expect an instant reply, and therefore not require you to read it right away. That's what phone calls are for. Of course, you might still see notifications and pop-ups -- some valid and some spam. If all this checking is still affecting your productivity, as well as your sanity, see if you can turn some notifications off.
Checking the weather, scores, lottery tickets, and a myriad of other things should have some limits like those above, so you have time to get the things done that really NEED to get done. After a while, you might even find you quickly grow tired of reading the "same old, same old". That's a good thing, because it means your mind is realizing you aren't gaining much or anything from all that reading and watching.
And just think: If by saving time you get your work finished early, then maybe you can go home early. Sure, it probably won't happen, but the rest of your easy afternoon might now allow you time to read the news freely (if you can stand it).
Return
What about reading news? Or email? On both your PC and your smart phone. And now, we have AI to both help and distract us.
You might think you know where we're going with this: "Oh boy. This primer is about to tell me what I should not be reading, and then go into a boring lecture on how I should get back to work."
We wouldn't think of it. Really.
In fact, most of this lecture that we're not going to give you, wouldn't even be your fault if we did. (Sorry for the double-negative, but the humor factor is key here.)
The Information Age is over, and the Discarding Age has arrived. With meetings, conference calls, video, emails, texts, instant-messages, clouds, passwords, and keys, not to mention good ol' paper documents, it's amazing what we have to accomplish every single day just to make sure we are communicating. And then, you still have to actually do your job.
But the challenge is really one of discipline. It isn't realistic to say you won't check the news all day long. We'd go so far as to say that you probably should check the news, just in case there's something you need to know about. But try this: read 2 or maybe 3 articles, at most. That's it. Get it out of your system, and then get on with your day. If something more catches your eye, read it later. Or, just read the headlines.
Practice rejection of information. Chances are, you've read much of it all before anyway. It isn't unusual for most news to largely be a re-shuffle of yesterday's news. And for those click-bait articles, do you really need to see another Top-Ten list? Ask yourself: Who's article is it? Why was it created? Would you agree with its conclusions? If not, does it really matter? Do you remember details from any recent click-bait article you've read…or from one ever? What if you just skipped this one, since you're likely to forget it all in 5 minutes anyways? And think of all those advertisements you won't have to endure watching.
Email is similar — try checking it no more than 3 times per day. Local policy may differ here, but we would suggest that the sender of an email should not expect an instant reply, and therefore not require you to read it right away. That's what phone calls are for. Of course, you might still see notifications and pop-ups -- some valid and some spam. If all this checking is still affecting your productivity, as well as your sanity, see if you can turn some notifications off.
Checking the weather, scores, lottery tickets, and a myriad of other things should have some limits like those above, so you have time to get the things done that really NEED to get done. After a while, you might even find you quickly grow tired of reading the "same old, same old". That's a good thing, because it means your mind is realizing you aren't gaining much or anything from all that reading and watching.
And just think: If by saving time you get your work finished early, then maybe you can go home early. Sure, it probably won't happen, but the rest of your easy afternoon might now allow you time to read the news freely (if you can stand it).
Return