Why did/would you switch current accounts?

kaMelo

IvanOpinion said:

masonic said:

IvanOpinion said:

At the minute I am on call - I am waiting for a job to finish (it will probably take another 20 minutes).  I will then trigger several other jobs that will probably take a couple of hours to complete.  I just need to baby sit them - and 99% of the time there are no issues.  So I can sit and watch TV, surf the web, read a book, do Facebook, or whatever pleases me - and I still get paid the same.

This afternoon though I have a a couple of computers that need a bit of work done on them (side line).  So I will also do that.  So I get paid for my job AND I get paid extra for fixing computers (both of which will nett me more than wasting 30 minutes trying to get a £25-50 incentive).  You do the maths, pennies or £'s - which would you choose?

Agree the multi-tasking approach can be valuable. For the Santander switching offer a couple of years ago, while I opened a new current account (as an existing customer) and set up the first switch on my own time, the subsequent 4 switches had to be arranged by phone, which I did during void periods in my work day. £400 of the £500 Amazon vouchers I received were earned in parallel to my main income, and it was an opportunity to get rid of 5 accounts I no longer had a use for (including some generating less than £25 of ongoing returns per year, which I didn't consider were worth keeping). All in all that was an investment of only 10 min of my own time, I only skim-read relevant sections of the T&C, as the account was destined as a donor for the Nationwide RAF offer upon payment of incentives earning £200 as part of a referral swap (again, existing account), another 10 min of my time to arrange the Nationwide side, so 20 minutes of my own time in total for £700.

Looking back at the last few switching offers I've taken up, I've done the Halifax and Lloyds offers for £100 (again as an existing/recent current account customer with online banking already set up), but not the "£138" Virgin wine offer as it would be a new bank for me, has extra hoops and hassle associated with receiving a delivery (as well as encouraging me to increase my alcohol consumption). I'd probably only go for a £50 cashback offer if it didn't involve signing up to a new bank or creating a new donor account, generally not worth the hassle for anything less than that. I tend to stick to the low hanging fruit (I wouldn't even consider taking up ongoing rewards with lots of hoops to jump through such as the Co-op offer with its dozens of debit card transactions needed for the full reward).

We all value our time differently.  I can just get better value by doing other things.  I suppose I could do bank switches as well (I have done about £600 worth in the last few years) but quite honestly unless we are talking of over £100 I consider it to be more hassle than it is worth.  At my stage of life (and level of income) I now consider any form of 'hassle' to be a very expensive and unnecessary item - I am often willing to pay just to avoid hassle.

Today I have 2 computers up and running and my baby sitting job ran without issue - I get paid for all and I also get an extra day off in lieu.  So I actually get my time back as well - that is what I call value.

I appreciate that to some switching bank accounts is easy and a reasonable source of revenue - been there and done it - I just have easier less hassle (as I perceive them) things that I can do that earn me even more (especially for switches offering only £25-50.  The company I work for gives me a more valuable bonus each month for completing trivial 5 minute tasks outside of my normal job - some relate to soft skill training (e.g. watch a video or read a blog page) and others relate to well being (e.g. knock off 30 minutes early today, walk a mile etc.).

 

There is nothing wrong with my time management skills nor my ability to read either.

I prefer the Linux philosophy, "Do one thing, do it well" as opposed to multitasking. Multitask = Multifail.
There is only one thing you can do at any one time, okay maybe patting your stomach and rubbing your head may count as two at once but other than that no, you may thing you are but you are actually doing multiple tasks in parallel. If you ran timelines for each task parallel to each other the overlapping parts are virtually non-existant. 
The point you make about multitasking with being paid to babysit a project whilst doing other things is great work to have, being paid to do nothing is about as good as it gets. However, should something happen which means you need to go from babysitting mode to active mode then you can't do something else at that time too, in parallel rather than together.

Wierdly I too work with computers as a sideline, although more building/upgrading rather than repairs and whilst waiting for certain tasks to complete I, in parallel, do other things like chat !!!!!! on here   

Anyway, I digress. Genuinely applications take around 5 minutes, I use a second installation of Vivaldi which has my profile data stored, purely for tasks like this to fill out the application forms. It's not usually 100% successful, maybe 90% and I merely fill in the bits it doesn't and yes, it takes around five minutes. The T&C I've already read prior to application so if you wanted to include that time then it would obviously increase the average time to maybe ten minutes.
I've never seen switches at £25-50, the lowest I've seen was Halifax at £75, the most Clydesdale at £250. Average out across them and I'd suggest it's still hundreds of pounds per hour of effort. Unless you're a barrister or Consultant I still think it's not a bad hourly rate.

colsten

kaMelo said:

 

There is nothing wrong with my time management skills nor my ability to read either.

I prefer the Linux philosophy, "Do one thing, do it well" as opposed to multitasking. Multitask = Multifail.
There is only one thing you can do at any one time, okay maybe patting your stomach and rubbing your head may count as two at once but other than that no, you may thing you are but you are actually doing multiple tasks in parallel. If you ran timelines for each task parallel to each other the overlapping parts are virtually non-existant. 
The point you make about multitasking with being paid to babysit a project whilst doing other things is great work to have, being paid to do nothing is about as good as it gets. However, should something happen which means you need to go from babysitting mode to active mode then you can't do something else at that time too, in parallel rather than together.

And here we have the proof that kaMelo is male - desperately seeking a scientifically sounding justification as to why multi-tasking, very successfully practised by women for centuries, is not really possible 🤣🤣🤣. I never thought this thread would encourage a gender capabilities debate 🤣🤣🤣

Brewer21

RetSol said:

The other accounts are switching bank accounts, I currently have 2 available for that purpose one just gone (TSB) for the Halifax incentive again.👍

Two!  I salute you, @Brewer21.  I have only just caught on to this wheeze and just have the one atm 

Actually have 4 probably 5 if you count the new Halifax one ready to ditch. 
I think quite a few on here can probably boast having more.

kaMelo

colsten said:

kaMelo said:

 

There is nothing wrong with my time management skills nor my ability to read either.

I prefer the Linux philosophy, "Do one thing, do it well" as opposed to multitasking. Multitask = Multifail.
There is only one thing you can do at any one time, okay maybe patting your stomach and rubbing your head may count as two at once but other than that no, you may thing you are but you are actually doing multiple tasks in parallel. If you ran timelines for each task parallel to each other the overlapping parts are virtually non-existant. 
The point you make about multitasking with being paid to babysit a project whilst doing other things is great work to have, being paid to do nothing is about as good as it gets. However, should something happen which means you need to go from babysitting mode to active mode then you can't do something else at that time too, in parallel rather than together.

And here we have the proof that kaMelo is male - desperately seeking a scientifically sounding justification as to why multi-tasking, very successfully practised by women for centuries, is not really possible 🤣🤣🤣. I never thought this thread would encourage a gender capabilities debate 🤣🤣🤣

But never perfected 


*goes off to check body for new plumbing appendages"

Eco_Miser

kaMelo said:

I prefer the Linux philosophy, "Do one thing, do it well" as opposed to multitasking. Multitask = Multifail.

And yet Linux is a multitasking system.

The "Do one thing well" philosophy refers to having a multitude of little programs each doing one thing well, all running together under a multitasking OS, rather than one big program trying to do everything.

And yet it has Emacs.

kaMelo

Eco_Miser said:

kaMelo said:

I prefer the Linux philosophy, "Do one thing, do it well" as opposed to multitasking. Multitask = Multifail.

And yet Linux is a multitasking system.

The "Do one thing well" philosophy refers to having a multitude of little programs each doing one thing well, all running together under a multitasking OS, rather than one big program trying to do everything.

And yet it has Emacs.

Yes, like a conductor (the OS) of an orchestra (individual programmes) it works well.

If the conductor was trying to conduct whilst playing the violin and the trombone at the same time it wouldn't end well.

masonic

kaMelo said:

Eco_Miser said:

kaMelo said:

I prefer the Linux philosophy, "Do one thing, do it well" as opposed to multitasking. Multitask = Multifail.

And yet Linux is a multitasking system.

The "Do one thing well" philosophy refers to having a multitude of little programs each doing one thing well, all running together under a multitasking OS, rather than one big program trying to do everything.

And yet it has Emacs.

Yes, like a conductor (the OS) of an orchestra (individual programmes) it works well.

If the conductor was trying to conduct whilst playing the violin and the trombone at the same time it wouldn't end well.

A common misconception about multitasking is that it involves completing tasks completely synchronously. Even in the realms of IT, multitasking normally involves switching between tasks. The conductor argument you are trying to make is specious, because although modern computers have multiple CPU cores, each core will be rapidly switching between processes, so the CPU is a prime example of a processor that does lots of different things at the same time effectively. Humans aren't as good as machines at task-switching, but it's perfectly possible for an unimpaired human mind to switch back and forth between simple activities without material impact, especially if one of those tasks involves periods of time where the human would otherwise be waiting if focused solely on one activity. For example, I wrote this post while frying some onions.

Chino

masonic said:

For example, I wrote this post while frying some onions.

What did you have with the onions?

masonic

Chino said:

masonic said:

For example, I wrote this post while frying some onions.

What did you have with the onions?

They went into a chili con carne.

kaMelo

masonic said:

kaMelo said:

Eco_Miser said:

kaMelo said:

I prefer the Linux philosophy, "Do one thing, do it well" as opposed to multitasking. Multitask = Multifail.

And yet Linux is a multitasking system.

The "Do one thing well" philosophy refers to having a multitude of little programs each doing one thing well, all running together under a multitasking OS, rather than one big program trying to do everything.

And yet it has Emacs.

Yes, like a conductor (the OS) of an orchestra (individual programmes) it works well.

If the conductor was trying to conduct whilst playing the violin and the trombone at the same time it wouldn't end well.

A common misconception about multitasking is that it involves completing tasks completely synchronously. Even in the realms of IT, multitasking normally involves switching between tasks. The conductor argument you are trying to make is specious, because although modern computers have multiple CPU cores, each core will be rapidly switching between processes, so the CPU is a prime example of a processor that does lots of different things at the same time effectively. Humans aren't as good as machines at task-switching, but it's perfectly possible for an unimpaired human mind to switch back and forth between simple activities without material impact, especially if one of those tasks involves periods of time where the human would otherwise be waiting if focused solely on one activity. For example, I wrote this post while frying some onions.

You are misunderstanding my points or more likely I'm not explaining them very well. 
To use your CPU analogy, a CPU does many things at the same time in an overarching way, multi tasking if you like, but each core is only ever doing one task at a time. It switches between tasks running concurrently in an efficient manner with no down time and in reality the CPU cache would make running multiple tasks faster than individually run tasks but the bottom line is each CPU core, not unlike a human, can do many things in parallel but only ever one thing at once.
Frying onions whilst writing your post is a perfect example of running tasks in parallel, switching between them.