<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Productivity on JVQ.net: Just Very Quick</title>
    <link>https://jvq.net/tags/productivity/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Productivity on JVQ.net: Just Very Quick</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://jvq.net/tags/productivity/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>The Cost of Context Switching Is Not What You Think</title>
      <link>https://jvq.net/the-cost-of-context-switching-is-not-what-you-think/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://jvq.net/the-cost-of-context-switching-is-not-what-you-think/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;The standard argument against context switching goes like this: every time you jump between tasks, your brain needs time to reload the previous context. Studies cite 20-minute recovery windows. The implication is that fragmented schedules are inefficient, and deep work blocks are the fix.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;This is true but incomplete. The more damaging cost of context switching is not the reload time. It is what happens to the task you interrupted.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
