"Get it all" is a nice/noble/useful/cool sentiment, but I think this usage overloads an established metaphor.

The whole point of the triangular metaphor (as a visualisation) is to communicate a compromise situation - e.g. I'm working on a project, you can have Quality, Cost, Time as dimensions - you can't max out one without compromising another.

This is a brilliant way to visualise how much you're getting out of a job vs. another.

Which begs the question... what else can be brilliantly visualised using radar charts like this?

is this only newsworthy because of the pretty charts?

Abuse of geometry is popular these days.

But hey, pseudoscience sells. Makes the reader feel smart when he "figures it out".

Don't forget the obligatory anecdotes.

Reminds me of the TOP model: Talent - Organizational Needs - Passion.

While growth - cash - love model helps decide self picked projects, TOP advises employer - employee equilibrium in assigning resources to projects.

At any point of time an employer has to ensure that at least 2 of these are valid in a resource assignment for any task/project.

It's more important to do what is right then what you love. Sometimes they're one in the same.

I was just thinking about the same thing, although my attributes were: Time, Money, Passion (the things which a job should reward you with / what you will invest in a job).

2 out of 3 is what you should be aiming for.

Really like that guy's blog design. The yellow up at the top is slick.

nice post - deep thoughts, but presented in a simple format