hilko

On the first paragraph I generally agree with you, but I'd like to point out that in some cases, also in small teams, being a designer unencumbered by the limitations of the technology can be important. As part of the team, it can cause some healthy conflict in trying to make things work despite initial technological barriers. Many great things came out of a disregard of 'what seems possible at first sight', and in some cases this is a good thing. You're not saying the opposite of what i just said, but I just wanted to point this out.

As for the second paragraph: in my experience the type/manner of work involved with HTML and CSS might be closer to programming than to design. I cannot back this up with research, but it's what I've noticed working with designers. I suspect it has something to do with the level of abstraction involved.

For example, I dislike the front-end CSS and HTML part of my work, because so much seems to be based on memorization of CSS tricks and writing dirty HTML that confuses semantic structure from layout. But I can wrap my head around it anyways, and it's more annoying than difficult. But I've worked with many designers who equally dislike CSS and HTML, but lack the fundamental ability/experience to figure it out properly, much as they tried.

I dunno, if there's one company that I can imagine would drop an entire market, it would be Apple. I wouldn't like it, but fortunately for me I don't really need a really powerful machine (I do mostly web development on a two year old 11" MacBook Air).

I'd hate to see this occur, and I don't think it will anytime soon, but it seems possible to me.

as an aside, I wonder if there's some Steve Jobs vernacular style guide lying around at Apple, or if it's just from personal interaction that much of what Cook says (and others perhaps) sounds so much like him.

Sure, I may be reading too much into 'really great', but I can't stop reading this stuff in Jobs voice.

As others have said, mediocrity is relative. So is stupidity and genius.

Growing up and becoming (something of) an adult, the one thing that still constantly surprises me is the huge amount of mediocrity surrounding me, and not just that: they're succesful and happy. Part of the reason for this surprise is that I generally surround myself with people that are at the very least not much more mediocre than me, and often people that are on par or 'better' than me.

If you're a PhD student, you're clearly not 'mediocre' by most standards. And I suspect you're in a competitive environment full of people that are either very smart, or trying to prove they are.

So then ask yourself: who am I comparing myself to, and why is it important to do so. There's always someone 'better', so thinking in this way is futile.

My general approach to life is this: if I feel like the smartest person I know, I should find more smarter friends. If I feel intimidated or bad by those around me, I should perhaps find friends that are equal or less smart then me. I've been in both situations.

Incidentally, many of those I thought smarter than me really weren't. And those of my friends that are 'dumber' then me make up with that in a myriad of other ways, since fortunately being smart isn't all there is.

I agree with the sentiment to help and not just throw stones, but I think all the outrage and whatnot is very useful: it makes this kind of stuff less likely to happen.

Yeah. I'm much less angry about this than might be, mostly because of this same impression I get from him.

I find that 'geeks' have a tendency to really not handle issues well when they are difficult to understand. Suicide is like that. Most people hesitate to say anything about it, but 'geeks' can be lacking in that.

And honestly, I like that. He's saying what a lot of people are thinking, and it starts a good discussion.

In the same way great writers need to be alcoholics?

In all seriousness though: depression is quite different from feeling down or being sad, and one of the most frustrating things for people who have been depressed is that they can't really convey what it's like. I've been 'happy', in a way, that depression has been talked about more lately, because I feel that especially us geeks often have a hard time accepting something we cannot understand or figure out.

In some ways, you could compare depression to addictions. For people who have no addictions, and/or people who just do not have an addictive personality, it is really hard to understand. Even if they try to understand, it often feels like an addicted person is just not trying hard enough.

This is especially difficult with addictions that are similar to non-addictive behavior, like consumption of alcohol. Non-alcoholics just don't get it. I don't blame them for this, but it's frustrating.

Depression, in a way, is addiction to sadness.

Ooh, that's a wonderful observation. I've known a number of people that I would call 'Jobsian', based on my limited knowledge of him, of course. And in all cases they were really good at making me feel just that way.

I dunno. The book had a bunch of stuff that was interesting enough that I was happy to have bought it. But it was still disappointing.

I was rather disappointed too. Maybe his approach was the only one that would provide a good story for non-techies, but I didn't like it. But then I'm a geek.

True, but genius is not enough. Jobs seemed to have a quality that acted as a catalyst for genius to do 'great' stuff (where 'great' is debatable, of course).

Based on my personal experience with 'Jobsian' types, I have found this to be true as well. I've met many people who were brilliant at things, but under these types, even those with less brilliance often performed better. Anecdotal evidence, true, but still. My point is that it is fine to acknowledge their genius AND that he might have played a more important role than just money/power.

I do that with Sublime Text 2 using the vim plugin (vintage). I would've never switched from vim if not for this plugin. Now I have (most) of the best of both worlds.

Possibly. I was deeply religious for most of my life, but that unraveled about seven years ago.

I would love going back to that life. My father is a pastor, and he and the Christianity and Christians I grew up with were the 'good' kind. If I were gay, he'd be one of the first to know, for example.

The problem is that being a Christian without actually believing any of it is 1) difficult, if not impossible to keep up, and 2) less effective, perhaps almost ineffective.

And I can't just 'will' myself to believe it, unfortunately...

Hehe. It's very true though. I think one of the primary reasons I feel happier now than when I was younger, is that I want much less. Or maybe my ambitions have become more realistic. Either way, I like it.

Interesting. I got rid of my watch for that same reason.

Maybe it's a personality thing, but I felt I looked at my watch too often and that it was symptomatic of a general sense of being a 'slave' to time to an unnecessary degree.

So I got rid of my watch as part of a general de-hasting exercise, and started to be more... flexible, when possible of course. I feel it greatly increased my happiness.

Why strawmen, exactly? I'm not disagreeing with you; it's true that following your passion is often difficult, or even impossible.

I was just interested in discussing the passion angle of this story, because passion, in the strongest sense of the word, is a fascinating variable in this context. Passion can make a person content (to a degree) despite being dirt-poor, and passion can even bring a person out of squalor. And for some, not everyone, taking that passion seriously can be quite beneficial.

You might disagree, or consider the topic irrelevant, but how are we discussing strawmen?

But do you realize that this (subjective) locus of control is also, at least to a degree, part of your skill set. I have problems with statements like 'they give up and choose to see no path forward', because it seems to imply that somehow they're lazy, or dumb, or whatever. It's a step away from 'poor people are poor because they're lazy'.

I am very 'entrepreneurially-inclined', but I have no illusion that this is all my choice or doing. I just happened to have certain personality traits, and the right ones have been developed through my unconventional upbringing and schooling.

I understand what you are saying, but for some people pointing this out doesn't do much. They need to be taught and encouraged to understand that they have more control than they think.

True, which is why I'm happy to be at a point in life where 'making my own opportunities' includes packing my bags and leaving for greener pastures. I truly feel for those who don't have that option, and are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I agree with your observation. What I find interesting is that most people I know don't actually 'follow their dreams'. They do apply the principle on a surface level, but in actually just kind of stumble through life, often unhappy that they didn't quite 'realize' these vague non-specific dreams.

On the other hand, I have a number of friends who did follow their dreams. Their dreams often changed, were often crazy, but they had them, and worked relentlessly toward them. And they achieved a lot.

And finally I have friends who don't really have much of a dream that they want to follow, and they seem pretty happy too.

The problem is that many people apply a watered down version of 'follow your dream' that really is nothing more than 'do what you like'. Those are two different things.

I personally feel that it is possible to follow your dream, if you have one, but only if you realize that you might not make a living, you might be unhappy for long stretches of time, and it will cost. But I've seen so many people who went through hell following some crazy dream, but even in the process, and especially if their dream led them somewhere, they seemed somehow happier. Including the homeless broke ones.

Haha, that rings so true. I usually spend half an argument with friends getting to the point where the 'hyperbolizer' clarifies that he or she was merely hyperbolic. But the rest of the conversation is influenced by this initial hyperbole, and usually I conclude it was probably best to let it rest and perhaps get back to it later.

I'd say we need more context to say anything about this friend. I have friends who are very 'hyperbolic', but seem so honest. It's like they experience things as a child, or for the first time.

I also have friends who do this, where it seems to be a mask they put on. These friends often have rather unpleasant pasts.

It's a bit like the manic pixie dream girl, to use a fascinating stereotype. I have often tried to delve deep, and it's sometimes really hard to discern the 'broken' kind from the truly 'child-like' type.

Broad strokes, I know, and please forgive me. The only point I want to make is that context is everything in this case.

Perhaps allowing public drinking, in the long run, might actually foster a 'healthier' drinking culture though.

It's hard to predict, of course, but if you compare it to the 'legalization' of weed in Holland and the resulting 'healthy' weed culture, it might actually work.

I think this line of reasoning depends on whether there are actual previous examples of 'gimmicks' the size of facebook evaporating in this manner. Without any research on the matter, I'm inclined to say Facebook is simply too large and to entrenched at this point to be a fad. It's qualitatively different from fads in the same arena that came before it.

But it's an honest question. If there are previous examples of facebook-like fads suddenly disappearing, the line of thinking is sound and possible.

I love this idea and have also been thinking often of similar email-based solutions. Very cool, but here's some feedback anyways.

The main problem is inevitably the syntax. It very quickly becomes too complicated, and with email you have the additional problem that you don't get instant feedback on submission.

In your case, the syntax might be simple enough to not be an issue. However, for many people (me included), it would probably still be easier, less error-prone and quicker to use a web interface with instant feedback. And since the type of person using this service is likely to be quite fast and proficient, there's little advantage to your solution over a web-based interface.

I do think there's a way to add value for users like me, though. Three things I like about email could be leveraged (more): 1. I always have email open 2. I tend to use email for quick, short messages that have more permanence than chat. 3. I tend to use email to keep track of things. For example, I don't open my billing app (Billings OSX) to see if I already sent out an invoice, of if it's due. Instead, I just search in gmail to see if I sent out the invoice, and when.

What you could add to this project to make it worthwhile to me, and I suspect many others, is the idea of partial invoices. I would send an email with one or more items, and these would then be added as items to this 'account'. Finally, I can send out an invoice with the total items by logging into your web interface, or through email.

It would greatly benefit me to send an email with something like:

"50 mins, implement login system, clientname"

It would be vastly preferable to my current approach where I load up the application, navigate to the client, and add the item, or alternatively where i add this item to my task app.

Any ideas on why?

Or, like many people, you are less naturally good at communication, and you need to actively improve this ability.

What's wrong with that if it's true? My experience in poor countries is exactly the same. The shopping experience is horrible, because people are relentlessly trying to sell you things.

It's not saying anything about the culture in general, or the people, just the truth about third-world bazaars...

Since I don't know your situation, I obviously cannot give proper informed advice. But one option is to quit and/or to move.

I've felt depressed (distinct from episodes of 'proper' depression) very often in my life. It often too much longer to get out of this because I was looking for a fix, while the fix often resulted from just doing something different, sometimes even seemingly stupid. But it always worked. Breaking patterns.

I'm actually not sure that's true. For me going with the flow does dull life, but it increases inner conflict and pain. Because the 'flow' is often much more based on perceived rules and on social or societal pressure.

I think 'going with the flow' can go further than just on a life scale. In my case it means making decisions that often shake things up and seem a bit silly and counter-productive. I make these decisions because usually they work out and at least keep things interesting. But within these paths of conflict/difficulty I go with the flow. Not necessarily as an all-encompassing approach to life.

I'd say it's all about focusing on principles over rules, or at least being aware that the rules you apply are based on underlying principles. We tend to focus on rules, and apply those in both big and small decisions. Trying to be aware of what's behind those rules can make it easier to deviate, to improvise. Sometimes you still 'push it', but you're often more likely to realize that this thing you're 'pushing for' is a rule, not a principle, and that there are other ways to achieve the goal without blindly staring at one outcome.

I could give 'day-to-day' examples, but maybe that's not even necessary.