Good question :) We've a similar challenge to you, kids a few years younger, despite some efforts in school by teachers, they still don't get fed enough of the cool hard stuff they're hungry for, and youngest in particular finishes schoolwork early including extensions and gets bored. So I've done some searching possibly similar to you. found this : https://ukmt.org.uk. which has some good resources. Also just purchased off eBay this weekend, the Murderous Maths series by Kjartan Poskitt. Remains to be seen how good that'll be, might be a bit young for yours, although he did write some other books possibly for older kids. Some schools here in UK use this : https://sparxmaths.com. Maybe you can use that as an individual? Main thing is make sure to keep it fun, right? Playing card games is good too I think. Ones our family played include - "Oh hell". - like a simpler Bridge, you declare how many tricks you'll make and after a round you score 1 point for each trick plus an extra 10 if you made exactly what you said you would no more no less - quite tactical especially if you plan to make 0 tricks. "Black Lady" - sometimes called "Hearts" - each Heart is 1 bad point, Queen of Spades 13 bad point, King of Spades 10 and Ace 7, aim of the game is to not win tricks containing the bad cards. Seems to me those card games teach the brain to work in such a way that helps when doing various unrelated maths problems later on.
Helpful honest post :) And a useful warning to others :) Hopefully helpful to the OP to write this and get some responses. To play devil's advocate, some people worked BOTH hard and smart, and probably don't regret it, and the rest of us certainly appreciate them. Some random musical examples - Herbie Hancock, Wynton Marsalis, Doc Severinsen. Or a Comp Sci example - Alan Kay. Is the moral therefore a more nuanced, "work hard but not along the wrong path for too long"?
As someone who's had kids at a similar age to you, yeah its not a nice thought not being around for them as long as you'd like to be. Especially the thought of them having lost their parents when still relatively young (e:g in their 30s). Your life expectancy estimate sounds possibly a little pessimistic to me. With modern healthcare, barring bad luck, trying to live to 85-90 might be not a crazy ambition? That'd involve being somewhat focused on not eating cr*p and trying to get a decent amount of exercise, nothing crazy but just a little bit of prioritisation. That's my approach anyway. I wonder if in time older parents will be found to have longer life expectancy because they have an extra incentive to look after their health?
I think this is a good Q and the right analysis. FAANG often = mega stress. It needs to be treated as a temporary step, boost your c.v / resume / LinkedIn, save significant £/$/whatever / pay off student debts etc then G.T.F.O. to somewhere sane. Sane places do indeed exist. Public sector I've found the best. There are other "unexciting" industries outside tech, which employ tech workers, which are actually OK. As a Brit that worked in the US, the biggest issue I see, is US workers simply don't get enough holidays and breaks to properly recharge, and while you can take breaks between job-hopping, that runs into issues with continuous healthcare coverage. I did have a US colleague who every year said "I'm going travelling for 3 months", his somewhat irritated employer said "well no guarantee you can come back", he said "fine", 3 months later, desperate employer (who of course is short-termist): "when can you start, production is on fire". But I dunno what he did about healthcare those 3 months. Maybe bought it privately?
I agree with the above, but have you looked public sector? (e:g gov't , academia) low-key, sane culture can be found there. Simply because the org is not constantly chasing the next quarter's profit. Its not utopia, but in my experience (mostly private sector but a fair chunk of public sector) , public sector is so much better, less stress, and ironically, more productive because you can make long-term decisions, fix broken processes etc for the benefit of everyone. You won't get paid as much headline salary.. but you might get a better pension so needn't put as much aside, also, burning out can cause lost earnings anyway, so unless you're some kinda rock star with millionaire potential, it probably comes out in the wash .
I suppose this could muddy the waters over WFH productivity. Assuming its incorrect that in-person workplace is more productive (personally believe WFH same or better, but its still up for debate and may depend on a few things), then, an employer might be foolish to pay extra to get people there in person... but.. once they do, the higher salaries might attract more highly skilled applicants, who are.. more productive! So then by paying a premium you get more productive people, but that's because they are inherently more productive not 'cos they're physically there, but.. it looks like its because they're physically there, this reinforcing a myth that being in the office is more productive.
Regarding unemployment, in my brief experience of that, that does sap confidence, more than one might expect. And conversely, starting back at work seems to fix it instantly. At least it did for me.. 20 yrs ago I returned from some time out of Tech and some time spent travelling, it took me about 3 months to get a job at that time, it was new year, market was still not recovered from dot-com bust, and I was starting to get a bit despondent. But literally 30 mins after starting the new job, boom, life's back on track again. Like a switch flicked. I think the moral of the story is sometimes, take the first decent job you can even if its not a perfect fit.
I can confirm that us Brits do like to have a good old whinge ;) A national trait that's for sure. Personally, I don't notice people whinging quite as much as they did as when I was younger, I feel possibly we've absorbed a bit of the American positive thinking mentality. But certainly wonder how this shows itself on surveys. Its quite possible that Brits when asked in a survey, say their life is "s**" then having had the fantastic privilege that day, of whinge-ing in a survey as well as to anyone around them who fancies listening, they go on their merry way, quite cheerful for having told someone extra how terrible everything is. ;)
But has it actually got worse? ;) I mean, yes in recent times, according to the methodology used by these academics, specifically relative to other countries. But that's pretty specific. As others said, maybe other countries have improved relatively? What's the take-away form all this? To me, loneliness is the biggest issue. We can all deal with a lot of cr*p in our lives if we've got supportive friends, and we can all be much happier by helping others who need it . Its very satisfying.
But its not all about economic pressure, right? Poor countries with high sense of community and looking out for one another, are often happy. As for the UK, I heard the stats suggest older people are happy while younger people and teenagers in particular are not. My personal belief, as a Brit, is while social media probably doesn't help, a big reason for unhappy teenagers is that secondary schools have been effectively privatised. They're run by "Academy chains" - essentially big business , which pushes teenagers very hard to have high attendance rate , come to school when ill, push them to do well on exams. Not actually learn useful things, but learn how to game the system to get the high scores. Its very corporate, and ultimately about maintaining the image of the corporation not the well-being of teenagers. One can dispute this, and say other stuff is upsetting teenagers e:g news about wars and climate breakdown, but "twas ever thus" e:g my Mum was preparing for O-level exams (yesterday's GCSEs) during Cuban Missile crisis. People point at economic issues but that's very inconsistent - there are some teenagers in poverty, some rich, some in the middle, we're a divided society that's for sure.
As a Brit who lived in the US a few years so maybe has a detached perspective.. I saw Americans being happy in a land of opportunity with high personal freedom, opportunity to reinvent yourself, the great outdoors etc, and certainly I enjoyed that too. OTOH, individualism has its dark side. When people believe its all about self-determination and the state shouldn't be helping people, some people fall massively through the cracks e:g someone on low income while they try to look after a disabled family member. Americans are often generous at helping each other, in fact ironically I found those that supported economically right-wing "everyone should pull themselves up by their bootstraps" ideology, could often be simultaneously generous to others that they perceived to be in need. I think a source of unhappiness in the USA might be loneliness. To be honest, reading Laura Ingalls Wilder's "Little house on the prairie" series, while that sounds idyllic in a way, it also sounds lonely and hard work to me. So, some sources of lower happiness in the USA in terms of lack of community, might be deep-rooted? (some off the top of my head thoughts which others may dispute :). )
There are good and bad tests.... ;) Good = actually tests something, precisely, properly, doesn't take an age to run. Enough of these in CI, and a deploy is far less likely to break prod. Bad = author didn't really know what they were trying to test, mocks fall out of date with reality (if they ever reflected it in the first place), other problems such as repetitive code and anything which tempts people to short circuit rather than keeping tests up to date, e:g tests that take far longer to write than the code they test. Shout out for pytest-cases as a library that can reduce repetition and save time. I've been in this game long enough to remember the days before massive automated test suites. Quality software did indeed get shipped in those days too. It took longer, with less regular releases. It took an army of skilled QA people with thorough test plans. You can do good or bad testing whether its today's TDD or yesterday's manual QA.
Seems normal for 20-somethings, yes people did this in the 90s. Probably necessary in your 20s, to get varied experience and increase pay. 30-somethings can be more risk averse if they have young kids. By 40s and 50s, more chance someone knows what suits them and found a place that's a good fit and they want to stay, sometimes by then they have enough assets that they'll stay in a job they're happy even if pay is stagnant. 50s and older, do you really wanna do lots of job interviews, learn how a new company works? By the time you've done that a few times you lose appetite to keep doing it (not because you lose ambition, just, you know its not really gonna change your life and could be a bunch of hassle)
Some reasons why a highly capable developer, (or other highly skilled tech worker of some kind) might not be rich to the point of retiring at 50 : (a) came from poor background in the first place, basic things like house deposit, student loans paid off etc didn't come easily (b) immigrant who arrived with very little (c) supports extended family financially (d) has partner that can't earn much or anything for a myriad of reasons - such as poor health, or working in socially important job that pays little (e) health issues that interrupt career and/or health expenses (f) has disabled and//or troubled kids that are tiring and limits their productivity and earning potential (g) issues looking out for ageing parents, caring for them. That's what I can think of off the top of my head. Other posters below listed some others. So anyone who says "Why are you still working" is not only talking complete BS, it's actually dangerous BS. (IMHO, of course ;) )
A high-fibre diet is supposed to help, as fibre can absorb toxins. To what extent I don't know. So, make your own sourdough wholewheat bread. And eat plenty of greens like broccoli, cabbage . I guess the greens are sprayed with stuff too though. As is the wheat in the bread. The fibre might counteract the effects of the sprays somewhat.
This could go wildly off-topic... but.. when you talk of Catholicism having status hierarchies, as someone from the Catholic tradition myself it seems to me that most (at least here in UK) do believe precisely in "everyone is equal in the sight of God". That is rooted in Catholic teaching actually. Maybe you're referring to women being treated as 2cnd class citizens? Which is indeed a massive problem. From experience discussing such things, most Catholics at least here in the UK seem to see absolutely no reason why women couldn't be priests, the powers-that-be just keep it the same because "it's always been that way", or they fear splitting the church over the issue. Which is not right, needs fixing, gets ever more embarrassing every day. You may also be referring to homophobia, which does exist among people in the church - although I dunno if its worse amongst believers than no-believers, just looks worse , more hypocritical / strident when done by someone who claims to believe in being nice to people. My view on homophobia is it stems from people being either being (a) secretly "scared" they're gay themselves, and not comfortable with that or, (b) actively using it as a shield to hide their own crimes (e:g Cardinal Pell delivered ultra conservative homophobic rants probably as a way to distract others from what he was up to behind closed doors leading to abuse conviction). Otherwise, why on earth would any straight person have any reason to be mean to someone that's gay or fear them. I know its all different in USA , there's a big strand of ultra conservative Catholics who probably do believe in hierarchy . Not sure they're actually following the Catholic faith though, or doing anything worthy of the title. Just like people in the Middle East killing each other are not following their religions, all of which officially preach peace.
I agree with this. However, the flip side is, a great company can get bought out by a horrible one. A great boss who appreciates the good stuff you did might leave for a another job. (though maybe you can follow them). Things can change quickly. Public sector is different. Its far more long-term. Which is great. Although, OTOH things that are wrong with it remain the same for a long time. Ironically, the reverse is true. I know someone that worked for a company that was horrible and he thought about leaving, then it got bought out by a decent one.
As you work in tech for a number of years you discover that (a) employers don't become permanently more loyal or generous to you if you "work your ass off" and (b) working long hours doesn't actually make you more productive overall anyway. I suspect one reason for ageism in the industry is that management are too inexperienced themselves to have discovered either of these.
I think there's a paradox, that only when you do things for others with genuinely no expectation of anything for yourself, do you actually get the most reward out of it (e:g in terms of feeling good about yourself or respected by others etc). As soon as you seek anything.. whoosh it's gone. As human beings we're all too often resistant to doing things for other people, or going without things, for no reward. We somehow get the idea of just looking after number one. In fact , the selfish thing to do is be unselfish, that's the paradox. Personally, (caveat - this is with religious convictions that others may not share) I believe God is both exasperated and amused by our behaviour. He says, "look, if you'd just all be nice to each other and stop being selfish, you know what you'd actually all be much happier.". But its like no-one wants to be the first person to be generous....
That all sounds like a good way to live :) And a very good idea for nature and the planet to have any chance of surviving humankind's consumption. You can make this work with a family, I feel. At least, we've managed this a bit so far. Although, its quite funny. Charity shops sell lots of excellent nearly new kids clothes. Our kids are fine with those, especially as they see it goes to a good cause and is a form of recycling. Last year my wife found a nice top for our daughter which turned out to be a posh brand. On a non-uniform day a schoolmate said "wow you've got that, you're so lucky" to which our daughter cheerfully replied it was like £1 in a charity shop. Which flummoxed her friend. It's like, that's somehow "not the thing to do" to buy this barely used item at a charity shop. I guess that's all about status? Somehow its low status to buy something at a charity shop even though its pragmatic? But then, increasingly in some countries, second-hand clothes are actually now becoming the fashionable thing to do. I offer this as an illustration of how utterly fickle it is as well. What's high status one month is low another, and vice versa. People are moving the goalposts all the time. Rationally, makes sense to avoid this game altogether.
I'd like to offer the viewpoint that seeking status is a way to unfortunately waste one's life and brain cycles. Not sure how economists model for the certain amount of people that "don't play the game" simply because there's more interesting things to do than compare themselves to others? There's a tradition amongst some Christians (and probably other religions too), that "we're all equal in the sight of God". Therefore, everyone is a somebody, and simultaneously, a nobody. People that contribute a lot, sure, in some sense they're more "valuable" to the rest of us. They've got a status worth having, but ironically, that's not what those people are seeking, usually its those who seek to help others and are fairly ego-less, that have the best status in other's eyes. I think what everyone should be doing is forget about status, feel happy in yourself, and try to do good for others. ;). Just my 2p.
Such a thing has been done in the UK - as for "no economic basis" - Wikipedia says "Milton Keynes is among the most economically productive localities in the UK, ranking highly against a number of criteria. It has the UK's fifth-highest number of business startups per capita" This "very silly idea" been done and proven in the UK, when overcrowding made it necessary, and quite likely other countries - I bet China's done it. Why does any new city start? Historically its often been due to a natural resource that could be traded, transport links or some such, but there's no reason why this couldn't be jump started as has been done in the UK. Especially now with tech and many people WFH. Also from what I heard, Toronto was already considered a hideous sprawl, not necessarily desirable to further extend.
That's probably up to Canadians to decide. But there's quite a lot of space. ;). Joking aside, this sort of thing was done in the UK years ago. places like Milton Keynes, Crawley, Stevenage. Its not without its issues. and not a simple endeavour. But really, its laughable to someone living in a crowded country, that one of the most , in parts, sparsely populated countries in the world, isn't apparently looking into this. It'd be a 10-15 yr plan perhaps to implement. But with government commitment, the right tax incentives etc. Look how much China has built out in the last 20 yrs. Edit- cold winters are an issue in parts of Canada but climate change is actually opening up new areas, right?
Challenge 1. "Soaring rents and house prices"
Challenge 2. Lots of immigrants wanting a decent job and competing with existent population to apply for these.
In a country with as much undeveloped land as Canada has, I think, there might be a win-win solution to be had here? ;)
OK ok, to be fair it takes a little while to train as builders, electricians, plasterers etc etc, but it does seem like Canada has the solution right in front of them. Just build a couple more Torontos, and, problem solved?
In tech, getting laid off is scary until... you actually get laid off. :) Then, the world doesn't end. In fact, it can make you apply for the job you should have applied for before but didn't know about, or were too risk-averse to jump ship for. A 50-yr-old with no formal qualifications or specialist skills getting laid off, sure , that's scary cos they're less employable. But age 24 with a recent degree, energy, and recent tech experience. you'd be fine. I've been laid off twice in a 30+ yr career. Both times, I got a job that was better, including better paid. And left unpleasant environments for better ones. And had a nice break doing interesting things between jobs. I've many colleagues who'd say the same. Some even say "its the best thing that could have happened to me". It helps to build up some savings. Should be do-able even on a modest tech salary. Getting another degree - my advice, consider studying part-time, somewhere that allows it to be done at flexible pace - maybe a Masters in Comp Sci by distance learning, at a place which allows those with non-comp-sci undergrad to treat it as a conversion course. You could do certification like AWS but beware that's got a short shelf-life whereas a Comp Sci Masters looks good on paper for decades (as well as improving excellent fundamentals). If you do get laid off, generally, some severance gets paid. Which you could use for tuition fees. When else do you get paid for NOT going to work? ;) I'd say , regarding job insecurity, embrace it and learn to roll with it. Or, if you really can't cos you're a "worrier", consider working for the government as although it sometimes pays less, its a lot steadier and you don't have to fret.
And an irony is, if you do indeed keep the focus on learning, some lucrative spin-off buinesses seem inevitable. So, paradoxically, if you want the most lucrative benefits/ boost to the economy, you have to avoid doing anything to seek that and focus on learning instead. Only when you completely abandon the goal of making money off of any of it, do you then actually have more chance to start making money off of it. ;)
Years ago I worked at a place where we were meant to set objectives to please HR. Instead, at the end of year we always found what we'd needed to work on had completely changed, so instead, we retrofitted objectives for the work we'd actually done. So, hacked the system / circumvented the spirit of it, but did a very effective end of year annual review i:e what have you actually achieved this year, are you/we happy with that, what do you ideally wanna achieve next year (with caveat that we can't necessarily predict what we'll actually need to do), any training or anything else you need to achieve that. I recommend this approach to anyone encountering OKR nonsense. Change your objectives after the event, to fit what you've done. Just make sure you got a decent list of stuff you've done. Its ridiculous. Think of a plumber for example. Should they specify how many toilets they're gonna fix next year? ;) Depends how many break, in what way they break, how hard they are to fix. I suppose, maybe you could average it out. But software is far more unpredictable.
This is all true and good advice. I'd add to this that as a survival strategy, one can develop the meta-skill, of being able to spot which tech skills are fads, and which "have legs" (will be around for a long time). Anything from a specific vendor, you're at the mercy of what that vendor does, corporate takeovers etc. Whereas open source things are a lot better. There's also the idea that stuff that's been around ages, is likely to stay around ages, whereas new stuff you may not know yet. My vim (originally vi) skills, command line and sql have served me well iterally 32 years. Not really changed that much in that time. Python has done me proud for 20 years and no sign of going away. json and git probably here to stay. Ones to avoid are the likes of javascript frameworks. Some stuff fashionable on HN probably not gonna stay. Back in the day, *nix , usually Linux, was a brilliant investment. Unfortunately the waters have got muddied now by running in the cloud which has vendor lock-in. I do a lot of AWS these days, with a niggling concern that Amazon can totally change this and pull the plug when they feel like it. If you work in a large corporation which wraps tech in their own internal tooling, that can be a problem , causing you to get de-skilled. So, something else to avoid.