This. And also Smalltalk is so succinct and has simple syntax, that one can "see the wood for the trees" when dealing with an inherently complex data model. I am unfraid for example of a long multi-pronged inheritance hierarchy of classes in Smalltalk, as its still reasonably easy to see what's going on, and there isn't a huge amount of code, whereas in other languages that'd be a nightmare. Java is notorious for that but actually that'd be bad in Python too
Having done some Smalltalk development, I can confirm for certain sorts of problems e:g complex engineering problems where the data model is inherently very complex, Smalltalk can really help to the point of being game-changing and allowing people to even attack certain problems at all in the first place. But Smalltalk's image-based dev, and lack of integration with the rest of the ecosystem, really hinders too! Smalltalk is both a blessing and a curse. I'd say for most companies Smalltalk doesn't give an advantage because most companies aren't actually solving problems that are all that complex. Its specific niche problems Smalltalk is good at. And even then, you'd have to do without things like numpy or scipy, i:e other languages have better more powerful libraries at your disposal. You could kind of cobble things together, get Smalltalk to call out to other languages to use their libraries, but that does start to get messy. One thing I would still use Smalltalk for would be pure computer science research. Its good for modelling things.
Ok, didn't realise you already came for a Catholic background. :) Well.... I'm not sure where you get that the church == Paul. My understanding was NT was the result of many eye-witnesses, take the gospels for example, 4 authors, right? Paul's letters play a major part that's true. Not sure where the pauper's religion comes from? Never heard that myself. There were rich and poor alike . Joseph of Arimathea was rich wasn't he? I don't see how you justify the claim that OT is "from the mouth of God" more than NT? As for God choosing not to act, what I always understood about that was that humans choosing to be good by their own free will was the ultimate goal, the "holy grail" so to speak. If God intervened when we did bad things then we wouldn't have free will. This must be extremely hard to take if you're in Ukraine right now getting bombed thinking "Come on God why aren't you stopping this". My understanding is, in the context of this life just being a "dress rehearsal" for what is to come after death, that it makes some kind of sense. I heard it said, that trying to work out what God is up to is for us like watching someone sewing and looking at all the messy threads on the underneath, with little clue what the end result will be. Someone could be making something amazing, but if all you ever see along the way is a mess of threads, you could question that they're making anything at all, then one day, there it is in all its glory. Thought experiment for you - would you be happier in a world where God kept intervening and stopping people being mean to each other? Would that make people be better? Would they have any way of learning to be better to each other if God always stepped in? Alternatively, is building a world one day, presumably not in this world. where humans all decide of their own free will to act justly and kindly to each other, a goal worthy of putting up with a lot of s** with along the way? Granted, if you're on the receiving end of evil in the meantime it must be extremely hard to take, but then we're told God shares that suffering and is present during it.... Basically, it seems to me Christianity throws up all manner of difficult almost impossible Qs but that to me doesn't negate it and I can't really see an alternative viewpoint without even more problems. All the best :)
Ok this is going off-topic and getting complicated, but I'll try to give a helpful response. :) First of all, if you're looking at the bible and trying to understand where Christians are coming from, (or make sense of our apparently nonsensical religion, if you want to look at it like that ;) ), if I were you I'd forget about the Old Testament for now and look at the New Testament first. Going direct to the Old Testament, without the benefit of anyone knowledgeable to explain it, whether a sensible person from within a church or by reading some decent theology books, is likely to give you all sorts of inaccurate notions about God. The idea that he smites people down and calls others to do so, is an example. It seems to say that in the Old Testament, because, as I said, the authors lacked full understanding, but later Jesus cleared this up. Of course its a problem that there are some Christians today who believe precisely that, because they too have a messed up understanding IMHO. Which is why the Catholic church despite its many faults has something better - 2000 yrs of attempting to think about this. As for God letting us do bad stuff to each other and babies dying of AIDS etc, these are valid Qs and extremely difficult to answer. Many Christians wrestle with these till their dying day. The failure to be able to answer them easily doesn't in itself invalidate the religion though IMHO. If you have no religion, you are left with other. "worse", unanswered Qs e:g what's even the point of our existence. The church teaches that God gives us free will, and that if we follow Jesus' teachings to look after each other everything will be OK. Dealing with cancer, disabilities etc in a world where people look after and devote resources to caring for people in that situation is different from a world where people don't give a ** about others' suffering. Also we are taught that God feels our suffering too, he suffers with us. As for God torturing his own kid to death, Catholics believe in the trinity, that Jesus was God in human form, therefore he suffered himself. It wasn't God that did the torturing, it was humans that did that. He allowed people to do that, in order to "take the hit" , basically accept punishment himself for our failings so that we get to be forgiven. Which is an amazing act of self-sacrifice and a demonstration of how much God actually cares about us. Well, that's what I believe anyway. :). You're welcome to tell me you're sure its complete nonsense. All I would suggest in return is to keep an open mind. :)
Its a fair question :) My understanding is that the vengeful angry God described in parts of the Old Testament reflects the only partial understanding of God by humans at the time that was written. When bad things happened like plagues etc, people assumed that was God punishing people. Later, Jesus spent much time clarifying this and trying to put things straight in people's minds, that in fact God is not vengeful at all but loving and merciful. And by allowing himself to be crucified, Jesus demonstrated that by a powerful action. It is sometimes said that "The Bible is a dangerous book". ;). If you go straight to the Old Testament you may indeed get a terrible impression of God and be turned off christianity for life. Also, some churches build their whole faith on this and go around judging and berating people. One good thing about the Catholic church is it has traditions based on 2000 yrs of theologians studying the bible and trying to make sense of it, so , theoretically , a better understanding should be able to be found by looking at some Catholic teaching than by going straight to the bible. On the other hand, humans are fallible, so there are certainly plenty of Catholics who misunderstand the what the church believe, there is stuff that is still debated within the church or even incoherent still, there are people in the church for the wrong reasons, e:g either using it as a gay dating agency having made a solemn promise to be celibate, or trying to use it to target gays that they hate. (to return to the original subject of this debate :) ) Cos people can sometimes be... well, assholes is a strong word... perhaps, not as kind as they should be would be a better way of putting it.
Do you really feel that, if one takes homosexuality to be wrong, its really a big deal to God, compared to people starving or lacking basic medical care while others are rich, or people shooting at each other? Also, why do people make such a big deal about gay sex being wrong, when far more people, including many Catholics , are having sex outside of marriage which is equally against the teaching of the church? What is "specially bad" about gay sex in that context? To me, it'd be a cruel God that creates people who find themselves to be gay and then condemns them for being something they did not choose for themselves. It seems to me, since God is caring and merciful, he must make allowances. Which leads me to question the church's official teaching on homosexuality. I have friends in both camps BTW - friends and colleagues that are gay, and Catholic friends who lean towards traditional/conservative. At least 90% of married Catholics use contraception, so there must be a lot of devout Catholics who have decided the church has got it wrong on that rule for example. It is such a mess. A friend years ago wrestled with this as he came from a traditional Catholic upbringing and then discovered he was gay. I think it comes back to "judge not lest thy be judged".
(It wasn't me that downvoted you BTW). It seems to me, God is interested about whether people are being kind and loving to each other, working for peace , avoiding wars, making sure everyone is fed, housed, clothed, educated, respected etc. This includes ensuring people aren't abused or exploited by others, which unfortunately has happened within the church and has a long way to go to be fixed. When it comes to what takes place sexually between consenting adults, absolutely there are morals in that area, but it seems to me it is humans who have become obsessed with that area of morality at the expense of other areas of life. When there are millions upon millions of people that have become refugees as result of wars, famines, floods etc, surely don't you think God is rather more bothered by that? And, doesn't that mean, humans should be most bothered by that. And Catholics should be working to fix that, rather than wasting time on trivialities? I do not condone priests for pretending to be celibate while seeking gay sex, also if they joined the priesthood with the precise intention of finding sex (gay or for that matter straight although the latter is an unlikely reason) rather than serving others, then that's very bad. However... really... in the big scheme of things.. shouldn't we be first and foremost caring about helping the marginalised and vulnerable. Perhaps the wealthy people that outed those gay priests, might have done better helping refugees instead? I'd imagine that's what God would've preferred.
I agree that its fraudulent. Its a mess though, right? Why would it be more fraudulent for a priest to be having a gay relationship than a straight sexual relationship? Because its a "double sin"? I'm really uncomfortable with that, sounds like homophobia. Find a new line of work? Well I kind of agree but who are the rest of us, who haven't promised to be celibate, to say that or judge? Had I been called to be a priest I think I'd have failed at the celibacy requirement. ;) And anyway the church hasn't always required celibacy, in fact it currently lets married C of E minister join under the ordinariate. I do agree with you these priests are being fraudulent, and possibly should indeed find another line of work but on the other hand why target specifically gay-related issues, seems hard to disentangle from homophobia, and the motivation of those who outed them does not seem kind or loving or following Catholic values
Not sure why you got downvoted. As a Catholic, I've upvoted this. Its perfectly fair, and important, to call out hypocrisy. The church does done some things to address the abuse issue, but clearly it is woefully insufficient. We in the church should be concentrating on loving God and loving our neighbour, whatever their personal beliefs, orientation etc.
Personally, as a Catholic, I really don't think God is very interested whether people are gay or straight, as long as their relationships are based on mutual love and respect, and commitment rather than people "using" each other. I don't believe the Catholic church condemns homosexuality per se, rather, there are some high profile vociferous condemners of homosexuality in the church. Unfortunately some of these are saying this ultra-conservative stuff to hide the fact they're actually abusers. People thought that about Cardinal Pell, we may never know the truth. The problem with religion is.... people! Look at most of the world's religions, both great and terrible things are done in the name of them.... There are some great people in the Catholic church, that's what keeps me there. There are also sadly some not-so-great people and certainly the church has lost a lot fo moral authority having failed to address its own internal failings particularly abuse
Er, as a Catholic I'd be inclined to dispute this. I know a few ex-priests. One of whom has been happily married for years. Another became a C of E minister and also got married. Another left the priesthood for 17 yrs then eventually came back. My understanding is, its intended to be a lifelong commitment, but it doesn't always work out. A marriage can be annulled in the church if it is thought that one of both parties failed to fully understand what they were promising to each other or fully enter into the promise being a true commitment. That could be the case with ordaining a priest too. As well as the fact that being a priest is an extremely hard job as well as the celibacy requirement so some people come to the conclusion they are unable to fulfil the role properly.
Seems to me its possible the priesthood attracts a disproportionate amount of gay men, in which case , not following the celibacy rule is more commonly happening in gay rather than straight relationships? In which case people trying to catch priests not being celibate are going to find "richer pickings" on gay apps. (Sure its still likely driven by homophobia, and its still a horrible thing to do). Basically, many straight men wouldn't even consider the priesthood as they'd think celibacy is impossible and/or undesirable for them. For gay men I'd think its a different calculation. Historically, and still in many societies today, its been considered "unacceptable" to be gay. Therefore, if you're gay, what are you gonna do if you can't be openingly in a gay relationship? In that case, the priesthood might be a safe haven of sorts either if (a) they have a strong faith, some calling to be a priest, and think celibacy is not asking that much given they cannot openly have the relationships that are natural for them, or (b) its tacitly known that there are other gay men in the priesthood, and there are underground relationships going on. As a Catholic, I've met priest(s) that I'd be unsurprised to hear were gay, although, no suggestion they weren't being celibate, and its of no-one else's business IMHO (judge not lest thy be judged). I also heard a story of someone who went to Rome to train to be a priest then left in disgust when basically propositioned by men who were also training to be priests. His disgust was not as I understand from homophobia, but rather along the lines that they were basically using the seminary as a place for finding gay partners , rather than training to serve others as priest , in other words their motivation was completely wrong, and they had no apparent intention to follow celibacy.
I took 2 yrs out. Does that count? Did plenty of travelling. Worked a couple of ski seasons in hotel. Hotel job really chill compared to working in tech, just check people in, take their bags up, hit the slopes between shifts. I used to feel very sorry indeed for the stressed IT guys who came to try to fix our systems. Been there done that, know its no fun. However... in the long run, while more chilled, it doesn't pay the bills in the same way and you can't raise a family on it. During the time I looked into alternatives to tech e:g retraining as an electrician since that was in demand and tech skills help with it. Lots of training and certs to get though. Travel, working in sub-optimal conditions not a comfy (albeit open plan s**) office, or nowadays WFH. Ultimately I returned to tech and glad I did. jobs outside tech are not all roses. Working in tech in public sector e:g government, academia, where the organisation isn't constantly trying to make more money, is generally better I found. After 20 yrs in tech, you might need a long sabbatical. In some ways it'd be surprising if anyone didn't really after 20 yrs, unless they do 4 days weeks, long vacations, some other kind of pressure-release perspective-reclaiming activity. Good luck :)
To me life is a combination of what you're given (e:g brains, opportunities, motivation, responsibilities) and how you play it. An analogy is the card game "Oh hell", which resembles Bridge but much simpler. You have to say how many tricks you'll make. After a round you receive a point for each trick you make, plus 10 extra if you make exactly what you said. This means a great hand is one with high cards that'll obviously win points combined with high /many trumps to control things. A crappy hand i:e all low cards, might also be a good hand if its easy to call 0 and therefore get 10 points easily. Some hands are hard to play - say you hold ace and many cards in one suit but no trumps, so someone might trump you, hard to call , 0 is dangerous because you might win a trick. If you go over your predicted half way through a round, it then makes sense to change strategy and get as many tricks as you can, throwing other players into disarray. In this situation a bit of luck may compensate somewhat for having had bad luck with a hard to call hand initially. Its quite a fun interesting game and I do feel life is like that. Also, I've met a bloke in is 20s who had an accident and ended up in a wheelchair for life. Amazingly to everyone who heard this, he said he didn't regret the accident, because before it he'd been on the wrong track in life, and afterwards, he'd met a lot of great people, made better friends, had a better life, done things he never thought he'd do. Most of the rest of us found it hard to imagine feeling like this. So.... its complicated ;)
A few suggestions to counter how lonely modern society can be. (1) If you're religious, get as involved as much as possible with your community, if you aren't, but are kind of searching, and not opposed to organised religion, try going to various religious events see what people believe and if its for you. (2) Learn, or pick back up, a musical instrument and join an amateur group - anything from formal e:g local wind band / brass band / orchestra , to an informal band, advertising for a member at guitar shop or online. If you can't find anything, place an ad yourself, people will reply for sure (3) Volunteer. e:g Feeding homeless Or get involved in some community thing or positive local politics, making locality better, possibly environmental activism of a kind even if just getting some trees planted to improve an area, (4) Avoid living in posh places where people are "aspirational" , where managers live, (this is not a problem for people who can't afford that in the first place ;) ) instead live somewhere with more soul, more blue collar, where people need each other more, reach out to each other more, have jobs that are more about serving others than "using" them. Just my 2p, YMMV.
Hello Peter... what's happening? Yeah.. I'm also gonna need you to go ahead and RTO on Sunday, too, m'kay? If you could go ahead and do that from now on, that'd be great..
Often not advertised explicitly, but try just asking :). If you have the skills an employer wants, and you aren't demanding the max pay possible, I've found (for myself and colleagues) the barrier to this happening is mainly people having the nerve to ask, or to take a salary hit of say 10-15% net, rather than the employer being disgusted and saying no. In fact, a lot of managers quite fancy doing a 4-day week themselves, and even if they're not to the point of doing that they may actively allow a subordinate to do it as it sets a precedent which they may feel makes it easier for them to ask for the same one day.
Wouldn't bother with a bootcamp. Everyone's doing that. Possibly try slightly junior position first to get a foot in the door, then work your way up, either by being promoted internally or fixing your CV so that you could hop jobs at that point. When I got back into IT after 2 yrs out, I worked for a start-up. They struggled to hire as they had insufficient cash to pay much, had no pension plan at all. This got all my skills back into shape again. After 15 months there I moved to a much better job and "the rest is history". Never underestimate what you can do with working somewhere that underpays. (probably as a temporary measure, of course)
I think your job doesn't sound very nice - needing at least 1 hr to decompress, having to stay late because something "came up". Dunno if cycling to/from work would help with de-stressing quicker? (of course, cycling may or may not be feasible where you live). Certainly being stuck in a traffic jam after a hard day at work is no fun either. I'd rather spend longer on public transport if that means read a book, message some friends, even chat to a friend in person that does the same run. WFH even if only 2 days a week, is a game-changer, if you could achieve that. Working 4-days weeks is another big game-changer. I do that and its totally worth the salary hit. Seems a great shame if people feel unable to have kids and/or a social life just due to the demands of work. People also aren't going to be productive employees either if they're unhappy because of that. I think people need to push back against their employers, and the irony is, by doing so they're actually helping their employer because burnt-out people are not useful. But to have the nerve to push back, or switch jobs, one may need some money saved up. Which is very do-able for reasonably frugal people on tech salaries. I hope you manage to get to a better situation somehow :)
This is true :) However...I'd argue that in tech, you needn't put up with this. There's plenty of demand for tech workers who aren't expected to work insane hours, and can have time for kids and hobbies. Not being expected to work insane hours often correlates with not being paid as much. But a poor tech salary is the same as a good salary in many other jobs. You can have a good lifestyle without the big bucks. Doesn't involve living in a big house somewhere posh or having new/large cars etc. Does involve having a meaningful life. :)
There's a half-way house for this. For someone that doesn't have a family, its possible to e:g work on a ski resort for the winter making minimum wage plus possibly tips depending on the job, live simply, basically drain your savings but slower than you otherwise would. Then go travelling in the summer with a bit of camping, sleeping in car etc. I've done that, had some savings but hadn't earned silly money, and didn't drain the savings too badly. Was single at the time. Would've been cheaper to do that as a couple with both working and some shared resources. I think someone that had, say $10k saved, might be able to do this. Thats enough for expensive car repair or other unforeseen cost. (OK , healthcare can be in issue in the US, in which case might need more. Also student loans. So YMMV). Reason for this post? Just to show people that don't think they can, that maybe they can actually have a period of freedom and adventure and reflection. Lots of people here on HN seem burned out and not very happy. There's an escape route of sorts , you needn't be very rich to do it, working in tech at all probably gives you an opportunity to save. I'm super glad I did it, looking back now as a parent with far less freedom and energy and commitments to just take off and explore. EDIT - an old Japanese car that is fuel efficient but you can sleep in counts for a lot here. As does having some skills in cheap nutrition - though rice, pasta, beans, porridge (oatmeal), fresh fruit & veg, eggs, tinned fish pretty much does the job.
To me the problem here, is an unreasonable attitude by the employer. Many employees are parents. We cannot work at quite the same breakneck pace. Its abusive to the whole family to expect that. Employers need to understand and make allowances, and they themselves will benefit if they treat people reasonably. You could always go work for public sector though, perhaps the government, and/or ask to work 4 days a week. The salary hit is more than worth it, even if that requires some real frugality or change in lifestyle. Time spent with kids is precious. More chilled out parents make for more chilled and better behaved (though far from perfect ;) kids. I think the garbage truck guys have to get up early so that might not be compatible ;). Might be in a union though, so salary hit might be less than expected ;)
If you're American, and getting only 2 weeks vacation a year, all you might be in need of, is a month or two road-trip and a new role (whether a new coding job entirely or just move team). Maybe ask for a short sabbatical in that case? So many Qs like this on HN, it often sounds like people just haven't had the right , decently long, vacation in ages.
I think its more complex than this. For sure H1Bs push down wages for certain positions in certain circumstances, but also it does also fill a skills shortage. There are some skills which no amount of offering higher pay will fix, you need to bring in the actual people with those skills. And when USA gets those people, that can make companies thrive and expand which then improves employment for Americans and pushes up wages for certain positions which helps Americans. I think its pretty hard to disentangle what the effect is really.
Good Q. :) I think its normal. "Office Space" should be compulsory viewing if you haven't already seen it. ;) Many things that are fun, become not fun when you have to do them for a living , with pressure, deadlines, workplace politics. Its by no means limited to software. Plenty of musicians , who you'd think have a dream job, loathe it as a job while loving it as a hobby. Another one is teaching, meant to be the number 1 most satisfying activity so should be number 1 job, but lots of BS gets in the way. Software pays enough that its considered a first-world problem to be unhappy at work, and people think we all make big bucks, so, you'll get a sympathetic response on HN, but perhaps be careful mentioning such thoughts to anyone working a minimum wage job.
3 is interesting. Why have you almost given up on a phd? If you are financially OK, and intellectually curious, would seem like you are in an excellent position to do a Phd on your own terms at your own pace, possibly self-funded so not have to jump through so many hoops and instead focus on the subject? Personally, I still harbour some desire to do a Phd, but not sure if I can be bothered 'cos of having kids and other interests, and like my day job too much.
What about if the government made it illegal for food producers to use the worst offenders e:g adding high fructose corn syrup to food, giving cows growth hormones, spraying glyphosphate? So the consumer's freedom would be un-curtailed, but businesses have to abide by certain ethics. Does that make things work for you, or still no good? :). (I mean , maybe you should still be allowed to buy a bottle of corn syrup and add it yourself if you really really want to.. although perhaps parents shouldn't be allowed to feed their kids that).
Maybe someone with more knowledge in this area can provide enlightment, but I always heard that eating plenty of fibre, such as wholemeal bread or greens like cabbages, broccoli, kale etc, could absorb toxins and carry them out of your body. In which case this could compensate to some extent if your tap water is contaminated. Of course, high fibre may also carry away the good stuff like vitamins too. Just wondered if increasing fibre intake is a realistic way of protecting yourself. Seems to me some of the tap water contamination a filter may not do much for. And... do you trust bottle water really? where has that come from? Here in the UK we don't even test for PFAS AFAIK, which is scary.