543 karma · joined December 16, 2014
Happens too often on Gizmodo Media Group sites (I’m on Jalopnik almost daily.)
Furthermore, they’ve destabilized democratic societies and radicalized neighbor against neighbor (speaking locally & globally.) Again, all the while, profiting from their carelessness, suffering few, if any, meaningful consequences.
It’s a well-documented fact of user experience that asking users what they want is often the least accurate way to uncover that information.
> Nobody wants to read your shit is...
...terrible advice.
> Make your point fast. > Less is more.
I see what you’re trying to say. But please stop.
> Don’t send your stuff to people you hope will share it...
What? Has this got to do? With writing?
> Be patient.
Oh, I’m trying.
> If your writing is good, it will get found.
Ya, no.
> If you want to be a good writer, you have to be a good reader.
This is actually a very compelling topic for discussion. But not particularly good advice.
> Find your own voice and develop your own ideas.
Thanks?
> I’ve never sat at a blank screen...
This is legitimately good, if generic, advice. HOWever, you gotta put in the time. Sit. Write. Type. Start with something. ANYthing.
> Don’t hit publish unless it’s worth somebody’s time.
Highly debatable. Exercise and discipline are developed habits.
> Don’t force it. I’ve gone weeks without writing anything. It happens.
Legit. (Counterpoint: RIP deadlines...)
> Determine what you’d like to get out of writing and then go after it.
This should (also) be midway down.
In conclusion: Dear Aspiring Writers, I want to read your shit.
And while one might regard it as distasteful—it’s certainly tiresome, in my experience— there’s material and psychological benefits to holding that mindset (along with a variety of non-trivial downsides.)
Yet even if I was able to recreate a workplace with my favorite colleagues, ideal collaborations, and the best on-site perks, I would still prefer to be remote most of the time /at this stage in my life/.
Reflecting on this led me to boiling it down to 2 key reasons: 1. I have a natural drive to want to do my best work. After 24 years of working full time (about 20 doing roughly what I do now), I have a good idea of what that takes.
2. Having children changes you fundamentally in so many ways that a meaningful discussion probably isn't possible without considering what that means.
Working remotely isn't perfect (especially during long school breaks...), but it does facilitate most of what I want given the need to trade my time for money.
As someone living in the U.S. with children, I neither feel nor observe indications of this as an imminent danger. If anything I'd posit we've faulted much the opposite direction. A history of stubborn individualism, regardless of the harm it may inflict on others or society at-large, and fear-mongering against anything that resembles socialism—however irrational and countered by existing programs which are rooted in its very concepts—all but insures against it any time soon.
I can't disagree with the possibility since history supports that—and the general tendency for humanity to demonstrate such a low regard for itself would unfortunately be also—the probability seems low.
"I was in the throes of a brief, doomed romance. I had attended a concert that Saturday night. I answered the question with an account of both. The guys stared blankly. Then silence. Then one of them said: “I built a fiber-channel network in my basement,” and our co-workers fell all over themselves asking him to describe every step in loving detail.
At that moment I realized that fundamentally, these are not my people. I liked the work. But I was never going to like it enough to blow a weekend doing more of it for free. Which meant that I was never going to be as good at that job as the guys around me." - https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-09/as-a-woma...
This is often how I've personally felt.
It was neither an indictment of the author's parenting nor an inherent indication to an underlying bias.
Sadly, that has not been my experience—not within specific technical departments nor in wider tech-related events, and certainly not in the broader workplace context. While this may a reasonable assertion on the coasts of the USA, it has not been my own in the spaces between them nor in my interactions with various people from outside the US. No question that these are my own limited anecdotes, but I like to believe I am reasonably well-read and aware of global mindsets and I would hesitate to make that statement so flatly.
> "Trust me, my four-year-old daughter Lily wishes I didn’t believe so fervently in working with her every day on her math skills"
And there you go. Even by a seemingly forgettable tongue-in-cheek quip, the author reveals a fundamental misjudgement repeated countless times around the world for centuries that speaks to the very heart of the issue: correcting something may require enacting an alternative that has other inherent negatives that don't have an immediately apparent benefit to the end goal and might even seem contrary in the short term. In other words, addressing historical inequalities may necessitate solutions that them self enact brand new inequalities. It's an unavoidable likelihood in course correction: going off-course to get back on-course. And teaching math to four-year-old Lily may require changing the approach to learning it entirely to something unconventional, or even uncomfortable: the author may be terrible at teaching math for her.
Maybe the best person for a responsibility is technically less proficient but ultimately more effective.
A problem with these is the presumption that it is a timelessly, inherently, and unquestionably good objective. Just like the pursuit of (re)creating coal jobs, as if that's prudent and admirable, no matter what.
> ...could be seen as complicit of Trump.
"Could"? I don't think anyone who's being intellectually honest would be able to claim otherwise. If you serve a leader in an advisory role, you are actively in support of their policies and actions. Even if you disagree and the leader chooses otherwise or acts contrary to your advice, your role by its nature demonstrates that you are deferring to their leadership, thus you support it.
(I acknowledge that you are explaining views that are not necessarily your own.)
Just a thought...
(If it wasn't obvious already, background is firmly rooted in white, male, American privilege. My family wasn't the Western stereotype of rich but by any reasonable measure, I was unquestionably fortunate.)
> it's super exciting to be able to create as a job. I feel like problem solving as a job sounds like a good fit because that's something I'm good at
I'm right with you on both the creating and the problem solving, both are key for me as well. As others have said, explore the various languages, platforms and such to discover which might click for you. Could be that you find operating as a generalist the best route or you may find a niche that you dive deep into. There are so many possibilities that fall under the umbrella of "developer" at this point, the sky literally isn't even the limit any longer.
Sounds like you're in a good place to make the leap soon and I wish you the best in finding an opportunity to land on!
That doesn't make it any less feasible if you find yourself dissatisfied with your current path. Just don't fall for an illusion of greener grass on the other side of the fence.
For a personal view: I was programming in BASIC at 12 and coding HTML not long after. And while my professional journey has been... meandering (I'm whatever the opposite of a Type A personality is), after 10+ years (not contiguous) of having some variation of web development as my primary job responsibility, I'm pretty well bored and unmotivated at this point. I've made more than I do now and been less happy and I've made less and been happier, had more/less autonomy, and in a relatively wide variety of environments: large corporation, small businesses, not-for-profits, freelance, healthcare, verticals, consumer-oriented.
And frankly, if I had ideal working conditions and made double what I do now, would I happier in general? Sure. But I wouldn't necessarily be any more excited to wake up and do that work than the day before. Because the factors you cited, while not inconsequential, can vary and change due to factors entirely out of your control. And they have no causal relationship to any particular work.
In other words, if you've eliminated all bureaucracy and office politics from the equation, and you secure a generous income, it still doesn't mean you'll feel different when your head hits the pillow at night and your eyelids lift to greet the morning.
With a 12-24 month timeframe, you may want to reflect on what your core values are—what really drives and motivates you.
Frankly, as additional details and background have come out—and the more he speaks—it seems increasingly evident his motivations were less than virtuous.
Unfortunately, given the palpable desperation of the corporations actions, I fear it may not be.
As an aside, when I see "simply", "of course", or "just" (or, for example, hear it in a presentation) I get concerned since those are abstracts of highly variable possibilities that could otherwise be interpreted as "your mileage may vary". Ergo, the relevance could drop off precipitously, leaving little more than a passing anecdote.
That's not meant as a jab at the author as I appreciate them outlining their experience as it provides useful guidance. (And I'm probably over-analyzing it...)
Not if you care about the longevity of your clothing and mildew in your washer.
I don't know anyone who does this routinely on purpose.
I mean, he did change his store name to Pirate Joe’s (from the far more ambiguous Transilvania Trading) and his actions seem to betray less charitable motivations than his words would lead you to believe ("This is not a business I should be doing from a personal profitability standpoint” - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/21/pirate-joes-tr...)
That said, seems like Trader Joe's missed an opportunity for a win-win partnership with someone who had already developed rudimentary logistics to meet a demonstrated demand. But then it doesn't surprise me based on my 30+ years shopping at Trader Joe's: I would never describe them as innovative, instead I'd say they are very focused on what they've been doing well for decades.
Of course there is still have hourly pay based work but, in principle, those would be for specific tasks or specialties not routinely needed.
Yes, I realize these are idealized, but the occurrence of misuse doesn't negate the point. That said, idealizing may be an unfortunately common affliction I suffer from...
His point works well in a world where Android isn't competing with Apple which, while far from perfect, does not suffer nearly as badly from the looong tail of terrible quality apps.
The third-party Android app markets are neat but, pirated content aside, they largely serve only niches.
> Now you are just arguing for the sake of the argument.
No, it's point unto itself: Simple is not always better. (Obviously.)
Ok, so at first glance this is just a diplomatic, manifesto-ese way of saying "no bloatware". However, there's probably a very pragmatic discussion about what this really means and that just leads us back around to where we are now with who defines "anything" (i.e., the phone app is on table for that discussion...)
> - We will always play well with others. Closed ecosystems are divisive and outdated.
Closed ecosystems are also knowable, stable, and can produce very happy customers.
> - Premium materials and true craftsmanship shouldn’t be just for the few.
So for a few more? There's a reason mass-production is an economic success.
> - Devices shouldn’t become outdated every year. They should evolve with you.
"Outdated" is an extremely subjective concept. Hardware that evolves? Do tell.
> - Technology should assist you so that you can get on with enjoying your life.
Should it?
> - Simple is always better.
Now you're just being lazy.
I'm a huge fan of big picture, think-outside-the-box vision-casting.
But this just comes across as so tone deaf from the very start and ultimately so vapid that it's easy to see how these SV figureheads have earned such a reputation for utter lack of self-awareness.
Please, if you have become this level of successful, you need someone in your inner circle who specifically is tasked with keeping you grounded.
> It’s getting hard to remember, but a decade ago — before iPhone — all our mobiles were dumbphones. We’d use them to call or text and perhaps play the occasional game of snake. But that’s it. That’s all we could do.
That's just simply unture.
Yes, on the one hand, it's a contextually small detail. Unfortunately, on the other hand, I can't help feel it calls into question the rest of the content since they couldn't be bothered inform them self on a basis point.
Edit: Blockquote fail
He could just as easily have found himself in a company that wasn't as accommodating or healthy and foundered.
Unfortunately it's hard to assess how bound to processes a company is until you're well past the onboarding/honeymoon phase.
Or worse, in my unfortunate experience, finally land at a company light on procedural, reasonably good at executing, and investing in improvements to the development stack only to have that crushed by a supermassive org acquisition with absurdly burdensome procedural overhead and have that overlay existing practices rather than supplant them while still expected to execute not only as if nothing had changed, but as if we should have improved thanks to it all thus setting me back effectively years professionally and rendering my time investment almost entirely void...
However, I would surmise that a better educated society, having learned how to apply rational thought, would reduce the likelihood of that occurring and/or would minimize the damage when it does (and it would.)
Not surprisingly this seems to occur most commonly where public education is underfunded or nonexistent: you end up with an undereducated electorate putting undereducated people into positions of leadership who then make underinformed decisions.
Sociological, economic, and political issues are multidimensional and must be treated as such.
TL;DR Education is important. Stop electing dumb people.