5 ms·

> And that's any kind of way to talk to someone?! I don't think so. I think the attitude being expressed is one of the problems with tech culture. If the perso

by Lazare 7y ago

> And that's any kind of way to talk to someone?! I don't think so. I think the attitude being expressed is one of the problems with tech culture. If the person honestly holds that attitude, does that not make him part of the problem? There's not a lot of nice ways to describe people who hold problematic views. > I've seen the total straw man response like yours of "requires participants to be all-in 24 hours a day". No-one's suggesting that. It's a metaphor. Nobody may be suggesting literal 24 hour days, but plenty of people are suggesting that you should code outside of the standard work week. > > And this sort of attitude discourages a large swath of the population from bringing their talents to the field. > I don't know what you mean there. Not the guy you asked, but I think I know what he was getting at. Some people have commitments (family, children, etc.) or health issues that makes this sort of commitment infeasible, or come from different backgrounds. Expecting a github profile with a lot of personal projects does filter out a lot of people who might be very capable of showing up, doing the job, and going home.

ghaff 7y ago
Yes. That is exactly what I meant. I'd just add that, on the subject of strawmen, I'm pretty sure not a single person on this thread has suggested that people shouldn't do software-related things on their own time if that's what they want to do--with the only caveats being care about burnout and possible employee agreements around IP rights. They just shouldn't be de facto required to do so. And, yes, I do think the view as expressed is extremely toxic. The underlying attitude is bad enough but to basically say if you don't have time/interest to be working on Github repos on nights and weekends you should GTFO of tech is... well, problematic is a nice way of putting it.
- yesenadam 7y ago
  >They just shouldn't be de facto required to do so. I haven't read anybody saying you should be required to if you don't want to. Yet a lot of the responses are angry as if that's exactly what was suggested. The line I quoted about "people like you", I was mainly objecting to reading one sentence from someone, responding with "people like you.." and thinking that's ok. You don't know anything about them, I assume. Imagine someone speaking to you like that? Or maybe that's how people routinely speak to each other in your world, and it's perfectly fine. I hope not.
  - detaro 7y ago
    The comment ghaff replied to said "If you don't have the desire to do this after work you probably shouldn't even be in the field". If people that do not want to do it shouldn't be in the field, it's pretty damn close to a requirement.
    - yesenadam 7y ago
      Well, I guess it's just reading the comment two entirely different ways. The way I read it, it sounds like someone who loves programming, not being able to imagine how you would never want to program outside work–not 24 hours a day, but never at all. You know, for the fun of it. You make it sound like the guy is your boss, making it a requirement for employment that people do programming they don't want to do outside work hours. The guy said "probably" and "is how I look at it", but that wasn't enough–the words are still treated like he'd said "definitely" and "I'd make this a legal requirement" or something. Ah anyway.
      - detaro 7y ago
        Things don't have to be legal requirements to effectively be requirements. I'd hate to be considered not fit for tech by my coworkers, my boss, a potential employer, ... because of how I like to spend my free time, and if that sentiment is common it is a problem for people not fitting that expectation. Which I think is be bad, even if I personally would benefit from it. And you see people push others out with arguments like this, it's not a theoretical thing. (I'm not saying the original commenter is doing so, but explaining why I read the comment as negatively as I did)

by Lazare 7y ago

ghaff 7y ago

Yes. That is exactly what I meant. I'd just add that, on the subject of strawmen, I'm pretty sure not a single person on this thread has suggested that people shouldn't do software-related things on their own time if that's what they want to do--with the only caveats being care about burnout and possible employee agreements around IP rights. They just shouldn't be de facto required to do so. And, yes, I do think the view as expressed is extremely toxic. The underlying attitude is bad enough but to basically say if you don't have time/interest to be working on Github repos on nights and weekends you should GTFO of tech is... well, problematic is a nice way of putting it.

yesenadam 7y ago
>They just shouldn't be de facto required to do so. I haven't read anybody saying you should be required to if you don't want to. Yet a lot of the responses are angry as if that's exactly what was suggested. The line I quoted about "people like you", I was mainly objecting to reading one sentence from someone, responding with "people like you.." and thinking that's ok. You don't know anything about them, I assume. Imagine someone speaking to you like that? Or maybe that's how people routinely speak to each other in your world, and it's perfectly fine. I hope not.
- detaro 7y ago
  The comment ghaff replied to said "If you don't have the desire to do this after work you probably shouldn't even be in the field". If people that do not want to do it shouldn't be in the field, it's pretty damn close to a requirement.
  - yesenadam 7y ago
    Well, I guess it's just reading the comment two entirely different ways. The way I read it, it sounds like someone who loves programming, not being able to imagine how you would never want to program outside work–not 24 hours a day, but never at all. You know, for the fun of it. You make it sound like the guy is your boss, making it a requirement for employment that people do programming they don't want to do outside work hours. The guy said "probably" and "is how I look at it", but that wasn't enough–the words are still treated like he'd said "definitely" and "I'd make this a legal requirement" or something. Ah anyway.
    - detaro 7y ago
      Things don't have to be legal requirements to effectively be requirements. I'd hate to be considered not fit for tech by my coworkers, my boss, a potential employer, ... because of how I like to spend my free time, and if that sentiment is common it is a problem for people not fitting that expectation. Which I think is be bad, even if I personally would benefit from it. And you see people push others out with arguments like this, it's not a theoretical thing. (I'm not saying the original commenter is doing so, but explaining why I read the comment as negatively as I did)