6 ms·

Regarding his/her: that was a dumb assumption on my part. Apologies. It should be her. To the content of the article. This is what the author describes as the

Regarding his/her: that was a dumb assumption on my part. Apologies. It should be her. To the content of the article. This is what the author describes as the scenario to be avoided: > Your choice becomes limited to employers who want a cog in the big machine while your career will fade into a 9-5 job. As if this is per se a bad thing. As I said, if your career is your life then indeed, follow the authors advice. However if your career is just a tool to financially enable your real life, it’s great to be a cog in a 9-to-5 machine: you get to go home in time for dinner every day and you probably have mental energy to spare when you do. Further down, this is written: > If you're not paying attention, you lose precious years stagnating and being unhappy. Below, signs of unhappiness are: lack of work accomplishments, lack of “resume worthy work”, lack of new skills for future employment, lack of overthinking work problems in the shower, lack of kinship with colleagues felt. Again, for many people, work is not a goal in itself. I like my colleagues and I enjoy my job, but in the end the place I really want to be is not my office (but my home) and the people I really care about are not my colleagues (but my family and friends). Final exemplary quote: > You have at best 120 quarters left to make something of yourself. A year wasted at a poor job or role is equivalent to you throwing away 3.3% of your career. Again, apparently “making something of yourself” is equivalent to not wasting time at a job and having a good career? I fully stand by my points: * It’s fine to be very career and job minded. * You need to read the linked article with a lot of flexibility and creativity to come away with any other impression than the author is very career and job minded. * It shows a lack of perspective (or an abundance of personal insecurities) to write a preachy article like this without even considering that your goals (the authors goals) might not be the same as everyone else’s.

robocat 6y ago
My issue is that your comment reads far too much into the motivations of the author, and you create a strawman stereotype that they are a corporate drone. You have no right to assume how the author prioritises nice vacations with their [partner] and kids. Hacker news guidelines: “Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.” It is fully possible to love a 9-5 job and still care about your career progression and take self pleasure with your job. The author could be a believer in “work hard, play hard”. “while your career will fade into a 9-5 job” is easily read as using 9-5 as a cliché for a dead end job. I too have a negative attitude towards 9-5ers, because I prioritise lifestyle and alternative achievements over the corporate ladder, and I think 9-5 has its own severe risks. I agree that the article comes across as work focused, but the article is still relevant even if you want a cruisy job and to glide through your work life. Any career needs to avoid the risk of complacency, leading to zero development, leading to permanent unemployment or being stuck in a hell job when external circumstances change. Edit: Let us presume that the author is hyper-career focused. Why choose to use a personal values attack against that? That’s their choice man.
- leokennis 6y ago
  > Why choose to use a personal values attack against that? That’s their choice man. Here you’re getting exactly to my point. I’m attacking their position with some vigor, because that’s exactly what the author is doing too, but the other way around: reprimanding people who are not hyper-career focused. Not everyone has the same focus and priorities. That’s fine. Dispensing advice as if it’s the truth while it only applies to your specific focus is bad form and should be criticized.
ThrowawayR2 6y ago
> "it’s great to be a cog in a 9-to-5 machine: you get to go home in time for dinner every day and you probably have mental energy to spare when you do." And then the cog's skills fall behind that of their peers, they slow down because of aging and other factors, and all of a sudden their resume is not attractive enough to overcome any ageism that exists in our industry, particularly if another dotcom bust happens or other economic crash happens. Game over. Your career may not be your life but your career is definitely your meal ticket. And nobody should assume that the easy money for developers that exists today is going to be stay that way for the entire 40+ years of their working career.
- leokennis 6y ago
  Yes, your “cog skills” could at some point become obsolete (although less quickly than skills in the latest hype framework or technology). So even as a cog, to keep your meal ticket you should stay somewhat up to date. But this requires far less time and energy than what the author describes. And even then, if someone wants to cash in easily now while the getting is good, and in a few decades becomes unemployable in IT, who’s the author to preach the gospel of “you need to have a resume worthy achievement four times a year or you are lost!” to them?

robocat 6y ago

My issue is that your comment reads far too much into the motivations of the author, and you create a strawman stereotype that they are a corporate drone. You have no right to assume how the author prioritises nice vacations with their [partner] and kids. Hacker news guidelines: “Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.” It is fully possible to love a 9-5 job and still care about your career progression and take self pleasure with your job. The author could be a believer in “work hard, play hard”. “while your career will fade into a 9-5 job” is easily read as using 9-5 as a cliché for a dead end job. I too have a negative attitude towards 9-5ers, because I prioritise lifestyle and alternative achievements over the corporate ladder, and I think 9-5 has its own severe risks. I agree that the article comes across as work focused, but the article is still relevant even if you want a cruisy job and to glide through your work life. Any career needs to avoid the risk of complacency, leading to zero development, leading to permanent unemployment or being stuck in a hell job when external circumstances change. Edit: Let us presume that the author is hyper-career focused. Why choose to use a personal values attack against that? That’s their choice man.

leokennis 6y ago
> Why choose to use a personal values attack against that? That’s their choice man. Here you’re getting exactly to my point. I’m attacking their position with some vigor, because that’s exactly what the author is doing too, but the other way around: reprimanding people who are not hyper-career focused. Not everyone has the same focus and priorities. That’s fine. Dispensing advice as if it’s the truth while it only applies to your specific focus is bad form and should be criticized.

ThrowawayR2 6y ago

> "it’s great to be a cog in a 9-to-5 machine: you get to go home in time for dinner every day and you probably have mental energy to spare when you do." And then the cog's skills fall behind that of their peers, they slow down because of aging and other factors, and all of a sudden their resume is not attractive enough to overcome any ageism that exists in our industry, particularly if another dotcom bust happens or other economic crash happens. Game over. Your career may not be your life but your career is definitely your meal ticket. And nobody should assume that the easy money for developers that exists today is going to be stay that way for the entire 40+ years of their working career.

leokennis 6y ago
Yes, your “cog skills” could at some point become obsolete (although less quickly than skills in the latest hype framework or technology). So even as a cog, to keep your meal ticket you should stay somewhat up to date. But this requires far less time and energy than what the author describes. And even then, if someone wants to cash in easily now while the getting is good, and in a few decades becomes unemployable in IT, who’s the author to preach the gospel of “you need to have a resume worthy achievement four times a year or you are lost!” to them?