3 ms·

> I would push you to consider that, maybe, something else is going on for you individually, rather than write off the entire endeavor due to an objective analy

> I would push you to consider that, maybe, something else is going on for you individually, rather than write off the entire endeavor due to an objective analysis. I worked for years at a cancer center and while there were many times that the work was dry, lonely, alienating, at the end of the day I still felt I was doing something good for the world and that felt really good. The difference being that the majority of software jobs are not doing anything remotely good for the world, or if you are, you are a infinitesimally small part of it to where you couldn't possibly derive this same rewarding feeling. I would push you to consider that maybe, your situation is one of privilege that people in the OP's spot are not often in. > There's a lot of ways to apply software, and, maybe more to the point, a lot of ways to integrate it into your life with balance. What about part-time work, so you have more space for other parts of your life you find satisfying? You may find that, with more balance, you enjoy what the work does have to offer, such as being part of a team, being needed, being well-compensated, using your whole intellect, etc. Again, not everyone is afforded an extraordinary privilege of just arbitrarily deciding to work part time. I certainly couldn't. If I could, burnout would be less of an existential risk. It's like telling someone with clinical depression "have you tried cheering up?"

smokedetector1 2y ago
> The majority of software jobs are not doing anything remotely good for the world Firstly, this isn't true except in the narrowest sense where only people working on cancer are doing anything good for the world. Contributing to the economy in a non-destructive non-evil way is still good, people need goods and services to live a good life and almost every part of the economy plays some positive role in that. Secondly, my point is that one could find a non-sexy job in tech at a hospital, or in an academic institution, that don't necessarily pay top FAANG salary but, if fulfillment is more important (as it seems to be for the OP), this would be a good option. > Not everyone is afforded an extraordinary privilege of just arbitrarily deciding to work part time. Of course that's true, but I was directing my comment at OP, who said in the blog post that "I quit my last contracting gig in August with £40k in debt, no other income, and only a business idea (it failed). It was still the right decision."
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  > Contributing to the economy in a non-destructive non-evil way is still good, people need goods and services to live a good life and almost every part of the economy plays some positive role in that. If you look at the impacts of consumption on the third world particularly, and the environment, this is demonstrably false, almost hilariously so. if this lets you sleep better at night, so be it, but I don't pretend I'm doing anything good for the world because I'm not.

smokedetector1 2y ago

> The majority of software jobs are not doing anything remotely good for the world Firstly, this isn't true except in the narrowest sense where only people working on cancer are doing anything good for the world. Contributing to the economy in a non-destructive non-evil way is still good, people need goods and services to live a good life and almost every part of the economy plays some positive role in that. Secondly, my point is that one could find a non-sexy job in tech at a hospital, or in an academic institution, that don't necessarily pay top FAANG salary but, if fulfillment is more important (as it seems to be for the OP), this would be a good option. > Not everyone is afforded an extraordinary privilege of just arbitrarily deciding to work part time. Of course that's true, but I was directing my comment at OP, who said in the blog post that "I quit my last contracting gig in August with £40k in debt, no other income, and only a business idea (it failed). It was still the right decision."

JohnMakin 2y ago
> Contributing to the economy in a non-destructive non-evil way is still good, people need goods and services to live a good life and almost every part of the economy plays some positive role in that. If you look at the impacts of consumption on the third world particularly, and the environment, this is demonstrably false, almost hilariously so. if this lets you sleep better at night, so be it, but I don't pretend I'm doing anything good for the world because I'm not.