Pardon me for this, but I'm a bit irked by being taken out of context. Most obviously, Michael urges young programmers deciding how much effort to put into the

Pardon me for this, but I'm a bit irked by being taken out of context. Most obviously, Michael urges young programmers deciding how much effort to put into their work to "ebb towards underperformance". That's not what I said. From the source (on Quora, here: http://www.quora.com/What-do-software-developers-age-30-and-over-know-now-that-they-wish-they-had-known-in-their-20s/answer/Michael-O-Church http://www.quora.com/What-do-software-developers-age-30-and-...): 3. Recognize underperformance and overperformance and avoid them. There are a lot of low-effort players who stay employed for years. This isn't a bad strategy if you're settled, but I wouldn't fall too low. That said, the only people who typically get fired for underperformance are the people who fail so badly that they generate work for others. People who hide and do little tend not to make any enemies. At the same time, be cautious of overperformance. This isn't like college where challenging your professor's ideas could earn you an 'A' if you argued your point well. Overperformers often also generate extra work for their superiors and colleagues and draw unwanted attention (see: McNulty in The Wire) and are more likely to be culled for "performance" (98 percent of "performance management" in companies is politics) than underperformers. I'm not saying that you shouldn't work hard and do a good job and learn as much as you can. That's not necessarily overperformance. In my experience, though, overperformance is much more dangerous than underperformance. It can get you just as fired and it will happen a lot faster. If you end up stuck between the two, prefer underperformance. I'm not saying that people shouldn't work hard or do a good job. On the contrary, I think young people should bust their asses at growing the skills and contacts that will serve them well for the rest of their lives. I'm saying "avoid overperformance", and overperformance isn't the same thing as "doing a great job". I'm saying, "don't become like McNulty on The Wire" (or a certain person at Google who tried to prevent a product failure and got burned for it). McNulty is a textbook overperformer: he loves the job, it doesn't love him back, and he puts so much into it that it destroys his life and career. Sorry, but I'm pretty fucking pissed out this being out there like that. That was way the fuck out of context. I wasn't happy with the Lifehacker edit either but I didn't speak up about that because I didn't see it as a big deal. But I am definitely not telling a generation of people to slack off at their jobs.