Advice from a once burnt-out programmer(miketec.org)
miketec.org
Advice from a once burnt-out programmer
http://www.miketec.org/serendipity/index.php?/archives/9-Sure,-Change-Jobs!.html
7 comments
The latter seems to undermine the former.
I don't read it that way at all. He's addressing burned-out people. When you're burned out, you find yourself believing with all your heart that your job is the worst job in the world. He's cautioning against that.
He's saying that desk jobs aren't actually all that bad, provided you know the risks. Avoid burnout, and know its warning signs, and you may be able to sustainably appreciate the virtues of your desk job.
I don't read it that way at all. He's addressing burned-out people. When you're burned out, you find yourself believing with all your heart that your job is the worst job in the world. He's cautioning against that.
He's saying that desk jobs aren't actually all that bad, provided you know the risks. Avoid burnout, and know its warning signs, and you may be able to sustainably appreciate the virtues of your desk job.
Well said. How offensive is that, that your thinking has been conscripted to someone elses vision?
Another issue may be the social aspect of manual labor. I worked on a plastic assembly factory, with a more natural mix of male and female coworkers than any tech job I've had.
The pay and shifts sucked, but at least it felt...natural. Work your shift, grab a brew, and go out with a few of the mates after the gig. Good times.
Another issue may be the social aspect of manual labor. I worked on a plastic assembly factory, with a more natural mix of male and female coworkers than any tech job I've had.
The pay and shifts sucked, but at least it felt...natural. Work your shift, grab a brew, and go out with a few of the mates after the gig. Good times.
> The pay and shifts sucked, but at least it felt...natural. Work your shift, grab a brew, and go out with a few of the mates after the gig. Good times.
I had a friend who was a almost-stellar IT career, depending on how you define it.. Anyway, he was doing well by most measures. In his late 20's he quit to become a ski instructor and train to compete in cross country.
He had a great time, got to do some physical work -- however, the main thing was that it made no difference to his career.
I think if you said to a lot of people - take 2 years out, climb mountains, be a landscape gardener, whatever - they would think this would be career suicide. The thing is that's rarely the case, and from the evidence I've seen it's actually the opposite (i.e. people who come back are well regarded).
Pretty much anyone I talk to late in their career (60+) usually say they wished they'd taken 1, 2, 3+ years out to do other things.
I had a friend who was a almost-stellar IT career, depending on how you define it.. Anyway, he was doing well by most measures. In his late 20's he quit to become a ski instructor and train to compete in cross country.
He had a great time, got to do some physical work -- however, the main thing was that it made no difference to his career.
I think if you said to a lot of people - take 2 years out, climb mountains, be a landscape gardener, whatever - they would think this would be career suicide. The thing is that's rarely the case, and from the evidence I've seen it's actually the opposite (i.e. people who come back are well regarded).
Pretty much anyone I talk to late in their career (60+) usually say they wished they'd taken 1, 2, 3+ years out to do other things.
"Most people avoid certain actions because they view changes as permanent. If you make a change, can you go back to doing it like you did before? You can always reclaim your current state in most cases. If I quit my job in industry x to test my artistic abilities in a different industry, worst case scenario, can I go back to my previous industry? Yes. Recognize that you can test-drive and micro-test things over brief periods of time. You can usually reclaim the workaholism that you might currently experience if you so decide to go back to it." -Timothy Ferriss
http://sivers.org/tim-ferriss
http://sivers.org/tim-ferriss
What timr wrote above perfectly put something into words, that I've been trying to explain to myself for years.
And just like that, quitting a cubicle job to work manual labor while coding at night is no longer even a tiny bit bit scary.
And just like that, quitting a cubicle job to work manual labor while coding at night is no longer even a tiny bit bit scary.
The pay cut should be a little bit scary. ;-)
Office Space was prophetic.
I find that very often the perfect cure for too much "thinking" work is an awful lot of physical work. I started feeling a lot better about working on my Ph.D. when I got a second job stocking shelves on the night shift.
I'm a Ph.D. student. Including the time spent getting my Master's, I've been in grad school five and a half years.
If it wasn't for Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and lifting, I would be lost.
Training BJJ and MMA is physical, skill-based and social. I train with people who don't care if I miss or make the next paper deadline. They only care that I show up, work hard, and be friendly. Lifting by myself has a meditative quality.
Most people go through a week without ever exposing themselves to real physical exertion, and I have no idea how they cope.
If it wasn't for Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and lifting, I would be lost.
Training BJJ and MMA is physical, skill-based and social. I train with people who don't care if I miss or make the next paper deadline. They only care that I show up, work hard, and be friendly. Lifting by myself has a meditative quality.
Most people go through a week without ever exposing themselves to real physical exertion, and I have no idea how they cope.
I found carpentry to be a good revitalizer, building decks, fences and the like. Long hikes work. I cant turn off the thinking, but I can usually point it somewhere else.
Ditto. Bike rides, washing dishes, fixing stuff around the apartment are all nice escapes from the cerebral world.
Bike rides were amazing for me. I decided to bike to and from work (about 10 miles each way). I can't imagine not doing it now, its the best way to start and end my day.
I run a mile when I need to unwind, it does absolute wonders (both physical and mental health!), and is a great way to refocus.
Damn. 10 miles seems like a lot. Mostly flat? How long does it take you?
It probably takes him a bit more than 30 mins, and a bit less than 1 hr. Most people average 15mph or a little less biking. It obviously depends on how in shape you are, what kind of bike you ride, and how urban the ride is. I rode 5 miles every day over a summer and it was a pretty consistent 20 minutes. (even with some hills and stoplights.)
You would be surprised of the distances you can make in a bike without burning yourself.
Took me about 35 - 40 min each way
During the winter, like now, when I feel blocked I scan things into Delicious Library. I organize stuff digitally. It helps keep me away from the cold and it's mindless enough work that I can really focus on it.
Not quite the same as that - but I now live on a property that has a large amount of gardens to take care of (otherwise fire/snakes and general pestilence will ensue). its not every day, but its an epic effort when I do tackle it - but I view it as a) healthy excercise (on top of what I normally do) and b) somehow good for me - I do enjoy doing it and look forward to it.
For me, the key is "turn off the creativity spigot". I always thought that creativity is one of those lovely positive feedback loops: do more, have more ideas, do more. However, this only works for so long.
I thought that trying to code a new site and write an album at the same time would work. It didn't. My ability to write songs just disappeared.
However, I took Christmas off from creativity and now I'm flying.
I thought that trying to code a new site and write an album at the same time would work. It didn't. My ability to write songs just disappeared.
However, I took Christmas off from creativity and now I'm flying.
I have a blog; I find that I only end up posting to it when I avoid Reddit and HN for a while. Not because they're distracting, but because I comment so much that I end up with nothing, personally, to say on my blog; I just feel like I would be repeating myself. All my little ideas get bound up in the context of someone else's article rather than bound together in the strange seed of imagination that writing without a set topic requires.
That was a fun read.
Doing the same thing over and over again for years at the hours the writer says he was working is sure to induce burnout. But if you change even the industry you're writing for and/or the type of projects you're working on, as well as mixing some fun personal programming stuff in there, that helps to alleviate burnout.
Doing the same thing over and over again for years at the hours the writer says he was working is sure to induce burnout. But if you change even the industry you're writing for and/or the type of projects you're working on, as well as mixing some fun personal programming stuff in there, that helps to alleviate burnout.
I would feel rather empty without coding.
That said, I think it's important to have a life outside of one's job. That way, one can escape to fuel up the batteries. Getting a girlfriend, doing some sports and having vacations is a really good way of preventing a burnout.
That said, I think it's important to have a life outside of one's job. That way, one can escape to fuel up the batteries. Getting a girlfriend, doing some sports and having vacations is a really good way of preventing a burnout.
"All the terrorists went to Iraq so I had to go there in order to shoot them."
You are an idiot.
You are an idiot.
"Idiot" is a harsh word. But I do agree that his reasoning is pretty hard to understand considering the terrorists only went to Iraq after the US invasion.
Maybe he went to Iraq only later when the terrorists were already there, thinking whatever the reason for them being there I want them out (which is a worthy goal in my opinion).
Maybe he went to Iraq only later when the terrorists were already there, thinking whatever the reason for them being there I want them out (which is a worthy goal in my opinion).
What terrorists went there after the invasion? How do you define a terrorist? As someone who shoots at an American?
Al-Qaeda and similar groups went there after the invasion. I define terrorists as a group of people who deliberately target civilians in order to instill terror in their peers.
That's what the U.S. Military says. I think you should check a better source.
This discussion isn't appropriate for this forum; feel free to email me if you want to discuss this further.
This discussion isn't appropriate for this forum; feel free to email me if you want to discuss this further.
I'm referring to the findings of the US Senate, widely reported in the media. I don't know what their sources were, but I think there is little doubt that beheadings and bombings of civilians in Baghdad started after the invasion.
You can be sure that the US Senate got their information from US Military and intelligence sources. I'm asking the source for a good reason: what's the more likely scenario?
A) The US invades Iraq and suddenly tens of thousands fly there (not the US) to do their bombings and beheadings.
or
B) The US ends a dictatorship that kept the 65% Shiia majority down and there's civil war, which includes bombings and beheadings, and the US Military declares it to be Al-Queda to give soldiers the idea that they're "fighting evil" rather than just killing the people that live there.
A) The US invades Iraq and suddenly tens of thousands fly there (not the US) to do their bombings and beheadings.
or
B) The US ends a dictatorship that kept the 65% Shiia majority down and there's civil war, which includes bombings and beheadings, and the US Military declares it to be Al-Queda to give soldiers the idea that they're "fighting evil" rather than just killing the people that live there.
I think it's very likely that both A and B have some truth to them. I have heard many comments from Iraqis confirming that there are indeed a lot of foreigners present. You wouldn't need tens of thousands of them in order to be effective. They don't have to do all the bombings themselves.
What we don't know, and probably never will, is what share of attrocities has been committed by which group. I do share your skepticism about information coming out of partisan sources.
What we don't know, and probably never will, is what share of attrocities has been committed by which group. I do share your skepticism about information coming out of partisan sources.
What about the situation in Gaza?
Which groups are deliberately blowing up the Palestinian civilians? Are they terrorists? (Hint: see Chomsky's article http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/20316)
Which groups are deliberately blowing up the Palestinian civilians? Are they terrorists? (Hint: see Chomsky's article http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/20316)
I'm guessing (hoping) that that was tongue-in-cheek.
It didn't seem sarcastic to me; he did join a violent organization, after all.
It seems to me his comment was a tongue-in-cheek nod especially meant for people like you, who evidently can't see the military as being anything other than a 'violent organisation' whose enlistees must be violence-seekers themselves. I'm not surprised you missed the humour.
Uh, what exactly is the military if not a "violent organisation"? If the military doesn't qualify as a violent organisation, what does?
I found the article to be pretty good aside from that comment, which was a little too on the nose to be funny for me...
I found the article to be pretty good aside from that comment, which was a little too on the nose to be funny for me...
So is your local police force, in that it's an organisation with the capacity and authority to commit violent acts on behalf of the state. But neither the military nor the police have violence as their sole objective; it's merely a tool to be used in the attainment of certain goals and policies such as national defence or community safety.
But we're arguing semantics here. I wrote my response because the way in which joubert dismissed the possibility of the author's comment being sarcasm strongly implied that he regarded the military as an inherently violent organisation to which only violence-loving terrorist-killing wannabes would aspire. I resent that.
But we're arguing semantics here. I wrote my response because the way in which joubert dismissed the possibility of the author's comment being sarcasm strongly implied that he regarded the military as an inherently violent organisation to which only violence-loving terrorist-killing wannabes would aspire. I resent that.
"So is your local police force, in that it's an organisation with the capacity and authority to commit violent acts on behalf of the state."
We agree so far. I don't think it's just semantics, but my "politics" probably differ radically from most of the crew here (and I don't expect to change anyone's mind), so I'll leave it at that.
I get that his list of reasons was largely sarcastic. But that suggests he's (at least somewhat) cynical about the military. Given that, I don't understand why he'd join up. Especially when he implies that he had/has specific knowledge that he'd likely be sent to Iraq and told to kill people. I just don't find it funny. Maybe I missed the point.
We agree so far. I don't think it's just semantics, but my "politics" probably differ radically from most of the crew here (and I don't expect to change anyone's mind), so I'll leave it at that.
I get that his list of reasons was largely sarcastic. But that suggests he's (at least somewhat) cynical about the military. Given that, I don't understand why he'd join up. Especially when he implies that he had/has specific knowledge that he'd likely be sent to Iraq and told to kill people. I just don't find it funny. Maybe I missed the point.
"But that suggests he's (at least somewhat) cynical about the military."
He is cynical about the opinions many civilians have about the military.
He is cynical about the opinions many civilians have about the military.
> But that suggests he's (at least somewhat) cynical about the military.
If you don't know that everyone in the military is cynical about the military, you know very little about military folks.
Projecting seems to be especially common among the "intellectual" class.
If you don't know that everyone in the military is cynical about the military, you know very little about military folks.
Projecting seems to be especially common among the "intellectual" class.
Not to mention that politicians and the American people sent those soldiers in Irak ;)
The military and war generally is "politics by other means". I don't think it is fair to say people who go into the military have a "need to shoot people", though I'm sure one could find those cases. I think a lot of people join the military just for the benefits - education opportunities, and so on. Broadly, from a public policy standpoint, for example with the Iraq war, that was not motivated by "violence per ce", though one could make the argument that everyone has a need for violence just from evolution.
Iraq is just an issue of economic control. Either Iraqi's can control Iraqi oil, or we can. In fact it has nothing at all to do with terrorism, that is just for the weak minded to buy into. What it has to do with his privatizing oil. American companies do not benefit from publicly owned oil in Iraq, but if multinational or American-owned corporations own Iraqi oil, then the American people benefit. Think about it: would you rather have the Iraqis own the Iraq oil, or would you rather have the benefit of American companies owning it instead? Personally, I have a slight moral gripe about taking away people's natural resources and giving it to multinational corporations, but hey, that's just politics. War is politics by other means. Always been that way, always will be that way.
Japan was right (from their point of view) to do Pearl Harbor, because it eliminated the threat caused by the American navy, and solidified their economic control of the Pacific rim. Similarly, the US was right (from our point of view) to do the Iraq war, because it got oil out of the hands of the indigenous peoples of that region and into our hands, benefiting us, not them, and eliminating the threat caused by Hussein at the same time. Please note I say "right" not as in morally right, but just right from the point of view of economic dominance.
Violence is incidental. It is just a necessary part of war. The real point is economic control. True with Japan. True with the United States. Is that "moral" or "just". I don't know. I would like to think not. But apparently the 50 million people who voted for President Bush would disagree with me.
Iraq is just an issue of economic control. Either Iraqi's can control Iraqi oil, or we can. In fact it has nothing at all to do with terrorism, that is just for the weak minded to buy into. What it has to do with his privatizing oil. American companies do not benefit from publicly owned oil in Iraq, but if multinational or American-owned corporations own Iraqi oil, then the American people benefit. Think about it: would you rather have the Iraqis own the Iraq oil, or would you rather have the benefit of American companies owning it instead? Personally, I have a slight moral gripe about taking away people's natural resources and giving it to multinational corporations, but hey, that's just politics. War is politics by other means. Always been that way, always will be that way.
Japan was right (from their point of view) to do Pearl Harbor, because it eliminated the threat caused by the American navy, and solidified their economic control of the Pacific rim. Similarly, the US was right (from our point of view) to do the Iraq war, because it got oil out of the hands of the indigenous peoples of that region and into our hands, benefiting us, not them, and eliminating the threat caused by Hussein at the same time. Please note I say "right" not as in morally right, but just right from the point of view of economic dominance.
Violence is incidental. It is just a necessary part of war. The real point is economic control. True with Japan. True with the United States. Is that "moral" or "just". I don't know. I would like to think not. But apparently the 50 million people who voted for President Bush would disagree with me.
"Shooting people" isn't funny.
It can be when you're in the Military, believe me. Lots of things are funny that the average person wouldn't consider to be.
I found absolutely nothing strange about that bullet point. Although, he joined the Marines, which means as a member of the Army I have to hate him.
I found absolutely nothing strange about that bullet point. Although, he joined the Marines, which means as a member of the Army I have to hate him.
Humor is a way of dealing with psychological inconsistencies. It can be an outlet to deal with the unpleasant. So killing in the military can becomes humorous. 1st year medical school students routinely joke about dead bodies in anatomy lab. Hackers have this site: http://thedailywtf.com/ .
It might be. If these "people" were clowns.
We fucked up Iraq. We replaced an Evil despot with a chaos and now there are terrorists and ethnic cleansing and a whole host of nasty shit. So depending on the time line he could be sarcastic and literally accurate at the same time.
Situation Normal All Fucked Up is a classic military saying and places like Iraq are the root cause of a lot of messed up situations.
Situation Normal All Fucked Up is a classic military saying and places like Iraq are the root cause of a lot of messed up situations.
[deleted]
I wonder if such an outcome is avoidable if you have a better work-life balance. I like coding too, but I definitely have a line between my job and everything else.
One of the best jobs I've ever had was manual labor: I was a bellman for a hotel. My primary job responsibilities included lifting heavy luggage in 100-degree heat, being yelled at by cranky guests, and running around non-stop for 10-hour shifts. What made it great? I was almost completely autonomous, and I got paid a little bit of money every time I did some work. There was almost always a direct consequence when I did good work, and nobody told me how to do my job. (My boss didn't even work on the same shift!)
I've worked a lot of much more "comfortable" jobs since that time, and I've had a lot of time to think about why that luggage-monkey job was so much better than nearly all of the intellectual gigs I've held. So far, I think it boils down to a simple point: there's no worse tyranny than being told how to think. No matter how much luggage I lifted, I was always free with my thoughts. But when you work in an industry where your thoughts are your primary output, it's inevitable that someone (or something) will try to consume all of them. When that happens, you're on a path to burnout.