> A lot of people read the same things, should we all burn out?
Eventually? Would everyone burn out at an equivalent speed?
I don't know the answer to your question. I do wonder if it has to do with being closed or open minded. The difference of a person enjoying being in a bubble, and one who wants to think outside of the box.
Also, there are platforms where people gather who think outside of the box. However at some point they become so popular, that the status quo of the masses takes over. (Reddit seems an excellent example of this.) To me, it seems akin to the principles of the Temporary Autonomous Zone (TAZ) [1].
> Burnout is, unfortunately, a very real phenomena in software development
These people sound like they are bomb technicians not software developers...
> "I'd rather do anything else than this right now" — even though writing software is one of your favorite activities in the world.
So? Does this mean you have burnt out? How does this compare to jobs like algorithmic trading or mission critical software?
Burning out over stress of writing a web site? I call BS on all these burn out blog posts.
You have other problems in your life that make you depress, coding might be little part of it but I don't see what levels of stress can you be under while doing mostly non interesting jobs.
You are calling bullshit based some vague feelings of "job difficulty"?
Do you have a robust mental model of the day to day experiences of these people who you are calling bullshit on? If not, I would be careful with your words. It can come off as fairly snide, ignorant, and callous.
Having burned out a number of times, I think that perhaps you would benefit greatly from investigating what burn out actually is, and the causes of it, rather than making broad assumptions about it.
For instance, burn-out has less to do with what you are doing, and more to do with the stress and effort required. It doesn't matter if you're disarming bombs ("bomb technician," huh?) or grading freshman assignments. What's more relevant to it is the value you place on the task, the recovery time (off hours) you get, and level of stress placed upon you. Even the most dreary job can burn you out if the employer demands near-impossible targets.
Educate yourself, then you won't seem as much of an arrogant arse to the rest of the world.
So this more like a being sick of doing things temporarily?
What you are doing and the effort you have to put in is what puts stress on you isn't it?
> ("bomb technician," huh?)
Huh what? Wrong term? Are you seriously saying that job that puts your life in danger causes the same amount of stress as grading papers? Sure, grading papers can take effort, but come on... That is just plain wrong... Have you ever been in life or death situation? Not much compares to it...
If your employer demands near-impossible targets and you are aware of this and not living in the country where it is impossible to find another job you are the fault.
Maybe I am seem like arrogant arse but you seem like you are totally disconnected from reality.
> Also unless you are doing really stressful work what is it that makes you burn out?
I think you are making too many assumptions about what kind of work and what work environments are stressful for different people.
Could the term "burn out" be abused? Of course, it's something that is difficult for others to verify. That fact doesn't make it less real for those actually experiencing it.
Maybe I am, but really stressful environments are stressful for everyone.
If you are unable to cope with some levels of stress it is not the coding that is the problem, it is you. Or do we just go around blaming everything else for our problems?
Should I blame you or me for my karma score? Come on...
He took ownership of the situation and made specific changes in his life. And guess what? It was a good thing. He said he is doing better now.
Sure, often times people struggle with making these types of improvements in their lives, but I think it is pretty antagonistic to view that as some sort of shameful moral failing, as you seem to be describing. For some, they might not have a lot of great options in the near term, and dealing with that can be difficult.
What's your main point here? It seems like you have some sort of axe to grind.
> Also the words "burnt out" sounds like one those buzz words people come up to feel like more special snow flakes...
I dunno, based on his accomplishments and how much I rely on his work on a daily basis, I consider the OP to be a special snowflake if snowflakes exist.
True, I also use his work, and I am not saying he personally is a bad person, but these burn out posts come so often lately that it makes me wonder if people even know any definition of it.
Quick google search tells me this:
> ruin one's health or become completely exhausted through overwork.
And the only thing the post saysis
> It happens to everyone that writes code all day long — the sudden feeling of "I'd rather do anything else than this right now" — even though writing software is one of your favorite activities in the world.
This is not burn out... I'd rather do something else does not mean your health is ruined from overwork... But maybe I am just nitpicking...
read Ken Reitz' original article more closely. he actually did attribute the causes of his burn-out to various problems that weren't simply "too many hours of coding". the emotional drain from the politics and communications overhead of doing high-profile OSS projects seemed to be his primary problem.
This is all great, and I can see the benefit of having HTTPS available for all the sites.
That being said, various documentation has started serving docs on HTTPS only which means I can not access it from work.
There are a lot of scenarios where having HTTPS will just impede people doing their work.
And finally, how are we to trust that for example Version or Thawte are not influenced by the likes of NSA and make possible for them to decript our traffic with ease?
>how are we to trust that for example Version or Thawte are not influenced by the likes of NSA and make possible for them to decript our traffic with ease
Abandon all hope that HTTPS will safeguard you from the NSA or any major foreign intelligence agency.
So what is the level of paranoia that SSL is useful for?
Since this is what the article says:
> Encryption makes it more difficult for governments and other third parties to monitor your traffic. It also makes it harder for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to censor access to specific Wikipedia articles and other information.
And we agree it doesn't really help with government surveillance?
Do ISPs randomly censor access? Or do they again do it on government requests.
Cos if government finds that your site needs censorship why would they not just block the whole site? Another thing that is harder for ISPs to do with SSL is caching.
Maybe I'm not brightest child on the block so I'm still struggling to figure out what is a benefit of having HTTPS everywhere.
And having the likse of Google punishing non SSL sites just makes this fad worse.
I don't need SSL on StackOverflow, Django or Python documentation. Does anyone?
HTTPS does help with government surveillance. It won't save you if the NSA is targeting you individually, to the point where they're prepared to use targeted active exploits whose detection and identification would cost them both technically and PR-wise... but it will prevent (some of) your data from being passively vacuumed up en masse along with everyone else's, which for most people is a more pressing concern.
Well, unless the NSA has some magic passive SSL strip attack, which is not out of the question, but very unlikely.
Fair point, I am not pretending that everyone will have same requirements and oppinions.
But even with SSL at least the domain is still visible. And in some cases there are ways to infer what URL you actually visited.
I also see companies using MITM successfully in a way that unless you check the cert your self it seems legit. I still use HTTPS when I go to Google but I can see the cert is spoofed.
And what about the people that don't care and are effectively prohibited from using a public data site at all since the site decided to use HTTPS only? Do way say we don't care about them? Since few years back we wanted our sites to be available to everyone, on old browser new browsers, mobiles and so on.
And having people smarter then me (like Roy Fielding) agreeing this does not do much for privacy rather content confidentiality (and actually making communication less private) is not making me any more convinced.
Bottom line, and I don't expect everyone to agree, is that I am all for using SSL even by default, but for public data I would still want to have access to it over plain HTTP.
I want/need that choice, otherwise we are hindering corporation employees and people living in the countries in which governments do massive surveillance. I think it is important for people to realise that SSL is not the ultimate solution for data integrity and specially privacy as it is often posed to be.
I'm just eager to see how long will it take him to fail in Bosnia (not because he's not capable but the Bosnian legislature is shit for anyone not doing illegal work, same goes for Serbia, Croatia and maybe even Kosovo.)
Yes that probably helps, since our countries suck to do any real business. (and don't make me quote, this is a known fact here).
I do hope you do very well, I just can't seem to get over the fact you had to go back to Balkans, sucks for you and your business but I do wish you all the best with your enterprise.
But don't take my comment to negatively either, if nothing food is great and people are full of humor! At least something to make you feel better ;)
I think what you are looking for is called "common sense".
You won't be going around murdering people since it is common sense and you are brought up this way.
Murder and dirty joke is not the same thing if you have any common sense and that's why usually murder has priority over dirty jokes in court. You usually don't get sued for dirty joke. That's why we don't call dirty jokes a murder nor we call murder a joke.
And the common sense is what should set our priorities. Who would you rather see in court first mass murderer or a thief? And on what grounds do you decide this? How do YOU decide which is more offensive? Do we have scales for it?
"Common sense" is not much more than a myth now that (many, including those of the majority of the posters here) societies are not homogenous and not filled with people all subscribing to a very narrow view of what is right and wrong. I believe "common sense" is, in this context, a way of stating a belief without feeling that any evidence is required. A bit like religion.
There was a thread around here somewhere in which the correct, acceptable behaviour of a society (real, not an imaginary example, unless I radically misread it) involved boys becoming men by giving oral sex (and swallowing) to older men. A neighbouring society decided anal sex was the way to go. This is simply "common sense" in those societies. Everyone agrees.
We live in societies where one person's "common sense" is another person's completely unacceptable behaviour.
"Who would you rather see in court first mass murderer or a thief?"
Will you be petitioning the courts to refuse to try thieves unless everyone accused of murder has been tried already? That would essentially legalise theft.
Hmm, I always saw each of them as an answer to completely different problem, so I have hard time contemplating this scenario.
How exactly would CPU be more like GPU? What would happen to branching and out of order execution pipelines? Do you see today's complex superscalar cores so cheap and small in the future that you could have thousands of them on single die? What other way is there get vector computations to work as well as scalar computations on same hardware? Would you rather have few superscalar cores and a lot of SIMD's around it? Or do you envision a completely new architecture?
I'm just trying to get a picture of how this would be done. Any reading material would be welcome.
