
Not Saying Winter Is Coming, but Where’s Your Coat? - KentBeck
https://www.facebook.com/notes/kent-beck/not-saying-winter-is-coming-but-wheres-your-coat/1225914144108114
======
ChuckMcM
To be honest the dot com crash caught me unprepared, and the feeling of having
10+ million dollars in future equity go to less than $100K is not something
I'd wish on anyone. But not all of my investment value was "future", I had a
bit more than $500k in Sun stock that I could sell at "any time." When I sold
it when Oracle bought them it was worth about $12K.

I did not make the mistake of buying a big house on the promise that in the
future I'd be able to afford it. A friend of mine bought his house and his
neighbor's house to combine into a larger lot, but since the stock was going
up he got jumbo loans and was selling stock periodically to make the payments.
When things went south he ended up selling the neighbors house at a loss
refinancing his own house at a lower rate to stay in it affordably. But I did
make the mistake of not paying off my house when I could have using "bubble"
stock (like that Sun stock). 2001 to probably 2006 were very wintry years.

I analyzed my behavior during the last dot com bubble and my biggest driver
was tax avoidance. How stupid is that? I would say "sure this stock is 'worth'
$500K but if I sell it I'm going to have to pay a huge amount of tax on it and
that will net out to a smaller number." I was looking at "losing" 25% of the
value of the investment by turning it into cash. Ridiculous right? Well now I
think it is ridiculous.

Every 3 months I take a long look at my assets and debts and future plans and
re-balance as necessary to avoid a single thing from killing me financially.

~~~
harryh
A good mental game to play to counteract the endowment effect[1] if one ever
ends up holding $[some_large_number] of [tech_stock] is to ask yourself "If I
had $[some_large_number] in cash, what % of it would I spend investing it in
[tech_stock]?"

Very very rarely will you find yourself saying 100%. Act accordingly.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect)

~~~
seizethecheese
It's interesting to use this reasoning in the context of tax-avoidance that
the parent mentioned. Would you rather have $[some_large_number] of cash, or
$[some_large_number + some_large_numer*(tax rate)] in [tech stock]?

~~~
harryh
Indeed. I don't think that the question I posed is the only question worth
considering. Taxes matter and should be paid attention to.

Really, stepping up to an even higher level of abstraction I think the most
important advice is to _pay attention_ and _think about your options._ I think
that far to many people fall prey to inaction and sticking with the status quo
simply because it is easier.

~~~
seizethecheese
Exactly.

It's far from obvious whether it's better to be 25% poorer with
diversification.

~~~
sokoloff
But you're not 25% poorer, because your basis is now stepped up. In order to
access the value of your current shares, you're going to pay the taxes. You
either have $100 on paper and owe $25 on it, or you have $75 on paper and owe
$0 tax on it.

Unless you think the tax rate is going to be lower in the future, once you've
hit the long-term capital gains threshold, I don't see a reason to believe
that paying taxes now and switching investments is worse than holding
investments and paying all the taxes later.

~~~
harryh
The longer you can put off paying taxes the longer you can keep that portion
of the money and earn a return on it.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Yes and no. If you hold a stock you avoid paying taxes on it and if that exact
stock goes up, you "win" because you get more for it later. However there is
no way to get a "return" on the capital that is tied up in the stock in some
other way without some shenanigans. One dubious way was taking a loan out at
the full value of the stock (stock is collateral) and then using the proceeds
from the loan to invest in other funds. Back when day trading was "the thing
to do" I met a guy who was full of these schemes and like the mortgage crisis
later, when the crash came I'm not sure how they unwound, even if they did.

------
erdevs
If you think winter might be coming and want to prepare financially, the #1
most important piece of advice is this:

Lower your expenses.

Nothing gets you into trouble more than having a high expense load. Get as
close as you can to spending nothing.

The next most important piece of advice is to build up cash. 6 months of your
monthly burn is cutting it way too close. You should save until you have at
least two years. What's more, you should save until you can actually invest
some money.

These two bits of advice go hand in hand. The lower your expenses, the easier
is to save 24+ months of runway up. And the reverse is true too.

Beyond that, you can do a couple other things to prepare yourself. You could
join a larger, profitable company with no history of major layoffs. (Eg
Google, Facebook, many others.) Or, you could take the opportunity now to
start your own company, and maybe think about what sorts of businesses could
benefit from an economic downturn when you do so. Focus on getting it
profitable, rather than focusing on rapacious growth. Obviously, these moves
(getting a job at a stable company or stating a company and getting it
profitable) are more out of your control and harder to pull off. Which is why
cutting expenses and saving as much as possible are the most critical
endeavors.

~~~
madelinecameron
>You should save until you have at least two years

It is a little late to be doing this.

I have pretty bare-bones expenses (Fine, my apartment is 40% of my income) but
I would struggle to save 24-months of expenses any time soon.

Unless you are making like $250k and living on $50k, I would say it is a
little late to be stocking up to survive a downturn. I could do it if given
probably 5 years, but I couldn't pull that off in 1 year.

~~~
caseysoftware
It is _never_ too late to start stocking up.

Yes, the sooner you make the changes, the better off you will be. Just like
getting healthier.

A huge part of it is mindset. If you are striving to build 24 months of
savings, you'll have to think about income and expenses and figure out which
ones matter, which ones can go away, and how to improve them in general. There
may not be a single silver bullet but there can be a lot of little things that
will help in the long run.

~~~
jazzyk
A lot of people pay _way_ too much for cable, like $150/ month... Cut the
wire, go OTA, if you must (free), and Netflix ($10/month)

~~~
seanp2k2
I really wonder how many people on HN seriously pay for cable. For me and many
of my friends, we just have Internet and watch whatever we want whenever we
want. I wouldn't watch cable if it was free. I wouldn't watch it for an hour a
night if they paid me $100 a month to do so. The idea of paying $50+++ per
month for what I consider to be an absolute waste of my time is crazy to me.

~~~
gorkemyurt
you don't like sports?

~~~
a_t48
MLB.TV isn't bad for baseball (might have to swing a VPN to get it to work for
you, depending on if you live near your favorite team). Football is still
overpriced as hell, though.

------
mgkimsal
> I’ve been telling my students, “Take a chance, you can get another job on
> Monday.”

For students, maybe, especially if they're entry level jobs. However, for
anyone even mid-level, I don't think this has been good advice for several
years. Perhaps in SF it's been fine, but even for many mid-level (and
certainly sr folks) I know, finding another job "on monday" has not been the
case. (getting an _interview_ , especially via a recruiter, has still been
relatively quick, from what I hear).

Employers have been far more picky than I think many people expect.
Compounding this is that they sometimes have suboptimal folks in particular
roles, and those people tend to exacerbate the problem when
interviewing/finding new folks.

In any event, glad to see somewhat balanced view, vs the extremes we normally
see.

~~~
akadien
I'll add another voice to the job market for experienced developers and
managers. It's terrible. I have an advanced CS degree, in-demand programming
skills and leadership experience. I've hunted for full-time, part-time, and
contracting work for a couple of months.

Interviews tend to go the following way: pass the initial interview, pass the
programming test, pass the technical interview and never hear back (even after
a couple of following up emails and/or phone calls). This grind really wears
down one's self-confidence and outlook. It's been a depressing summer.

I have over 12 months of living expenses in my savings account and a very
supportive wife, so I'm going to do a startup and see how far I can take it.
It feels like a better use of my time and promises some new learning
experiences compared to more interviewing.

~~~
thedufer
> in-demand programming skills

No offense, but hasn't your experience shown that, regardless of how strong
your skills are, they are clearly not in demand?

~~~
akadien
Maybe, but I doubt it. I've had no problem getting interviews and navigating
them. But I don't really know because most companies don't respond to follow-
ups asking for feedback on why I didn't get the job and what I could do
better.

------
startupdiscuss
I just have a point about the last piece of advice:

"Make small convex investments. Learn a little bit of a lot of things–machine
learning, internet of things, virtual and augmented reality, 3D printing."

I find a lot of advice to be diametrically opposed to this. Many other people
advise you to "go deep" in a single topic and be the expert on that topic. (It
also seems to contradict the point above it, but only if they are both read a
certain way.)

So which is better advice? Is there a study out there?

~~~
caseyohara
They're not mutually exclusive. You can learn a little bit of a lot of things
on the path to "going deep" in a single topic. I believe this is how you end
up with T-shaped skills:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-shaped_skills](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-shaped_skills)

~~~
superuser2
My dad is quite fond of this adage from a journalism school professor in the
80s: "know all about one thing, a little about everything, and where to find
the rest."

"T-shaped skills" or whatever you want to call them + the capacity to learn is
quite powerful.

~~~
brachi
Agreed. Learning how to learn is vital, and certainly not easy.

------
haney
I appreciate this author's "hope for sunshine but prepare for rain" philosophy
as opposed so many others view that either "the sky is falling" or "the good
times will last forever" narratives. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound
of cure.

~~~
athenot
This is akin to the mantra my wife had while working in the ICU:

"Hope for the best, plan for the worst."

------
thesehands
Certainly interesting. This felt out of place to me in the concrete actions
you can take now: "Keep having children because a) the world needs more smart
children and b) by the time they get really expensive, who knows what things
will be like." Sure these are fair points but dependents do limit ones ability
to make decisions 'suddenly'

~~~
mavdi
Indeed. As a dad I can say having kids is by far the most financial unsound
decision one can make.

~~~
dicroce
Life isn't all about money.

~~~
allemagne
"Having money's not everything. Not having it is"

~~~
mjrbrennan
Nice Kanye quote

------
morgante
I agree with the mentality, but the advice doesn't seem great. In particular,
I already follow all of it (even in good times you should have 6 months
savings).

Since I wasn't around during the dot-com crash, could some of the veterans on
HN give more practical advice on how to position yourself to ride out a crash?

Right now, my theory is to try to get yourself a job at a stabler tech company
with proven profitability (ex. Google). Does that make sense?

~~~
mgkimsal
> my theory is to try to get yourself a job at a stabler tech company with
> proven profitability

How about just a stable company, then make yourself valuable there? Sure if
you _like_ tech, you can try for google, but there's so many companies which
are dying for competent IT folks (even if their hiring practices seem to fight
it) that you can provide a load of value to people in almost any situation.
The question then comes up about are they positioned to pay you for that value
- is it valuable enough to them? Gotta spend a bit more time finding those,
but... they're definitely out there.

Basic advice - have a lot of savings, and if your main income stops, be extra
frugal (and... hey, even be frugal now if you can). "Cash is king", and having
buffer of months or years in the bank can give you time to be more selective
and avoid making panic-decisions (which generally aren't when you're in the
best frame of mind to make decisions).

~~~
morgante
My argument against other large companies is:

1\. They seem much more likely to undergo major layoffs than Google et al.. If
you're not growing, layoffs seem to be a constant.

2\. During layoffs, the first people to go are cost centers. IT is a cost
center unless your industry is technology.

3\. The difference in pay is astronomical. Like, easily 2-3x from the times
I've tried interviewing. Even small startups pay developers better (in cash)
than most non-tech companies seem to.

I'm not too worried about the savings thing. I think I'm covered for a decade
if necessary.

~~~
mgkimsal
> I think I'm covered for a decade if necessary.

Really? Not doubting you, but that would mean a whole fairly big pile of money
already.

I didn't say 'large' companies at all, did I? It's a balance finding
smaller/medium companies, but there's definitely loads where you can make an
impact and negotiate to be rewarded appropriately.

If you have 10 years of savings, why are you worried about layoffs?

~~~
morgante
> Really? Not doubting you, but that would mean a whole fairly big pile of
> money already.

It would entail moving to a lower cost locale (ie. not SF/NYC), but certainly
doable. It would also mean tapping everything besides my IRA.

I'm not really worried about layoffs. It's more that I would like to be
prepared. Also, even if I can survive financially, I'd rather avoid going
without an income for any extended period.

In terms of small/medium companies, it really seems like most of them outside
tech don't value IT at all. If they even have developers, they seem to
underpay them.

This might just be my bias though. I appreciate the advice and will be sure to
include a few smaller non-tech companies in my next job search.

~~~
mgkimsal
if you're already _in_ an area where those are viable options (goog, fb, etc),
then by all means. I made an assumption you'd prefer to move out there to
chase a job there.

good luck to you whatever happens!

------
daveguy
FTA: talking about a tech dip with a big external shock. He quotes: "another
US genital waving adventure" as one of the shocks along with banking crises,
trade route blocking, war, etc.

I had quite the wtf? moment with this one. Can someone explain to me what
"another US genital waving adventure" means?

~~~
anarchy8
I think he means the US Invasion of Iraq

------
carlmcqueen
Not a huge fan of the 'have kids, the world needs smart people' this seems to
pretend that his intended audience holds the key to wisdom and the only way to
keep that going is for his audience to have kids.

~~~
GrumpyYoungMan
It's been well established that children of parents with high education
levels, formal or informal (which describes the HN audience well), are
themselves more likely to be successful and well educated. Nothing really
controversial about that.

~~~
hx87
That's true, but in that case "keep adopting kids" would also work.

~~~
aianus
No, IQ is extremely hereditary.

~~~
CoryG89
The heritability of IQ is often estimated at 0.4 according to Wikipedia. Not
very high, but not insignificant. Height has 0.8 heritability.

Even if you're a genius, it doesn't mean your child will be. I think 0.4
suggests environmental factors are more important.

~~~
aianus
It's 0.4 in childhood, rising to 0.7 to 0.8 in adulthood.

Saying that you can adopt a child and raise him to be smart is approximately
as foolish as claiming you can adopt a child and raise him to be tall.

------
rubiquity
I don't live in Silicon Valley so this is a genuine question: Are things
starting to fall apart over there or is Kent Beck just offering up some sage
advice? (Either way: Thanks, Kent!)

~~~
potatolicious
The sky isn't falling, but there is a perceptible slowdown.

Which is probably the best time to start thinking about this, as opposed to in
the middle of a round of layoffs...

Tech as a whole is still growing briskly - FB/GOOG/AAPL/etc are evidence
enough of that.

But there have been some high-profile (and expensive) startup busts, and
certain niches are looking less healthy now than they were before (see: edu-
tech or med-tech). The net effect is that demand for engineering talent is
lower than before, but not by a catastrophic amount.

If you were extremely employable before, you are likely to still be extremely
employable now. If your interview skills were marginal before, you may not be
employable now.

~~~
abrichr
Other than the Theranos story, what makes you say med-tech is looking less
healthy (or edu-tech for that matter)?

~~~
potatolicious
Perception matters - my admittedly unscientific feel is that there's more due
diligence being done (which is a _good_ thing, good lord), which also means
less dumb money flowing around to companies that have no merit. Ed-tech I
think is in a similar space, though not because of any particular scandal.

More careful investors are good for the economy overall, but still represents
reduced hiring demand from the previously irrationally frothy peak.

------
mathattack
_Defer gratification until you have six months in the bank, if that’s an
option._

Phenomenal advice. Having some cushion when between jobs is great. It's also
peace of mind.

------
Globz
6 months in the bank is always nice to have and probably a must by now.

~~~
fs111
You could also live in a country where there is unemployment pay...

~~~
throwanem
In what possible way does unemployment coverage make having a few months in
the bank not a good idea? In my country, we have such coverage, and I've used
it. It doesn't suffice to meet any but the most nominal financial obligations,
and the bureaucracy involved in obtaining it is impressive - if you don't plan
to cover your own bills for the month or two before the checks start coming,
you're likely to be screwed.

------
rampage101
He does not seem to state any reasons he thinks "Winter is Coming".

The earnings of Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Google tell a different story
than his.

~~~
mgkimsal
> Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Google

We don't all work for these 4 companies.

There's lots of fluctuations in oil/energy, car makers are predicting slow
downs (which may have bigger implications in the near future), Brexit effects
are still being felt and worked out, and our own Fed doesn't seem confident
enough in the near term economy to commit to raising interest rates in the
near future.

~~~
yompers888
I believe Ford actually released very disappointing figures in the past few
days, so you can move that from the 'speculative' column to 'concrete'.

------
CoachRufus87
6 months of gross salary, net salary, or expenses?

~~~
samatman
How about: get 6 months of expenses, then get up to 6 months of net, then 6
months of gross, then keep saving at that rate while investing anything you
don't need to keep liquid? There is no ceiling past which it doesn't make
sense to have money.

~~~
mrec
That assumes decent real returns on investment, which I'm not convinced really
exist any more without taking on more risk than many are comfortable with. If
your savings get to a level where they're evaporating to inflation faster than
you can top them up, that arguably doesn't make sense any more.

Good piece on Bill Gross today which I largely agree with; key pull quote for
me is "capitalism cannot function efficiently at zero-bound rates".

[http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-funds-janus-gross-
idUKKCN10...](http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-funds-janus-gross-
idUKKCN10E1EY?il=0)

~~~
Jtsummers
Presently, in the US, inflation is 2-3% a year. Savings interest rates
definitely don't keep up, but they don't fall so far behind that your money is
evaporating.

Save up that 6 months of expenses, and each year keep adding to it to make up
for the "evaporating" amount. An extra $1000-2000 a year should be more than
enough.

Move the money into a CD ladder, which has a better opportunity for keeping up
with inflation, once you're more comfortable (about 1 year's worth of
savings). You effectively risk 1 year (but the cost of breaking a CD open
early isn't _that_ bad if worst comes to worst). You put your money into 4xCDs
at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. As each comes to maturity you bump them to 12
months. So every quarter you have one quarter worth of expenses accessible.
Keep 3 months worth of expenses in your checking account to ride out the wait
for the first CD. Now you actually have 15 months of savings. A single,
competent tech worker can easily achieve this after 3 years, probably earlier,
outside high cost of living areas.

~~~
mrec
I was thinking of chunkier savings, i.e. more on the order of 10-15 years'
worth of expenses. The evaporation starts to hurt more at that scale, and here
in the UK fixed rate bonds (which I think are the equivalent of your CDs)
still pay less than inflation. Even "official" inflation.

~~~
jlgaddis
If you have accumulated 10-15 years worth of savings, that money should be
somewhere it is earning a return (easily beating out inflation). It certainly
should not be in your savings or checking account at the local bank.

I have roughly six months worth of expenses in cash, that I could go take out
of the bank _right now_ should something happen. I'll be fine as long as the
remainder is somewhere I can get to (some of) it within six months -- and it
is.

~~~
mrec
I think you missed the first sentence of my earlier comment:

> That assumes decent real returns on investment, which I'm not convinced
> really exist any more without taking on more risk than many are comfortable
> with.

I can't see anything right now that isn't at bubble levels based on the
expectation of zero interest rates continuing forever everywhere. Maybe they
will, but I think at that point you're gambling rather than investing, and
gambling doesn't appeal to everyone.

~~~
yompers888
So maybe hold the cash and short-term assets you feel compelled to have, and
index the market with the rest? It may decrease in value for a time, but if
you avoid realizing those losses, it'll likely bounce back. If you think the
whole economy is in for a serious contraction with a decade+ horizon for
recovery, you could go into previous metals, but you may just be screwed
either way.

I actually do believe that the US is in for serious contraction due to the
unsustainable infrastructure and development patterns. I'm hanging out in the
market anyway, because the federal reserve and misplaced public trust in
municipal bonds will kick that can decades further down the road before we
ever face the facts.

Until then, I know that I don't have the forecasting ability of large banks,
so I play the game with the only advantage I've got: patience.

------
knavely
I have noticed that people who have lived through dramatic downturns tend to
look for a pattern or signs of it happening again. It's probably basic human
behavior, once you get burned by something you tend to flinch when you see
something similar.

I am also not saying he is wrong of course... But I have noticed similar
pessimism since 2012. People justifying being unadventurous with "the bubble
is gonna burst soon. I have lived through it before."

I wonder where else there can be growth though?

------
bogomipz
People have been beating the drums pretty loudly lately for a global downturn.
It almost feels like mainstream media is trying to cheer it into existence.

Yes there are "concerning" signals if you look - a decline in China's GDP, the
plunging price of a barrel of crude oil, Britain leaving the EU. There are
always areas of concern in even "good" times. However Op Ed columnists and
Cable TV pundits seem to be falling all over themselves warning of the
impending doom. And honestly it feels like sport.

Yes its always wise to have some saving, the more the better to a point any
way. However it also wise to realize that a lot of this is fear mongering by
the news media. And for an industry that has less credibility and relevance in
people's daily lives than it once did, a lot of this just feels very
contrived. Bad news sells, bad news is always good for the news media. There's
an old newsroom adage "If it bleeds it leads." I realize this was a FB post
and not a mainstream news media post but the fear mongering is starting to
have this effect.

My coat is in the closet right where I left it, its August now, the sun is out
and I'm wearing shorts.

------
abglassman
I think this is good advice- risk management is important in managing your own
career. It's easy to get complacent with recruiter outreach hitting your
InMail at a steady clip but macro, micro, exogenous, endogenous factors can
shift your short-to-medium term career prospects significantly.

------
Kinnard
Perhaps it may not be winter everywhere all at once?

~~~
TeMPOraL
It depends on the number of nuclear weapons that detonated.

------
jorblumesea
I would slightly disagree with the housing. At least in some areas, owning is
cheaper than renting, especially if you plan to stay in the area long term.
Seattle is definitely that way. Mostly you have to be smart and buy something
you can't afford. A decent fixer upper will put you in great financial shape.

------
pmiller2
6 months in the bank is pretty standard personal finance advice. The rest is
just good, solid career advice that applies to a greater or lesser extent any
time.

------
deadmik3
> Keep having children

Really? This is fiscal advice?

~~~
sp332
I think he means: don't put off having kids because the near-to-mid-term
outlook is iffy. Your kids (he says!) won't be super expensive until the long-
term, and since there's no way to know what that looks like, there's no reason
to put it off.

~~~
Qworg
In some ways, I disagree. I've found the expenses of children to be bathtub
shaped - very expensive up front, dropping until they start public school,
then ramping up slowly until they make the big jump to college.

~~~
cesarbs
How do they ramp up until college? We saw a considerable reduction in expenses
when our kid started public school, since we went from $$$ day care to $
after-school care. We expect expenses to stay somewhat the same until she hits
her teenage years when she'll likely become more demanding in terms of
clothes, going out with friends, etc. (at which point we plan on encouraging
her to find a part-time job).

~~~
Decade
Activities become more expensive. They require more sophisticated tools and
pretty much need their own computer to do homework every evening, they “need”
a phone and a data plan to stay connected and do group projects, there are
extracurricular activities to seem well-rounded for college applications; and
halfway through high school, they start driving.

Progressive Era reforms mean it’s harder to get them to make money, but they
are still expected to “volunteer” in community organizations. Many high
schools require “volunteer hours” to graduate, which means you drive them to
their job where they make no money and then they quit once they accumulate the
mandated hours. Working in one of these community organizations, I found it
pretty annoying.

------
dharma1
Words of wisdom here

------
joeevans1000
His financial advice includes "Keep having children". OMG, lol... uh...
speechless...

~~~
Kurtz79
I guess his point was: do not let your fear for an uncertain future keep you
from having children.

------
trevyn
And my favorite piece of advice: Don't take advice from people less successful
than you.

~~~
mavelikara
For a professional programer, if Beck is deemed "unsuccessful", I don't know
who among us you will call successful.

If you are a professional programer in 2016, you very likely are familiar with
the term "refactoring". This term was placed in our vernacular by the book
"Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code" by Martin Fowler [1]. In
the Preface to the book, Folwer writes:

    
    
        Once upon a time, a consultant made a visit to a development project. 
        The consultant looked at some of the code that had been written; there 
        was a class hierarchy ..
    
        ...
    
        I must admit to some bias here. I was that consultant. Six months later 
        the project failed, in large part because the code was too complex to 
        debug or to tune to acceptable performance.
    
        The consultant Kent Beck was brought in to restart the project, an exercise 
        that involved rewriting almost the whole system from scratch. He did several 
        things differently, but one of the most important was to insist on continuous 
        cleaning up of the code using refactoring. The success of this project, and 
        role refactoring played in this success, is what inspired me to write this book, 
        so that I could pass on the knowledge that Kent and others have learned in using 
        refactoring to improve the quality of software.
    
        ...
    
        In this book I describe the fruit of a lot of research done by others. The last 
        chapters are guest chapters by some of these people. 
        ....
        I've left the final word, Chapter 15, to the master of the art, Kent Beck.
        
        

You might also have heard of xUnit style of testing. Beck had a hand in many
of these frameworks.

TL;DR - pay heed to the history of your profession.

[1]: [https://www.amazon.com/Refactoring-Improving-Design-
Existing...](https://www.amazon.com/Refactoring-Improving-Design-Existing-
Code/dp/0201485672)

~~~
trevyn
This sort of demonstrates my point perfectly -- if you look at the most
successful people in the world, what percentage would you classify as a
"programmer"? And of those, how many are actively programming?

TL;DR - If you want to be in the top tier of success, don't take advice from
programmers.

~~~
nostrademons
Among _my_ most successful people, about 80%. Counting only those who are
actively programming it drops to around 50%.

It's easy to forget that the definition of success is relative. Someone you
consider a success might be considered a miserable failure in life by others.

