The others bother me because they're essentially malicious caricatures. This one feels like a dose of sympathy.
Also do note that the text is heavily copying The Little Prince, to the extent that all characters are also malicious caricatures of adults, with only one of them actually being perceived positively, so I tried to play to the original.
- Pays (decent).
- You’re good at.
- You enjoy.
The order is equally important as depending on which comes first the sustainability evaporates.
"It is the time you have spent on your system that makes it so important", the man added, "and when you lost sight of why it made sense to spend time on it, when it became a game of pride, it caused more grief than relief.
"Developers have often forgotten this truth; If you lose sight of things, working on your system becomes its own problem, and the most effective solution is to get rid of the system, given it's the problem."
This story is easily one of the best depictions of the software engineering profession I've ever come across. I originally got hooked on programming because of the thrill of solving "intricate problems"... but the fleeting nature of that thrill only becomes more and more apparent as time goes on. Fundamentally I think it's necessary to have a deeper motivation, a bigger "why" behind what you do, in order to sustain your satisfaction from day to day.
Some of it is Erlang specific but other posts are quite general about distributed systems, overload handling, etc.
He is also the author of https://learnyousomeerlang.com/
I did not have time to read the original over lunch but found it and saved it for later.
I'm sure like many things in life now that I know about it I'll see references to it everywhere I go.
Derivative or not I really enjoyed it and that poor dev ops lady really struck a chord in me, been there, done that.
Actually, Dunning and Kruger simply showed that a person's estimate of their own skill tends to be closer to the mean, plus a little than their actual skill level.
The Dunning-Kruger effect has probably been a bit distorted because we like the idea that thinking you are good at something is evidence that you are not, in fact, good at that thing.
See also "what the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t" - https://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-...
The paper showed a difference in the size of the error between top and bottom quartile students that was larger than you would expect if it were just uniform error. When you think about it, this seems pretty damn obvious... if you are bad at something, you are also bad at knowing that you are bad at it. But if you are good at something, you have a more accurate understanding of your own skills. In short, if you're good at something, you probably know that you are good at it.
This is what goes against the popular notion of the Dunning Kruger effect. Many people seem to use Dunning Kruger as some kind of twisted justification for impostor syndrome, where you are not permitted to think you are good at something because it would paradoxically imply that you are not good at it. I say this, just because I know too many people suffering from impostor syndrome, and this incorrect impression of Dunning Kruger seems to be a contributing factor.
Can't do it any more, I have no more fucks to give about saving the world and awesome profits.