I wouldn't be surprised if Apple someday has a Windows (or whatever) version of Xcode. That is, in a kind of parallel to the OP's essay, Xcode as we know it isn't necessarily "Mac-only" but simply built for Mac first.
Comcast also did this to me. Not one of the several tech support people I talked with seemed to be aware of Comcast's non-hijacking DNS servers at 75.75.75.75 and 75.75.76.76.
... JavaScript and HTML injection when you reach a cap limit in a throttled market or when you get a cease and desist for pirating, however, is another matter.
Pretty sensible advice for dealing with long hours over an extended period, but I was confused by the use of the term "death march" which in terms of software development is known as an anti-pattern:
I think the author of the article used it intentionally. The premise of the article is that sometimes developers find themselves having to or choosing to do a death march despite knowing it's unsustainable long-term, and there are ways to make the death march more productive and mitigate the negative effects.
This article has little content in it, and I can't even parse which side of the debate you're trying to stake a claim to in this follow-up comment, though you seem to be very firmly on whatever side that is. Regardless of which side that may be, though, it seems appropriate to ask you if have more evidence than the word "preposterous" and some scare quotes around the word "fact".
You really need to work on your political rabble-rousing.
"Fact" because I can't tell if it's true. (I'll confess I have great doubt.) "Preposterous" because it doesn't seem possible a web site would cost that much. Relevant to HN because it's about a web site, and the readers here are well positioned to evaluate how such a thing might actually be true.
I was worried it might appear so, but I was not trying to rabble-rouse. Sorry if you mistook my intentions.
> solely to broadcast that don't-bother-me signal.
Current workplace has a no-headphones rule, exactly because of that.
Many people were donning headphones as soon as they arrived in the office and not taking them off until home time, simply to avoid having to interact with anyone else.
So now no-one can avail of shorter periods of non-interruption, but I understand why they banned them.
In-ear earphones seem to be tolerated, so long as they are removed when someone comes to talk.
Sounds like a terrible policy for concentration. On the surface management might think they are getting better results (more interaction) but it is probably at the cost of individual productivity.
Also someone signaling the entire day that they are not available is a big red flag either in terms of their workload, stress level, interpersonal interactions with some people, or some feelings in general at the company.
Either way its something to tap to find out what's going on.
I wear glasses and I have yet to find a pair of sufficiently isolating headphones that doesn't become painfully uncomfortable after 1 hour. And I've tried various high-end solutions.
Tried Etymotic earbuds? They come with a bunch of adapters to fit different sized ears. My model is of course discontinued but the mc5 looks closest. http://www.etymotic.com/ephp/mc5.html
edit: unlike any other earbuds I have tried, they are engineered to survive the inevitable wax-plugging. Just replace the filter & you're back in business.
I tried industrial earmuffs for a while (-25 dB), when I was in a noisy office, and they work. With another "layer" of in-ear phones you can work anywhere. They also send a stronger signal of "don't bother me", but some will find it rude.
Historical note about the logo illustration at the top of the essay (which predates the well-known red logo): it was internally referred to as "Uncle Stinky".
