This is flame war now, but there are > 1 person who can run a company successfully. No Eich != bad company. Blame current leadership not lack of specific leadership.
Firefox of course. It has the most add-ons, most compatibility/support with other sites, services, software. And it has fewer bugs than newer browsers. If you just want a general purpose browser, Firefox is it. Chrome is always an option too, and they certainly have some useful extra features, but they'll also remove support for things if it conflicts with Daddy Alphabet.
I don't think so, but in practice when running uBlock on Chrome I still don't see ads. It's less efficient under the surface but the user experience hasn't changed significantly.
This is the dream. But the author even mentions the reality
>Having tried this both ways, I can say that having a steady salary (and health insurance!) allows me to do much better work than when I was worried about my next source of funding.
So yes, there are, in theory, no gates of knowledge or funding. But overall this reads as a lucky person passionately encouraging those considering the same path, but from a very lucky position of survivorship bias.
Do you feel that your technical skills, people skills, or luck have helped you to avoid any ageist treatment you've encountered over the years?
Especially in scenarios where "deciders" are younger than you.
This should be pinned as the top comment on 80% of these kind of blog posts as a reality check. Don't get me wrong, I'm (relatively) young, ambitious, and love growth and learning. So I eat these posts up.
But as I age and grow, I notice the challenge of the balancing act more and more.
"I wouldn’t do it every year, because I would probably collapse from exhaustion, but I’m grateful to have been able to contribute to such a project."
Why should the comment be pinned when it doesn't even grasp that the blog post isn't advocating, at all, that people should be in high-growth sprint mode 24/7/365?
I think because of that very error - it’s not advocating that, but it’s so easy to think you must always be like that, when reading articles like this.
> I think because of that very error - it’s not advocating that, but it’s so easy to think you must always be like that, when reading articles like this.
I've met hundreds of co-workers and literally none of them has ever advocated for an unbalanced work-life balance, except in the case of over-balancing towards life (that is, neglecting very reasonable duties at work, that are relied upon by others).
I've also read hundreds of thousands of HN comments, and very, very few of them advocate for a bad work-life balance or spending all of your time and energy at your job, being vastly outnumbered by comments calling for balance.
I don't see any evidence that "it’s so easy to think you must always be like that, when reading articles like this" - especially because only someone lacking basic critical thinking skills will think that a description of what something is, is advocating for doing that thing.
Articles like this are written and promoted expounding the benefits of this kind of productivity, regardless of the actual reality of it. It's not just easy to think it, its the cultural millieu to push people in this way.
Good writing is hard, but it's also very easy to just regurgitate patterns of nonsense buzzwords you see everywhere else. I've seen many people hear that and just nod their head. Sadly it convinces some.
I agree that the selection for memorization is high, and I've worked with many neuroscientists who cared more about biological "stamp collecting" than understanding systems.
But in my experience neuroscientists have to have a solid level of systems thinking to succeed in the field. There are too many factors, related disciplines (from physics to sociology), and levels of analysis to be closed off.
reply