I felt pretty anxious for much of 2019 and let it affect relationships at home and my general mental state, though from the general outside view I continued to function and perform at a high level like it sounds like you have. I likewise thought about work waking up and going to sleep, and ascribed much of my anxiety to my work situation.
I started by looking at the root cause for why work was stressing me out, rather than focusing on trying to remediate the symptoms like lower sleep quality and nausea. In my case, I found that my work was successful but didn't encourage the creative thinking that energizes me... My Sunday scaries and bouts of anxiety largely stemmed from the fact that I chose a job where performing a huge number of tasks very quickly was an important part of success. I know you say you don't feel talking to others will help, and that may be the case, but I found weekly therapy talking through this root cause to be super illuminating for what steps to take. Take that with a grain of salt because I'm an extrovert and process well out loud.
The solution, as frankly non-scientific and silly as it might sound, was to listen to my gut by doing things that allowed me to sense what energized me. I was really focused on what I was good at, rather than what I liked doing. So I started [1] cancelling and then not making as many social plans, [2] using Insight Timer for a 3m meditation in the morning and night, and [3] scheduling 6 hour blocks on Saturdays where I couldn't plan anything or do chores to self-soothe. I also [4] deleted social media apps from my phone to avoid anxious scrolling. I found that these tactics exposed me to more boredom and immediate anxiety symptoms, but eventually cleared enough headspace for me to imagine what would feel good to do. Surprise, surprise, the answer wasn't more work.
Partially as a result of these steps, I pulled a dramatic switch and quit to start a company, and have had an about-face in my anxiety levels. But quitting was only a solution because the actual type of work I was doing wasn't energizing, and the relevant thing to do was to quiet down for a few months and listen to myself.
In the meantime, sending you so much support. Anxiety is so tough, but it will get better as you process what comes next.
I think the author is right to point out the problems inherent to today's philanthropic environment (e.g. less money donated to lesser impact, measured by a number of metrics, globally)—particularly the inefficient outcomes created by major donors' ability to demand tons of information on program performance at a net cost to those programs efficacy due to cycles spent on such reporting.
(BTW, the phenomenon of insufficient and inefficient giving is only a "problem" if we agree that more wealth redistribution or a closing of existing wealth gaps is a good thing, so let's start there for this discussion and if you disagree let's discuss separately!).
But a huge missing point here is the issue of channel saturation in major giving; even if giving could be made more effective, there is almost certainly a cap on how much money can be redistributed through existing philanthropic channels.
IMO, new avenues for wealth redistribution have to be created, either outside of existing philanthropic channels or with major modification to existing ones as the author proposes. Frankly, all the media and academic coverage I've found on this topic is pretty light on details and there's very little funded research on this topic.
It feels like there are a few directions to move towards to solve the saturation issue: [1] don't get this rich, give away in smaller numbers more frequently such that parties are not in the position of generating and giving away wealth in sums too high to be absorbed by existing channels, [2] find a way to get taxed, because the US government can spend your money, be OK with the fact that this spending may not be net beneficial to folks, [3] innovate and build huge infrastructure around creating new, possibly non-philanthropic channels (incubators, money giveaways that aren't predicated on productivity or outcomes, etc.).
The issue with [3] is that it will still leave enough discretion up to the billionaire in question that funds may still not be distributed in a way or to a quantity that 1) maximizes possible impact or 2) distributes enough money to meaningfully address wealth inequality... Much to consider here.
This article (similar to the several others that have been posted on remote work today) didn't touch at all on how working remotely may affect companies' ability to combat implicit bias vis a vis promotions. From conversations I've had with folks in tech, it seems that many managers believe remote work will improve the fairness of their promotion processes because it removes vectors for implicit bias like how social a person is, what a person looks like, etc.
But it also removes what I've experienced to be a low-barrier opportunity for those who are quiet or unlikely to promote their work to do so—in person in a one-on-one setting. Without the opportunity to learn by example in-person, I worry that less experienced people (especially shy ones) in technical career tracks will not self-advocate. In turn, due to implicit bias that will inevitably shape manager-employee relationships, I fear they'll stall.
It's really not a solution to say that managers should be offering the conversations, because of course, managers inevitably will fail to do so in many corporate culture.
We are going remote-first from the jump, but as we scale I am pretty concerned about how to combat this phenomenon.
Ay carumba. Like many who have been posting about this, I really struggle with his attitude here.
I frequently have a knee-jerk emotional response to Zuck's commentary on this topic, but even taking a step back and assessing logically I have a fairly critical take:
1) If a founder is going to oppose corporate arbitration of "truth" of content on the basis that the venue for that content is a platform, then it's essential that the same policies be uniformly applied across the platform itself. If policies aren't uniform, then the venue isn't really a platform. But Facebook routinely arbitrates content on the basis of "accuracy" or "realness" to progress the business: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vietnam-facebook-exclusiv.... Why should policies be different domestically?
2) His reference to "private companies" and the inference that such companies shouldn't arbitrate content because they're private implies that public companies, by nature of being public, are somehow better equipped to arbitrate content (because the market can then respond to their arbitration through the stock price?). That attitude draws a logical relationship between share price and "rightness" that rubs me the wrong way.
I think I have to reserve judgment until the entire interview is released, since this is a snippet cut to hype the segment.
A recent work challenge for me is my decreased productivity and that of my coworkers during COVID. I'm experiencing a lot of frustration with myself for not being inured to the general weight of this time and being able to focus better (a frustration I don't apply to coworkers, for whom I have a lot more compassion than myself).
I've found myself referring back to The Plague fairly frequently and reread it last month. It may sound dark, but I find the sameness Camus describes in humans' reaction to difficult, at-scale problems comforting. It improves my ability to take it easy on myself (I'm not unique in feeling ennui/despair), which in turn has dramatically improved my focus. I also feel like it's given me a bit more context on and empathy for the widely varied reactions I experience with different folks in my business sphere - investors, customers, etc.
I started by looking at the root cause for why work was stressing me out, rather than focusing on trying to remediate the symptoms like lower sleep quality and nausea. In my case, I found that my work was successful but didn't encourage the creative thinking that energizes me... My Sunday scaries and bouts of anxiety largely stemmed from the fact that I chose a job where performing a huge number of tasks very quickly was an important part of success. I know you say you don't feel talking to others will help, and that may be the case, but I found weekly therapy talking through this root cause to be super illuminating for what steps to take. Take that with a grain of salt because I'm an extrovert and process well out loud.
The solution, as frankly non-scientific and silly as it might sound, was to listen to my gut by doing things that allowed me to sense what energized me. I was really focused on what I was good at, rather than what I liked doing. So I started [1] cancelling and then not making as many social plans, [2] using Insight Timer for a 3m meditation in the morning and night, and [3] scheduling 6 hour blocks on Saturdays where I couldn't plan anything or do chores to self-soothe. I also [4] deleted social media apps from my phone to avoid anxious scrolling. I found that these tactics exposed me to more boredom and immediate anxiety symptoms, but eventually cleared enough headspace for me to imagine what would feel good to do. Surprise, surprise, the answer wasn't more work.
Partially as a result of these steps, I pulled a dramatic switch and quit to start a company, and have had an about-face in my anxiety levels. But quitting was only a solution because the actual type of work I was doing wasn't energizing, and the relevant thing to do was to quiet down for a few months and listen to myself.
In the meantime, sending you so much support. Anxiety is so tough, but it will get better as you process what comes next.