Advice from a once burnt-out programmer
miketec.org
miketec.org
One of the best jobs I've ever had was manual labor: I was a bellman for a hotel. My primary job responsibilities included lifting heavy luggage in 100-degree heat, being yelled at by cranky guests, and running around non-stop for 10-hour shifts. What made it great? I was almost completely autonomous, and I got paid a little bit of money every time I did some work. There was almost always a direct consequence when I did good work, and nobody told me how to do my job. (My boss didn't even work on the same shift!)
I've worked a lot of much more "comfortable" jobs since that time, and I've had a lot of time to think about why that luggage-monkey job was so much better than nearly all of the intellectual gigs I've held. So far, I think it boils down to a simple point: there's no worse tyranny than being told how to think. No matter how much luggage I lifted, I was always free with my thoughts. But when you work in an industry where your thoughts are your primary output, it's inevitable that someone (or something) will try to consume all of them. When that happens, you're on a path to burnout.
I don't read it that way at all. He's addressing burned-out people. When you're burned out, you find yourself believing with all your heart that your job is the worst job in the world. He's cautioning against that.
He's saying that desk jobs aren't actually all that bad, provided you know the risks. Avoid burnout, and know its warning signs, and you may be able to sustainably appreciate the virtues of your desk job.
Another issue may be the social aspect of manual labor. I worked on a plastic assembly factory, with a more natural mix of male and female coworkers than any tech job I've had.
The pay and shifts sucked, but at least it felt...natural. Work your shift, grab a brew, and go out with a few of the mates after the gig. Good times.
I had a friend who was a almost-stellar IT career, depending on how you define it.. Anyway, he was doing well by most measures. In his late 20's he quit to become a ski instructor and train to compete in cross country.
He had a great time, got to do some physical work -- however, the main thing was that it made no difference to his career.
I think if you said to a lot of people - take 2 years out, climb mountains, be a landscape gardener, whatever - they would think this would be career suicide. The thing is that's rarely the case, and from the evidence I've seen it's actually the opposite (i.e. people who come back are well regarded).
Pretty much anyone I talk to late in their career (60+) usually say they wished they'd taken 1, 2, 3+ years out to do other things.
And just like that, quitting a cubicle job to work manual labor while coding at night is no longer even a tiny bit bit scary.
If it wasn't for Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and lifting, I would be lost.
Training BJJ and MMA is physical, skill-based and social. I train with people who don't care if I miss or make the next paper deadline. They only care that I show up, work hard, and be friendly. Lifting by myself has a meditative quality.
Most people go through a week without ever exposing themselves to real physical exertion, and I have no idea how they cope.
I thought that trying to code a new site and write an album at the same time would work. It didn't. My ability to write songs just disappeared.
However, I took Christmas off from creativity and now I'm flying.
Doing the same thing over and over again for years at the hours the writer says he was working is sure to induce burnout. But if you change even the industry you're writing for and/or the type of projects you're working on, as well as mixing some fun personal programming stuff in there, that helps to alleviate burnout.
That said, I think it's important to have a life outside of one's job. That way, one can escape to fuel up the batteries. Getting a girlfriend, doing some sports and having vacations is a really good way of preventing a burnout.
You are an idiot.
I found the article to be pretty good aside from that comment, which was a little too on the nose to be funny for me...
But we're arguing semantics here. I wrote my response because the way in which joubert dismissed the possibility of the author's comment being sarcasm strongly implied that he regarded the military as an inherently violent organisation to which only violence-loving terrorist-killing wannabes would aspire. I resent that.
We agree so far. I don't think it's just semantics, but my "politics" probably differ radically from most of the crew here (and I don't expect to change anyone's mind), so I'll leave it at that.
I get that his list of reasons was largely sarcastic. But that suggests he's (at least somewhat) cynical about the military. Given that, I don't understand why he'd join up. Especially when he implies that he had/has specific knowledge that he'd likely be sent to Iraq and told to kill people. I just don't find it funny. Maybe I missed the point.
He is cynical about the opinions many civilians have about the military.
If you don't know that everyone in the military is cynical about the military, you know very little about military folks.
Projecting seems to be especially common among the "intellectual" class.
Yes, it's really quite funny. If you're an American & you can't see the humor, try visualizing China invading Iraq instead.
I found absolutely nothing strange about that bullet point. Although, he joined the Marines, which means as a member of the Army I have to hate him.
Iraq is just an issue of economic control. Either Iraqi's can control Iraqi oil, or we can. In fact it has nothing at all to do with terrorism, that is just for the weak minded to buy into. What it has to do with his privatizing oil. American companies do not benefit from publicly owned oil in Iraq, but if multinational or American-owned corporations own Iraqi oil, then the American people benefit. Think about it: would you rather have the Iraqis own the Iraq oil, or would you rather have the benefit of American companies owning it instead? Personally, I have a slight moral gripe about taking away people's natural resources and giving it to multinational corporations, but hey, that's just politics. War is politics by other means. Always been that way, always will be that way.
Japan was right (from their point of view) to do Pearl Harbor, because it eliminated the threat caused by the American navy, and solidified their economic control of the Pacific rim. Similarly, the US was right (from our point of view) to do the Iraq war, because it got oil out of the hands of the indigenous peoples of that region and into our hands, benefiting us, not them, and eliminating the threat caused by Hussein at the same time. Please note I say "right" not as in morally right, but just right from the point of view of economic dominance.
Violence is incidental. It is just a necessary part of war. The real point is economic control. True with Japan. True with the United States. Is that "moral" or "just". I don't know. I would like to think not. But apparently the 50 million people who voted for President Bush would disagree with me.
Situation Normal All Fucked Up is a classic military saying and places like Iraq are the root cause of a lot of messed up situations.
Maybe he went to Iraq only later when the terrorists were already there, thinking whatever the reason for them being there I want them out (which is a worthy goal in my opinion).
This discussion isn't appropriate for this forum; feel free to email me if you want to discuss this further.
A) The US invades Iraq and suddenly tens of thousands fly there (not the US) to do their bombings and beheadings.
or
B) The US ends a dictatorship that kept the 65% Shiia majority down and there's civil war, which includes bombings and beheadings, and the US Military declares it to be Al-Queda to give soldiers the idea that they're "fighting evil" rather than just killing the people that live there.
What we don't know, and probably never will, is what share of attrocities has been committed by which group. I do share your skepticism about information coming out of partisan sources.
Which groups are deliberately blowing up the Palestinian civilians? Are they terrorists? (Hint: see Chomsky's article http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/20316)