lsc

For me, solving technical problems often gives me a great deal of satisfaction. I mean, it is sometimes a real slog, too... nothing is fun all the time... but sometimes the worst slogs come with the greatest satisfaction. and sometimes not! Sometimes you work hard and get nothing. it happens. It's okay to work hard sometimes. It's okay for that to be unpleasant sometimes. Difficult experiences are part of what it is to be a human.

I mean, sure, it's impolite to complain all the time, but I would have to be way more desperate than I am to take a job where I always have to pretend to be happy; I have a pretty nice technical individual contributor role, and that's one of the strongest reasons I avoid management when I can, even though, as you point out, if I had better emotional regulation; if I was better able to be happy (or disappointed or angry) on command I would be able to make more money as a manager. (don't get me wrong; I can totally see myself being that desperate. And if I thought I had a reasonable chance of holding down a management job for very long, I'd have to think long and hard on it.)

It's more than that, though. Those roles, acting happy all the time feels... inauthentic to me. For that matter, nearly all of the "self improvement through positive thinking" stuff feels inauthentic to me; self-improvement, for me, is accomplished through introspection and work.

The other thing I want to mention is your negativity towards chasing money. It's... well, it's a tell for someone who either is rich or is trying to sound rich. For most of us? The money and security is the first goal when choosing a career. It has to be, for most of us.

I mean, sure, if you are (or are trying to pretend) that you are wealthy enough that you don't need to work for a living, I mean, that's great... I'd love to be in that position, and I understand that for some jobs, you've gotta pretend like you are when you aren't. but note that to those of us who aren't, uh, "financially secure," it comes off as bragging in a particularly insensitive way if you pull it off and we believe you are rich, or insincere if we know you have a car payment. I mean, sure if you only work with other people who are super rich, it's different, but be aware that you are usually in mixed company.

I personally think that seeing genuine joy about being wealthy is nicer to see than this "oh, money means nothing" - I mean, I want to be rich too, of course, and I can understand that you enjoy your fancy new car or whatever; that's not insulting me, even if I can't afford the car. But saying that there's something wrong with picking a career for the money is insulting me and everyone else who doesn't have a large trust fund.

Knowing how to tell computers how to do things is essential, and there will be more and more computers that need to be told what to do. the question is "can we teach everyone to do this job?" if the answer is yes, then of course, it will get cheap. If the answer is no, then we're going to be wealthy for the rest of our days.

Nobody knows the answer to this question. In the '80s and '90s, programming tools got better and better and we all thought that we'd have some rational case tool type deal that managers would voice activate and make software without programmers, or, if programmers were still needed, they'd be regular joes making regular joe money. And that looked realistic. as a teen in the mid '90s, home computers were super common and a bunch of people at my (not very good) high school did basic programming. None of us thought this was the road to dentist money. (but then, most of us would have been pretty happy with manufacturing money. Expectations were low.)

In the aughts, this idea fell away, and now in the teens, it's nigh unthinkable; big companies throw a lot of money at the best computer people they can find, and these people then code in editors that look primitive compared to the IDEs of the late '90s. I strongly suspect we'll see some swing back towards more reliance on tools and less reliance on genius in the coming decades, just 'cause I expect things to cycle that way. I personally think there's something to genius? but... I also think that things won't always be as good for us as they are now. Perhaps it is because I started my first programming job in '97, but I expect business cycle swings to be extreme and temporary. The business cycle goes up and the business cycle goes down.

If you had my opportunities (i.e. no college) I'd say that CS was almost certainly your best bet; go deep, go hard, ignore everything else and get yourself a job while the getting was good. learn breadth later. But if you are the sort who got into an elite school, well, you have a lot more opportunities, most of which I probably don't entirely understand (and that I'm certainly not qualified to evaluate)

I would bet all the money I can borrow on the continued importance of computers... but my personal bet? my personal bet is that in the future it will be more like literacy. Sure, sure you need to be able to tell computers what to do. but you also need to know a thing so you know what to tell them to do. Tools will continue to evolve. There will be lots of spaces for people who can understand both what we are trying to get the computer to do (be that business, medicine, whatever) and how to tell the computer how to do it.

My own advice to you is to get some breadth. I mean, if you can, get that FAANG internship; working at a top-tier company has huge differences in pay and prestige from working at a second or third tier company. Do that now while it's hot, if you can. (this is general advice I'd give to young me: don't be so afraid of super hot trends, they are fun, and super remunerative!)

It took me two decades (more if you count the IT work I did in high school) to get to a top-tier company, and it is a huge difference. If you can do that out of college? you will have a huge leg up financially. (and in terms of choices as to what you can do next)

All that said, you have a lot more opportunities than I did. You'll be fine. Enjoy it. Learn stuff. meet interesting people. Leave college with a full rolodex (or linkedin or whatever) and call (or email or however you kids communicate) every now and then. friends are great on a bunch of levels.

I use a kinesis advantage2 with brown cherry keyswitches. (I think it's available with others) - my only complaint is that it's kinda giant.

Overall, it's pretty great; if you don't want to build your own, and if you don't want to change your keyboard, it's the best choice because it has been in production since the early '90s with few changes to layout; for me? this is big- changing layout is a big deal. The kinesis has been in production long enough that I am pretty confident I won't have to learn a new layout until keyboards go by the wayside

It's probably the least portable keyboard I've owned, though.

Oh yeah, link to buy:

https://kinesis-ergo.com/keyboards/advantage2-keyboard/

You can get them next-day from amazon, too, which is nice for essential parts such as these.

>Lead in solder is not a safety hazard unless you eat it

mm. most of the leaded solder I've used has a bunch of warnings on it about washing your hands after using it before eating or smoking (most of my leaded solder usage was during a time when smoking was more common in the US)

Lead is a pretty soft metal; there are ways it can get into your system besides vaporization. And it's toxic in an extremely scary way; neurological damage is scarier than lung cancer, if you ask me.

Personally, if there were kids in the house I absolutely wouldn't ever use leaded solder. I mean, sure, if it's only you and you are careful and your stuff is in a case or otherwise not handled, maybe it's fine, but it's a very soft, reactive, toxic metal that can cause neurological damage, especially to children. There are a lot of reasons to avoid it.

so I think what I'm describing here is different from the link - my employer deducts post-tax money from my paycheck into the 401k, then rolls that over into something that will roll over into a roth IRA when I leave the company. As far as I can tell, that's what OP was speaking of (See the "Daily roth in-plan conversion" portion of the paycheck deduction screenshot.)

eh, it conveys all the advantages of a roth IRA, plus (I believe possibly) stronger bankruptcy protections, (because it's rolled over from a 401K) - so assuming you can contribute to it (which is to say, you have money after maxing your pre-tax 401K) I think that it's a thing you should consider.

Note, I think that maxing out your pre-tax retirement savings first is a good idea because it manages risk well; when you go to withdraw, you pay taxes based on how much you withdraw; If you are rich when you retire, you'll pay a lot of taxes, but that isn't exactly a disaster. If you don't have enough to withdraw a lot, you won't pay a lot of taxes on the other end as-is, and you will have put more in on the other side, so you are net better off. So overall, I agree that pre-tax contributions should be maxed out first, but after that? if you have the opportunity to add another 26K/yr to a roth IRA, and you are making the kind of money where you can swing it, it's probably a good idea.

(Note, I'm no expert. I'd be interested to hear why you think that saving in post-tax accounts is better than saving in roth IRA accounts, if that's what you are suggesting.)

Perhaps what op has in mind is that some of these big companies let you contribute post-tax money to your 401K (that you can then roll over into a roth IRA even if you are above the income limits to contribute directly to a roth) there's a like $56K limit on what you put in your 401K. (this is the total of your pre-tax contributions + your employer matching + your post tax contributions)

Sure, you can just stuff money in your brokerage account and save money post-tax, but then you go without the bankruptcy or tax protections that the stuff that goes through your 401K gets, so there's a lot of benefit to maxing your 401K in these situations. if you can swing it, it's worth scrimping, because as far as I can tell, I can only get money into my 401K that is processed through payroll (bonus and base, but not stock) and jobs that have these post-tax 401Ks are rare, in my experience, so when you get the chance, it's worth some pain to take advantage of it.

I remember my first year at a company with retirement plans like this, I took my signing bonus in cash ('cause I didn't get my 401K sorted by then) but my 'net pay' was 0 for many months afterward as I worked to max out the 401K before year-end

inevitable. After spending the last year or two without a car at all, in part 'cause lyft and uber had started subtly raising prices, I bought a car a few months back.

I mean, I was a little sad, it was really really nice being driven everywhere... but fundamentally, I'm not quite rich enough to pay market-clearing prices to get driven everywhere. My own impression was that for the last few years, softbank has been subsidizing my own luxury rides, which was really nice! but it was also obviously not sustainable.

my own observation all along was that a lot of the price variation was "specials" - it used to be I could count on some discount several times a week. the biggest price increase I experienced, the one that pushed me to buy my own car, was seeing fewer of these.

Interestingly, now that I have a car and only use uber/lyft when drinking or otherwise away from a car, I get more discounts and specials again.

From talking to drivers, it's similar for them; a significant amount of their income consists of specials, for doing X drives in Y time period.

>Once you lose a capability it’s gone forever

This is... not my impression, from working around Engineers all my life. My impression is that cutting edge manufacturing techniques from the '80s are now available, cheaply, to hobbyists. Stuff these guys put in the basement and work on then they are sick of javascript. (FDM aside, I could walk to several CnC lathes and... three large laser cutters from where I am right now, all dedicated to hobby usage, all of which see pretty regular use)

My impression is that if you paid your professional engineers as much to design automated widget factories as you pay them to design advertising systems, they'd make something serviceable. And sure, rev 1 isn't going to be as good as rev 2, it never is, The institutional knowledge effect is big... I'm just saying it's not insurmountable, and the US is a rich country. If we cared, we'd spend money and solve the problem.

I personally think the big capability we are putting in danger right now is the capability the US has always had to hoover the best minds from all over the world, to persuade them to come and set down roots and work in the US. That's the long term problem I see with the way we're going.

I think the second big capability we are putting in danger is that culturally, my impression is that the US is valuing education less than it used to. As a side effect, we're not paying to educate our people (and, I would argue, my compatriots are becoming harder to educate as a result.)

The long term advantage China has over the US is not really institutional knowledge; the long term advantage is that they are putting a lot more effort into education than we are, (and we are not scooping up those educated minds the way we used to.)

Re-training an Engineer from one field to another is a lot easier than bringing someone up to speed who isn't educated; I've watched both happen, and... one is definitely less effort than the other.

I think that most of this effect is just how cheap precision is, and the fact that the cost of raw materials hasn't dropped; I mean, compare my ikea shelves to my parent's heavy metal furniture from the '60s. at first glance, the ikea stuff looks super cheap; but the tolerances! in many ways, my ikea furniture is a marvel of engineering. It's essentially a bit of cardboard encased in a very thin layer of whole wood, and it works!

But I do like the feel on the older stuff that consumed more material.

Nope, I'm not any good at any of the maths. My own model is that it's like reading, you need a critical mass of vocabulary and/or grammar (one can make up for the other, to some extent) before you can understand much of anything. with most subjects, if you understand 80% of the paragraph, you can fill in the blanks pretty easily, and thus your learning rate goes way up.

That, and I think like reading, it takes a lot of practice, and that practice is really hard before you are good enough at reading to see the story. I think I'm at the point in math where I can't read it well enough for it to tell me a story, so practice is a real slog, just like it was for reading at that point.

sure, but... I mean, the tech has changed so much and gotten so much better.

If we threw the sort of effort (and by effort, I mean money) into reindustrialization that we throw into, say, selling ads, the problem would fall pretty quickly. Heck, the net effect would be that the same people would work on it, if the money shifted.

(I actually think the bit about using most of the same people is... pretty true? half the programmers I support are actually trained as some other sort of engineer; but writing code is massively more remunerative, say, than actually working as a chemical engineer or mechanical engineer, and programming is something that can be done by nearly everyone who can handle the education, as far as I can tell, required to become a real engineer)

>A decade or two passes and rebooting your widget industry will be an order of magnitude harder than it was to start in the first place.

Eh, you don't want any of the old equipment anyhow, you want new computer controlled stuff. I mean, sure, the people making that equipment need to have some experienced machinists, but... not so many of them; you mostly want Engineers for this job.

I think the problem America has is not with losing existing factories, but in how little value we place, culturally, on education.

I... think that in the modern era, "real war" is a different sort of thing from "trade war" - a difference in kind, not degree, in a way that just wasn't so when Tzu wrote.

The fact of the matter is that both the US and China could survive (albeit with a lower standard of living) without external trade entirely. I don't think the same could be said for an all-out war.

An all-out war between the two countries would likely kill most of us and put the standard of living of the few survivors below what you and I would call 'civilization' - one side might lose harder than the other, sure, but the consequences would be essentially unthinkable for both.

I freely admit that I don't know a whole lot about China, and even less about the government of China. But I do know a fair number of people who are or were Chinese citizens who either now work here or do a lot of business with the US.

That's what I mean by trade spreading ideas. These people clearly have learned a lot from American culture (and I have learned a lot from them) - I personally think that when trying to get things done, the more people you have from different backgrounds, the more different ideas you have, and the more likely you are to come up with a good solution.

(And further, this trade war, as I understand it, isn't about talking the CCP into treating it's citizens better, it's about tariffs and subsidies, matters with far less moral force.)

>You mean autarky, full economic self-sufficiency. China is certainly big enough to operate as an autarky. The US used to, up to about 1980 or so.

You think the US is less industrially capable than in 1980? that... seems unlikely. Sure, we import and export a lot more of our stuff now than we did then, but that's because we live a lot better when we trade (and because the technology of trade has improved vastly.)

I mean, certainly, both the US and China could survive without trade. hell, there are a bunch of people who could pull it off just by themselves. But... in all cases, all involved would be a lot poorer; they'd work a lot harder for a lot less.

>It's seems uncommon for people to consider if our trade with China before this "war" was fair.

So, I'm not an expert, but... my understanding is that China is accused of subsidizing domestic manufacturing. Analogous to the sort of dumping that uber and lyft do, really; Much like how Softbank subsidizes my ride to work in the hope that they can jack up prices once I get really used to it, the Chinese government is subsidizing my consumer goods purchases, with the hope that manufacturing will decline elsewhere to the point where they can some day jack up prices to market-clearing levels.

I mean, is that fair? no. Is this something the market does on the regular, even without government having a hand in it? yes. Is this bad for the USA? If we lose manufacturing ability, probably... but this has been going on for a generation now. How long would it take us to re-gain or move the manufacturing of our consumer goods? (we already keep manufacturing of defense goods in the USA, for exactly this reason. My own guess is that if there was economic reason to move more high-touch human labor intensive manufacturing in-house, we'd make like BMW and build plants in South Carolina and similar places with fewer unions, and we already do a bunch of automated manufacturing here.) - the implication here is that just like Uber and softbank, I am not sure this is a long-term profitable thing for China to do, and I have the (controversial) opinion that the market in the USA is healthy enough that if we needed to build more manufacturing here, we could do it pretty quickly)

(I mean, the other side of this, the complex part that I personally don't entirely understand is that the USA subsidizes a lot of domestic industry, too... most famously the agriculture sector. As a us citizen, I totally support my tax dollars being used to make sure that we overproduce food. That seems like an extremely reasonable thing to do. (it does get more complex when that food is sold elsewhere, but I am not an expert) - My understanding is that the US also subsidizes a lot of US manufacturing... I mean, my feelings on that are more mixed... but I personally don't see subsidies as inherently evil or incompatible with doing lots of trade with another country.)

>It seems like most people just parrot: "War. Bad."

We're talking about a trade war here, which is a different sort of animal.

Please understand that I'm saying "Trade: good" - a subtle difference. And I do think that trade is usually good, even trade with someone who is subsidizing their goods.

(I have... very different feelings about trade sanctions, about restrictions on trade as a way to get a country, say, to respect human rights. But I don't think that's what the trade war with China is about; the trade war with China, as I understand it, is about tariffs and subsidies)

>recurring payments are a problem by themselves, the more of them you have, the more problem they are.

In some ways, I agree. In others, I don't. I mean, the problem is largely in the difficulty of unsubscribing. If that were easier to manage (and virtual cards are one way to deal with that) I think it's not such a problem, and even has some advantages. But you could easily argue that this difficulty of unsubscribing is built into the business model; people who sell subscription based services know that the harder it is to unsubscribe, the more money they will make, so... incentives are not, as it were, aligned, and that tends to lead to suboptimal outcomes.

I think there are valid arguments for the subscription model; I know before buying a car, I rent all of the models I'm considering, for a week or more. This is often harder with things like software, which don't have as strong of ownership protections as physical goods, meaning I usually can't rent software to try it out, if it's not sold on a subscription plan. I'd consider renting a car permanently, (except that it's either massively expensive or massively inflexible; getting out of a lease, as far as I can tell, is way harder than selling a car, and renting cars outside of a lease is uneconomical. I feel the same way about commercial real-estate; usually the penalties for breaking a lease seem a lot worse than just selling the goddamn building a year into ownership. And this is possibly your objection; if you have perfect knowledge of your future needs, buying software up front is probably a lot cheaper. But, without the ability to sell the software when you are done, it's not really comparable.)

>If you're wealthy enough to put money for couple years worth of service into a virtual CC for every service you can use, you're probably wealthy enough to manage all this stuff for you anyway.

I think wealthy people would be willing to pay for an easier solution to this. I would. the virtual credit card solution is clumsy because the software is bad (I haven't actually gotten the capital one solution suggested earlier setup, it might be great, but the citi solutions and the now defunct bank of America solutions require flash and are... clumsy) - the problem isn't the money; for all the virtual credit card solutions I've tried, the payment goes to your regular credit card, so you don't need to sink any capital, it's just work

(but, of course, this is mostly about how difficult it is to cancel subscription services. If it were easy, this wouldn't be a problem. - I think this is our major point of disagreement.)

Thanks for the suggestion. That does sound exactly like what I want. I'll be ordering a few pairs to see if it works out as well as it sounds.

>The US lost a LOT of capability over the last 20 years

citation needed...

My understanding was that US manufacturing output has been steadily growing (even if employment has been falling) for all of that time.

I heard that but never got it setup. I did a bunch more poking today, and it looks like they want me to use a chrome extension (I'm mostly a safari person) I should spend more time looking up how to get that working, 'cause it was way more convenient than just canceling my credit cards every six months.

most wool pants are dry clean only. I actually don't know anything about the actual context of these pants when in use.

https://go-armynavy.com/military-surplus/collectibles/austra...

(I'm not vouching for that vendor, but I'm pretty sure that's what I've got. I got mine from ebay)

>Not sure if you've noticed, but manufacturing is starting to come back in the US. Industrial automation and skilled trades jobs are starting to be a thing again. These are solid middle class jobs that often dont require a degree. Its coming at the expense of some pain in other areas, but it might be an overall positive.

My understanding is that most of the really good paying manufacturing jobs aren't coming back; the manufacturing that is coming back is non-union and pays worse than a union job (and much worse, say, than the better IT jobs that don't require a degree.)

I personally think it's super weird that people (especially in the USA) seem to think that manufacturing jobs are inherently better than other jobs, when my impression is that most of the pay advantages are simply that it is a class of jobs that unionized while it was in high demand, preserving some of the benefits of being a high demand job through a time when demand had fallen.

eh, but the comment you are responding to had a solution that worked for me for some time. I haven't used privacy.com, but bank of america used to have a way for me to create virtual credit card numbers; I'd simply create one for every subscription I had, and it was really easy to just disable the virtual credit card.

Bank of America has discontinued this service, and I haven't setup a new workflow, which is disappointing. but I mean, it is one solution.

>Is it really free when China had much greater tariffs on US goods than Chinese goods had come into the US? Is it really free when Chinese entities get to enjoy massive subsidies to dump products while foreign companies face nonmarket barriers?

so you are saying that a trade war is successful if there are fewer barriers at the end than at the beginning? That's a reasonable definition, but that would benefit both parties, so it still doesn't really show a "winner"

> And facing the CCP will have a cost.

But if you define a successful trade war as one where there are fewer barriers to trade at the end than at the beginning, that will benefit both parties.

I mean, one could argue that free trade (well, more trade) is going to make your society more free in general, is going to introduce more ideas and things like that, I suppose, and you could also argue that trading more with a country makes it less likely you will go to war with them, but these things aren't really about crushing your competitor.

I'm just saying, from where I stand (and I'm first to recognize I'm not an expert here) it sure looks like my country is trying to make things harder for China, and is paying the price of making things harder for workers in my own country. Even if the Chinese worker is hurt more than the American worker, the American worker is still being hurt, and as far as I can tell, all involved would be better off if we traded in a more free way.

Interestingly, I haven't found pants that I like that are manufactured in the recent era, even with a reasonably large budget, compared to a laborer. (though I guess thatching is moderately skilled labor, so maybe you would compare it to my computer-technician work?) I love my old Australian army surplus wool cargo slacks; manufactured in the early '50s, I can only find them on ebay. They are super nice; the wool is harsher than smartwool (and they need dry cleaning) but they are super comfortable, and come with a pocket for my reading device. The pockets are lined with thick, heavy cotton that keep stuff from falling out way better than the polyester of most modern wool slacks, and they don't have the lining that most modern wool slacks have, either. (I.. have issues with the feel of a lot of kinds of polyester against my skin, especially when sweating, and most of the wool slacks I've seen have polyester linings down the front to change the way the pants hang or soemthing) and these pants are about a thousand times better in the rain than cotton pants.

But I don't think this is primarily the cost of the wool: Contrast this with shirts, where I can buy a really nice modern wool blend shirt for about a day or maybe day and a half of minimum wage, one that has all the moisture management and skin feel properties of wool but that holds up in the dryer pretty okay. I mean, I guess the same company makes some nice tights which make great undergarments for a Californian visiting a place that snows, so the problem is actually, I guess, that I'm unwilling to go out in public in tights without pants over them, and I live in a place where pants over tights is just too warm.

>And obviously it's not so great for the US.

There's a lot of confusion, I think, about how you "win" a trade war; as far as I can tell, autarchy is pretty bad for all involved; trade wars seem like a thing where everyone loses and the 'win' comes from winding down the trade war and trading again.

Thanks!

my own strategy is to try to get it explained to me in as many different ways as possible; I think it's often easiest to learn by integrating a bunch of different viewpoints of the same thing.

on the other hand, I haven't had a lot of luck with calculus, so who knows.