240 karma · joined June 10, 2013
The founder said in his first blog post about the subject that, prior to pursuing his Soylent idea, he was eating a lot of fast food and frozen burritos.
Of course, if you're just looking for a cheap, quick hunger fix, those things will work. As will a candy bar, bag of chips, etc. But if you're trying to eat healthy, it's kinda tough to find something that's also quick, convenient, and filling. Soylent solves that problem.
The biggest criticism of Soylent seems to be "Who would ever want to give up food for all meals forever?" when that's not really what the point is.
I know that's still not statistically significant, but I haven't really seen much analysis on it, so I go with what I've got.
When I said HN and Reddit I should've said the more technical crowd.
On HN and Reddit, there's plenty of knowledge of the subject because that's the kind of stuff we're interested in and concerned about. But most of society apparently couldn't care less.
And that other site (twitter through their eyes) looks awesome. Thanks!
1) You can find a new, more interesting job. It sounds like you've searched around, but you may have to search a little longer to find the right fit. I've heard that many young people go through 5 to 10 shitty jobs before finding one they like.
2) You can talk to the higher-ups about your concerns, if you have a good enough relationship with them. Let them know you feel like your work isn't very engaging and, if they have any more interesting tasks, that you'd like to do some of that.
3) If you're paid well enough, you could just accept that you're not doing what you enjoy, but at least you have a job. I feel like this is what most of corporate society does anyways. You can always do the stuff you like to do in your free time.
When I first started my current job, I was kind of in the same boat. I loved coding and building new things, but found out quickly that what the position required wasn't very engaging or taxing. It was mostly one-off SQL queries and working with SSIS (simple, UI-driven stuff -- it uses programming concepts, but it's very basic). I wasn't building new things, I wasn't working on solving especially complex problems, and it felt like the stuff I was doing could be done by someone who knew far less about software than I do; I was just cranking out simple stuff whenever we needed it. I was probably just overqualified for the position.
I've expressed my concerns and since then, we've started working on cooler, more interesting things, including web development. It's still not the ideal, but it's much better. In addition, I've done consulting work on the side, built a web app (which I hope to ultimately be able to work on full-time), and I've ventured into some non-programming things like real estate.
I probably would've quit and found a different job, but they pay me very well, and I get a lot of leeway, which allows me to work on the other stuff on the side.
I think that a lot of developers probably find themselves in your situation. I don't think it's necessarily the "code-writing" part that's so enjoyable -- it's the problem-solving and building cool things that we love. And when we're stuck in a position where we're not only not doing any of those fun things, but we're wasting our talents on simple things, that's when it gets frustrating.
I tried to get into Twitter for a while and ultimately stopped using it.
Part of the problem I think is I have kind of a wide range of interests -- sports, software, entrepreneurship, etc. So Twitter probably can't gauge my interests very well. I ended up with a lot of those self-promotion feeds and ESPN writers, but nothing ultimately with substance (except for certain people that I found via other sources -- like if I follow their blog, I'd follow their Twitter too).
It'd be better if it was easier to categorize the feeds I'm following and view by category depending on what I feel like at the moment. I know they have lists, but I only just found that a little bit ago -- and it's so hidden that I actually have to type the URL into my address bar because I can't get there from a link on the homepage. Viewing by category should be, if not the default, then one big link away from the initial page.
From a purely mathematical perspective, it still depends on what your future plans are.
I purchased a property a couple of years ago, intending to live in it for a short period and then rent it out. I tracked all of the money that I've spent on the property, all of the money I've gained, and the general value (which I get from Zillow, although I know that's not necessarily accurate. If anything, though, the house is probably worth less than what Zillow says).
Note that this is a relatively new property (built in the 90s), which needed few improvements or fixes. So it's not like I've dumped thousands into renovations and so on, and it's not like a lot of expensive things broke with any kind of consistency. This is mortgage payments and basic home maintenance expenses I've tracked.
If I had sold the property within the first 1.5 years I'd still be out several thousand dollars despite the property's value increasing a little bit (I forget the exact number -- somewhere around $5k to $10k lost). I've only recently reached the break-even point, where if I sell now I'll have made money overall, and that's primarily because I found a tenant and have been making a profit on it.
The problems are:
1) The mistake most people make is that they look only at initial valuation and the final value of the sale. They forget to include the interest paid over the life of the loan, as well as any home maintenance costs. These add up!
2) Home values are not likely to increase 100% in the short term. If you plan on living in that exact spot for 10+ years, then yes, owning your home is obviously the correct choice. If there's a chance you might move in 5 years or less (even within the same city, to a better place or whatever) then you're probably at least as well-off renting, if not better because you don't have to worry about paying two mortgages during the move and so on. Obviously there're other variables involved, though.
Others have said ad blockers do the same for them.
What I mean is that, instead of having 2 weeks of vacation per year, having to schedule it, and when I get to the location I'm out of work mode entirely -- maybe I can up and leave my hometown at will, spend a week at the beach or in the mountains or wherever whenever I wish, and still be connected and able to get my work done.
So, for example, I could get up in the morning and get some stuff done. Around 2 or so I pop out to the beach for a few hours. Then I come inside to finish up with work in the evening.
Big companies (public or private) have evolved beyond that and are more of a system than a person.
I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong... but what has he done that's actually bad? He says himself that the things he writes about worked for him, and he shows how he measured it in his own life. That doesn't mean it's scientific fact and will work for everyone necessarily.
But I don't think he actually saved the full $800k; he probably had quite a bit less than that, but with the power of exponential growth, looked at his statements one day and had $800k. It sounds like he also makes a bit of money doing odd jobs throughout the year, too, and since the $800k was more than enough for them to live off of in the first place, it's grown quite a bit since they retired. I doubt he's put any actual numbers out there, but he's hinted at the fact that he's got several million dollars in his investment portfolio now.
He talks about exponential growth a lot. The problem is, people don't really grasp the concept. For example, if you save $5 extra per week (instead of buying that Starbucks coffee on Friday, for instance), it doesn't really sound like a lot. But if you invest that $5 (MMM suggests index funds, which are pretty low-risk/low-growth -- so we'll use 6% annual growth here) you actually end up with about $3600 at the end of 10 years. Sure, this isn't a lot, and most of the growth occurs near the end of the time period, but it's $1000 more than it would be just sticking it in a savings account. MMM advocates a whole bunch of these little changes in your lifestyle, which add up over time.
While he does take it to the extreme, he states often that he's not telling people they need to do what he does.
If I can do recurring payments with that, it might make things a hell of a lot easier! Thanks!
1) Say I already have a customer -- he already paid a signup fee and we charge him monthly, so he's already put in his credit card information. At a later date, we need to charge him for something other than his monthly subscription fee. This is something he can do himself by logging in, but also something the site administrator needs to be able to do by selecting his account and clicking a button. In this case, we do not want the user to have to re-enter his credit card information; we want this part to be seamless. Is there a payment API that can do this -- random one-off charges against an existing account without the user having to sign into the third-party service himself?
2) Is there a service that charges bank accounts directly -- as in they enter their bank account number instead of a credit card number? Other than PayPal --they seem to be the only one that does this.
quick edit: he works with businesses, too, so he does 80 hour weeks in Oct/Nov. and again in Mar/Apr. and then 40 hour weeks the rest of the year.
The music we remember being good "back then" is really just a hand-picked set of artists/songs that stand out in our memory. I remember listening to a Classic Rock station in high school with my dad, and him commenting on how he loved the station -- it was the music he listened to when he was young, but he didn't have to sit through all the crap, since it was basically a "Greatest Hits" from an era. I mean, we tend to regard the 60s and 70s as a great time period for music, but how much of that music was terrible and has since faded into obscurity?
I guarantee the old, grumbly people who say "music was better back in my day" can find artists and songs they like in the current generation of music. It's probably going to be different, and they're probably not going to find it on Top 40 stations or whatever (so yeah, they're less likely to try if it takes effort), but it's out there.
But people aren't always smart.
Yep. That goes beyond just development -- that's a huge management/leadership technique and is very important for any team, regardless of what they're trying to accomplish.
But there's no denying that there are those who just don't want the hassle. I have a friend who uses Uber to get anywhere -- even if it's a 5 minute drive. Most of my friends don't own homes and don't intend to (anytime soon, at least). I have a tenant who makes a very good living, has a very large savings account, and a very high credit score, owned his own home previously, and chose to rent from me because it's just easier.
There's a pretty big market for those sorts of people -- and I think that's what the article was getting at.
By getting the work done first, you actually enjoy playing more.
(Plus, if you play first then try to force yourself to work, it gets harder to switch context into a "work mode" and you end up not getting around to it a lot of the time)
I definitely notice that in my life now.