throwaway_au_1

You may be right but I took this quote of Klabnik's to essentially be him offloading some of the blame to the tool - just my interpretation.

"Twitter makes it so hard not to accidentally be an asshole."

To add: I find the "Twitter makes it hard" remarks a total cop-out in this instance. One is responsible for ones conduct whether it's via Twitter, in person, or a series of smoke signals. Am I supposed to believe that a character limit is in some way an excuse for being an arsehole? Those tweets lacked _any_ attempt at nuance so to respond by saying "oh it's hard to express myself accurately with only n characters and this time I came off as a prick" is just utterly ridiculous.

This may be helpful in understanding more about your burnout. It was for me, particularly the COR model.

https://commoncog.com/g/burnout/#what-is-burnout

Regarding the last part of your comment: you may get some value out of this plugin, https://github.com/chipsenkbeil/distant.nvim, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVAsbpByQ3o.

I've not used it but your use case made me wonder if there's a nice way to do it, as I regularly SSH into my NAS and RPi's, so I had a quick search.

I would like to add my perspective to the mix, as it seems Vim pops up here every so often and commonly the discussion becomes one of Text Editor Vs. IDE capabilities.

As I get older (33 now), I feel more and more annoyed by Things That Just Work TM changing on me for (IMO) no good reason. There are very few applications that I update as soon as I'm notified, because more often than not, something changes which at best disrupts my workflow and at worst breaks it. It seems as developers we are both best placed and very much expected to cope with this onslaught of change in our tooling. But when something that worked 2 days ago stops working, to me, that's only an impediment and I feel zero excitement for whatever improvement might have justified it. IMHO.

To me, Vim is a stable, battle-tested, and (IMHO) quite ergonomic way to write and modify code. At this point, I know what I'm doing when I write code (mostly.. maybe), how I want to do it, and I only want to do those things the way I want to do them. To me, Vim is my workshop, a workbench with my tools laid out on it exactly where I want them. Something like VS/VSCode feels like a public space with toolboxes everywhere, which I have to step around to work. I have no idea what's in some of these toolboxes, nor do I care, and I'm pretty sure I saw a lawn mower in here somewhere.

Obviously some people out there, people with a brain wired differently to mine, can work productively or even enjoy that kind of environment, but that's not me. At the risk of sounding like a wanker, I just like the zen of working on some code without all of the noise, in the same way I've always done it. It feels good to be efficient. Hell, there are enough self-inflicted frustrating moments in software development without my tools turning on me, too.

So I use Vim because I'm happy to sacrifice the incredible, broad capabilities of something more for a tool that gets out and stays out of my way, and that I know has no agenda beyond doing exactly what it says on the tin (and maybe soliciting some donations for Ugandan children).

PHB = Pointy Haired Boss, for anyone else not familiar with Dilbert.

>I was just adding some perspective that it's okay to be upset or frustrated without being entitled or ignoring the economic needs of the maintainers.

I think being upset or frustrated that one has lost access to something useful that one also invested very little in is a fair/natural reaction (the free lunch is over), but I also think it would be unfair to direct that frustration at the people who were providing that resource to begin with. It also seems unfair when the resource, as it stands right now, continues to be available in its current state; one only loses out on additional, future value, which I would argue one has no real claim to anyway (in general).

Your comment didn't say that it is fair [to direct..] (so take this comment as a further qualification if anything), but it seems to be one of the prevailing attitudes about this kind of thing, and where (at least) I see the entitlement coming through.

Unsure what you're attempting to contribute to the discussion with this comment.

Yes - I'd say it's nearly the definition of entitlement. I can totally understand why it would be frustrating, but to assume the people producing this resource are immune from paying the rent and would be forever is ignorant. People should consider that they ever got it for free as a bonus. If migrating away from FOSS is too upsetting , frustrating or painful - don't build on tools with questionable sustainability models from the start, or DIY.

It's also worth pointing out that it's only locked away for entities generating >= 1M/y USD revenue. I can't exactly feel sorry for them.

>If you want to become a millionaire

Strawman

>I even believe that criminal liability comes into play here

The gross entitlement of FOSS users is the primary reason I will never contribute in substance to open source software. In what world is a 'userbase in the millions' not an indicator of the software's value, and how are the developers deserving of criminal liability for wanting to make money from it? What, they should perform highly-skilled software engineering for free while their efforts are the basis of profit generation for many others?

Understandable. I don't want to give the impression that my ideal conversation involves a Talking Pillow. We're probably all imagining the far, opposite end of the spectrum when we think about it. I'm picturing my old boss who couldn't go 10 seconds without stammering his way into my sentence, which drove me nuts, but like I said in another comment, interruptions probably happen in every conversation and it's only the routine, out-of-place ones that are frustrating.

To put your comment into the 'bigger picture', as I see it at least: if I can assume that by efficiency, you mean the rate of verbal exchange of information, then I would argue that this is often not the sole function of a conversation; for example, building rapport is often an indirect but desirable outcome. There are no doubt other outcomes and that they vary wildly by context. Though to stick with rapport: pursuing near-optimal information exchange through interruptions may (and for anti-interrupt people, probably will) come at the hefty cost of rapport which may effect future conversations.

This is a super interesting topic and also cool because everyone has a slightly different take. I had not really considered that people who interrupt may do so because they actually like it and think it's beneficial. I just (probably prematurely) assumed it was a bit of a personal flaw based on how it made me feel.

A guy I used to work with would interrupt, start talking and continue talking while I was. Sometimes, I would continue for a few seconds in the hopes that it would prompt him to think "Whoops I just interrupted, I'll say 'oops sorry go on' now", but after several comical instances of us both speaking simultaneously for what felt like at least 10-20 seconds (probably only 5 realistically), I realised how ridiculous this was and I resigned to letting him interrupt. He was a great engineer and a good guy so I was happy to accommodate it rather than calling him out. Work contexts do interesting things to social dynamics.

I do not disagree :)

I quit my last job for several reasons but one was my team leader's inability to go 10 seconds without interrupting myself or someone else. I'd caution anyone against romanticizing it because for some people, being unable to complete a thought without interruption is unbearable.

To expand on why this can be so frustrating for me at least:

* If I have something significant or impactful to say, and someone interrupts midway through, the effect is diminished.

* If I'm saying something which I intend to follow with a qualification, e.g. "Elegant code is a priority, but we need to actually deliver code too", and someone interrupts before I add my qualification to dispute my claim or add their own qualification, then now we have pointless conflict, and I appear silly as though my statement wasn't thought through.

* If someone interrupts to complete my thought for me, and they get it wrong, suddenly I have to navigate the social implications of gently shutting them down and possibly returning to their comment later, and I'm now focusing on that instead of the topic.

* One can engage in active listening without interjecting at every opportunity, but admittedly it takes practice to learn the cues of each person you're speaking to and when is an appropriate time to jump in. I'm sure that I've been interrupted by many people many times in my life so far, but there's only 2 that I remember as having made a habit of it. Probably because they did it regularly, never caught themselves and apologised, and frustrated me which I imagine imprinted on me in some way as emotional events tend to.

mkaic, I don't mean to liken you to these people. I obviously don't know you or the way you converse so please take these only as anecdotes about the experiences of someone on the other end of the interruption spectrum. I've also just seen another comment of yours relating to "good" and "bad" interrupters and that seems like a reasonable distinction. I think my experience is with the bad ones, and maybe the good ones just fly under the radar because it feels like a natural interaction.

This page helped me understand a bit about how I came to be burnt out. Hope it helps you too: https://commoncog.com/g/burnout

This is probably a pretty typical story but I don't think I've ever put it in writing, and maybe that might be good for me, so here goes.

I got pretty burnt out in my second last role. A change in tech leadership saw the arrival of someone who took to shitting on everything, suggesting instead the combination of several OTS products. They were gone before the project even really took off, but the effects were already in full swing; culture destroyed, us vs. them mentality, job insecurity, loss of autonomy due to Committee For Improvement, high turnover, backfilling with anyone with a pulse. All of these problems were left to fester, or worse in some cases, exacerbated; project devs started to leave, so they upped project dev pay.. guess what that did to the morale of non-project devs.

There was no escape; I couldn't simply put my head down and keep doing good work. Material was being disseminated by the org to justify the big project, and it specifically called out my team's applications as unfit for purpose now and into the future. Particularly frustrating were the outright lies in the material about my team's applications, presumably used to build a narrative that the big project was the only way forward. The big project was penny-wise pound-foolish; they could send 100 staff on multiple team-building days, but refused to furnish their team with a key piece of $2k equipment (sorry for vagueness: trying to stay anon here), instead demanding my team share ours. There were ridiculous exercises mandated where developers had to document "how" to do their job so that it could be compared with "how" a developer job would be performed, post big project. But I think worst of all was that myself and my team were no longer able to work with smart people; the product owners were backfilled with imports from the org's call center. Every day seemed to be a fight just to write good software and keep the product afloat for the 100,000+ individuals using it.

Leading up to this, each year I used only about 25% of my yearly leave; I worked hard, took work home with me, and genuinely wanted to grow myself. When the big project rolled around, I felt my investment going south. All the knowledge, rapport, and comfort I'd established was about to evaporate. The value of my team's work was being actively undermined by the org, and any new work inherently had no real value. Before I left, we quietly completed a 5+ year project consolidating our legacy platforms, and we got a 10-second mention in a unit meeting.

In the last year I was starting to get physical manifestations of stress; headaches, unpleasant pangs in my chest, anxiety, grinding my teeth in my sleep. This was all a first for me. I took a month of my leave, but that didn't help. I took another month, 2 months later, but that didn't help either. So I quit. It took several months before the 'symptoms' eased, but I still get some of them when I get stressed.

I thought I'd be ready for another job in 3-4 months. It's been 16 months and I'm still dreading it. I took a job about 7 months in, but it was shit in its own unique ways so I left after a couple of months.

In my time off, I've built a couple of little things for fun, consciously trying to fight any thoughts saying I need to make progress, or I need to build something worthy of publishing, or I need to learn a new technology so that my time off wasn't a "waste" in some recruiter's eyes. It infuriates me that the developer is expected to spend close to 100% of their time generating value for an employer OR improving their ability to do so. It has actually been good to work on these little projects, and has confirmed that I do love writing software, but I'm starting to believe my career will kill my passion for writing software.

OP, I found this to be helpful in understanding my burnout: https://commoncog.com/g/burnout/. My post certainly doesn't have any answers for you, but at least you know you're not alone.

The only Twitter exposure I have is via HackerNews and that bothered the crap out of me too, so I wrote a dead-simple userscript that is run with ViolentMonkey in Chrome to take me to Nitter instead. The redirect and page load all completes before I would probably even see the loading spinner on Twitter. What a garbage site.

https://pastebin.com/ZpgYYF1N

Quite some number of commenters answering the question from a moral/ethical perspective, which I think would be appropriate if this was a question of obligations between two reasonable members of society. However, I can't shake the feeling that in 2022, the relationship between employer and employee is not one of equal power characterised by employer good faith. We've seen time and time again that organisations do whatever they can to exploit and control employees, while simultaneously saying "We CareTM" and "It's just business". Also seems unfair to me that employees exercising their power in the employment market are being demonised as though they are realistically having a negative, material impact on society, when of late we're hearing of mass layoffs, but that's just companies being companies. Think I'll reserve my moral outrage..

That's a very disingenuous example that bears little relation to classichasclass's original post. They said they know people who have suffered significantly because of COVID and for that reason they are still cautious. You immediately responded "let's not exaggerate". How have they exaggerated?

Then you say "It still doesn't give them carte blanche to exaggerate or emphasize scary anecdotes at the expense of boring ones." In what way is the post made by classichasclass at the expense of other anecdotes? It makes absolutely no sense.

How were they exaggerating or emphasizing them? Looks pretty matter of fact to me.

I almost commented something along the lines of "oh come on; unless this is your first day on the internet, you know exactly the unproductive pedantry OP is talking about" but I'm starting to think your response is some kind of satire.

Another fan here. I am a terminal user so Git is 100% CLI for me. Maybe this has helped me learn it to a level where I feel confident with it. I was the sole Git CLI user in my longest role and I tended to be the 'git fixer'. I agree it has sharp edges (like a lot of things, though) but I'm happy to be adept at something powerful and useful. It's a transferrable tool across pretty much all stacks so it doesn't feel like a pointless investment.

To address only one sentence of your comment and offer a pointer for anyone who needs it: the git reflog can get one out of some uh-oh-reclone-time mistakes and it's pretty easy to use.

I also found the comment you replied to a little unconvincing. The remark concerning scale in particular did not hit home, as I would guess the vast majority of teams are <10 devs which I would hardly call 'scale'. I left my previous role for several reasons but one was the constant "Microsoft does x".. Microsoft has 100k devs, we had 5. Not the same.

Easy reverting is certainly not a bad thing, but IMHO, and not to suggest your comment implied anything either way, it should be a minority case and optimising for a minority case doesn't seem generally sensible. Maybe reverting has a use outside of 'uh oh' that I'm not conscious of (release management?) but if 'uh oh' reverting is not a minority case, sounds like there may be bigger problems at play. Do you come across many situations to use reverts day to day or week to week? I've probably only made a few in the last few years

To speculate, maybe you haven't heard of fixup/squash.

E.g. Commit 1 Commit 2 Commit 3

Using an empty fixup commit, e.g.

git commit --allow-empty --fixup=commit2hash

You would end up with

Commit 1 Commit 2 Commit 3 fixup! Commit 2

Which will adjust automatically (when starting interactive rebase with autosquash) to

Commit 1 Commit 2 fixup! Commit 2 Commit 3

You could then simply change the rebase 'fixup' instruction to 'reword' to edit/remove the 'fixup!' part of the message, or 'edit' to continue the rebase uo until that commit and then stop.

That said, again, not clear on your use case but maybe that might help you or another reader.

It's not clear to me exactly what you mean. Based on adding the text file, which sounds like you're creating a placeholder commit, you might not know about 'git commit --allow-empty' which may serve you better.

Not exactly sure of your order of events wrt inserting a commit and editing it (I.e. edit commit message? Or changes?) and modifying it (I.e. see previous) but am happy to try and help if you want to flesh out your example a little more.

Never understood the appeal of squash commits at merge time, assuming the PR contains atomic, logical commits (all bets are off if your team's PR process accepts ad hoc commits..). You lose the utility of git bisect, conventional commits, etc, and also have larger, noisier commits forming your history/documentation. Is there a benefit to squash commits other than allowing developers to forget about that as they work? I may be biased against squash commits as I have spent enough time diving through garbage commit history to figure out bugs/Chesterton's fence that good commits as documentation appeals to me.

Want to say I've had good luck with rEFInd in my simple use cases, and the author Rod Smith is very active and helpful on the Stack Exchanges, if one runs into issues. His website is also one of the "last few" simple, content-oriented sites around. Thanks Rod.