I was on a small team at an early-stage startup, and felt forced to do 7+ hours of good work every day due to pace and visibility.
As a self-proclaimed productive dev, it was pretty obvious who was slacking or incompetent, and I definitely had some dislike of them for that. It felt unfair that others could coast, or create buggy code and then spend time fixing it, while my higher quality output wasn't rewarded in a way I cared about ($$$). Knowing this was going on did also contribute in some way to demotivating me and maybe deciding to leave.
In the end, we are victims or volunteers. I volunteered for the position, I volunteered to stay to earn equity.
If we don't like something, we can always volunteer to fix our current situation, whether by negotiating or finding a better-suited role etc.
1. Leap of faith is risky, while science is based on repeatable experiments. Kind of like when you're building a house, instead of hoping and praying the foundation is stable, test it to be certain.
2. Who knows who made these stories up? Could have been some guy high on mushrooms. I'd rather decide what's right for myself than blindly follow some unknown-source, unchanging-with-the-world and unexplained statements some dude probably made up.
I do agree with most of the ethics and morals of Christianity and similar religions. Society would probably be better if everyone abided by it.
But if they abide through religion then people would also be a little crazy because they're willing to believe things without proper supporting evidence.
What if the leader of the church says, "Yo God hit me up and said if we drown all non-believers in the holy pool tonight, we'll be chilling in heaven by this time tomorrow." I would want to know that my friends would act rationally and not do crazy things.
Playing a game like LoL is like being in a battle or war.
Would you watch anime and shoot your gun with 'muscle memory' while fighting 5 ruthless, intelligent opponents?
A fight requires constant reevaluation of the situation and planning to win the game. If you play by "muscle memory" and win, you are playing against weak unthinking opponents or getting carried by your team.
If you played against good players, trust me you won't win thinking about anime and chilling. And it's very stressful because you're constantly on guard.
> Would you watch anime and shoot your gun with 'muscle memory' while fighting 5 ruthless, intelligent opponents?
Easy. At some point some actions are so engraved that you respond without even thinking. Example: blinking out on a slight enemy sight.
> A fight requires constant reevaluation of the situation and planning to win the game. If you play by "muscle memory" and win, you are playing against weak unthinking opponents or getting carried by your team.
> If you played against good players, trust me you won't win thinking about anime and chilling. And it's very stressful because you're constantly on guard.
You can use all those big words, but reality is completely different. I've watched amateur/pro Dota 2 since it's inception in 2011 and some pro Dota 1 before that. It is a team game, it is more about team cooperation and heroes you pick. Sure small things can overturn the game, but most of the time it is about bigger game than small actions.
I think there are many straightforward answers.
Try to get the $500k jobs. If that doesn't work and you don't want to grind LC for 6 months, go for $150-200k jobs like startups. If you are as good as you say you are, you could probably study/talk your way into a job or at least figure out what you need after applying to 100 startups.
Faangs always seem to be hiring, not sure but having a LinkedIn seems to get inbound Faang recruiters, at least for me as a US dev. And startups, YC who's hiring has worked for friends, I'm sure grinding applications on aggregators like indeed, stackoverflow, angelist etc has some chance of working.
As an author of the book that's summarized, how do you feel about in-depth summaries of your book in terms of it affecting sales and providing publicity? I've always wondered how authors feel about it.
I always love summaries that are publicly posted (like this one, no matter how detailed), and I only dislike the (relatively rare) ones that are repackaged as "new" books on Amazon and then resold at a profit (it feels bad in general, but especially since I already work pretty hard to make my books as short as possible).
My feeling has always been that if a book can be sufficiently summarized in a blog post, then it should be a blog post ;). And if someone reads the summary and fully "gets it," they probably would have been frustrated by the full book, since they probably already had a lot of the foundational knowledge in place. So it's better if they don't buy it in the first place. And different people will read the summary, want the extra detail, and grab the full book, which is great too.
Even with piracy of the full book (which is currently #1 on google for various fairly guessable searches), I still feel that it ends up coming back to me via word of mouth. Piracy probably hurts "bad" books that are propped up by PR, but it definitely helps books that people find useful, since they end up recommending it to other folks who may pay.
Because the market is a duopoly of Apple & Google with very similar rules, pricing & close to no competition, there's nowhere else to go for developers if they are not happy.
> why "the market" hadn't already corrected [Apple's ability to cut people off]
Because there are a lot of money to be made, iOS users spend a lot more than Android users, that's a well known fact. If you don't build an app on iOS, someone else will. There are always developers who don't know enough, or simply don't care and keep building apps for iOS.
> why regulators hadn't.
They're starting to notice the problems. Recent regulations from overseas and the Epic lawsuit will draw attention to it.
As a self-proclaimed productive dev, it was pretty obvious who was slacking or incompetent, and I definitely had some dislike of them for that. It felt unfair that others could coast, or create buggy code and then spend time fixing it, while my higher quality output wasn't rewarded in a way I cared about ($$$). Knowing this was going on did also contribute in some way to demotivating me and maybe deciding to leave.
In the end, we are victims or volunteers. I volunteered for the position, I volunteered to stay to earn equity.
If we don't like something, we can always volunteer to fix our current situation, whether by negotiating or finding a better-suited role etc.