The Software Developer's Guide to Fitness & Morning Productivity - <AUTHOR> http://www.etherealbits.com/?p=68 <comment><USER2> I can't agree more. I can not imagine me doing this work without exercising. I do two workouts per week in the gym, two hours per session, very intensive. All the other days I run at home using the treadmill for 30 minutes, and do around 60 pushups in the morning, 60 in the evening.

So it's just 2+2 = 4 hours at gym, plus 0.5*5 = 2.5 more hours, plus the pushups that is very little time. Let's say 8 hours per week of time spent exercising, but the benefits are huge: it's easy to focus during the week staying sit down without any pain, bad feeling or alike.

Even after a day of doing many things I often reach home that I'm still pretty rested, and sometimes I add a few hours of work if I feel like there is some interesting problem to fix for Redis, or to write some doc, and so forth.

Btw in the previous years I used the treadmill as I do now, but I did not used to do the bigger workouts nor the pushups. I changed my schedule only 12 months ago adding the new stuff, and it's a totally game changer, apparently just running was not enough for me.

<comment><USER3> I don't know if this is what you do, but I've definitely noticed that working seriously on the power lifts (squat, deadlift, overhead press, bench press) has made my joints feel better throughout the day.

<comment><USER4> They are also extremely hard to do correctly, and any mistake in form can and will injure you, either over time or due to one bad lift. I personally can't understand why they are so often recommended to beginner lifters.

<comment><USER5> Buying a book like Starting Strength by Rippetoe and starting with low weights goes a long way to getting your form good enough that you won't seriously injure yourself.

<comment><USER6> Just to add one anecdotal data point, I've done that and so far(for about 1 year) I have not had any problems. I do squat, deadlift, bench press, press, pullups, and situps. I've worked my way up to 230lbs + bar in deadlift and 200lbs + bar in squat. I experience a little muscle soreness in the back but that is all. I still need to watch what I eat and walk to burn calories since I still need to lose a little weight.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My comment on the article, which is still awaiting moderator approval:

"Get your heart rate up to your target zone and try to keep it up for 20-30 minutes. Pick a few exercises and do them in circuits with little or no rest between exercises (and a short rest between sets), at high intensity. Lean towards workouts that work large groups of muscles, for example doing push ups (or better yet, burpees) instead of bench press."

There are a few problems with this advice:

1\. The arbitrary goal of increasing your heart rate for 20-30 minutes completely ignores the most important question: what are you trying to accomplish?

2\. Circuit training is only appropriate for particular goals. We shouldn't be prescribing it without the proper context.

3\. Implying that push ups or burpees are superior to the bench press, especially in the context of working large muscle groups, again ignores the question of what you are trying to accomplish. If we are talking about strength training in general, then the bench press is superior to push-ups and burpees are almost completely irrelevant. If we're talking about calorie burning and conditioning, then burpees are superior. But again, without proper context and asking the right questions, this sort of advice isn't particularly helpful.

</comment><comment><USER8> > I've touched on why I find working out in the morning to be especially > beneficial, but I would recommend working out at a time where you know you > can be consistent; if you try to vary your workout daily according to your > schedule you're going to be way more likely to skip it.

Yes, do find a time where you know you can be consistent. I run daily and, having tried different schedules, I find that running at 11pm allows me to achieve very good consistency (I've ran 1,500 miles in the past two years and the last time I skipped a day was back in February and that was because I caught the flu.) One problem with running in the morning is that if you oversleep, you'll likely want to skip it.

In addition to finding the right schedule, I recommend living near a gym, as that will help you avoid making excuses to skip days. I live at a place where there's 24/7 access to the gym and that helped a lot.

<comment><USER9> I wish you'd write this up and submit. You say it so casually and yet it's an epic achievement!

<comment><USER8> Thank you. I'll do that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> People need to start viewing their body as a whole. Your body is a system and when one part of the system starts to decline it affects all other parts of your body, especially your mind.

Going for a jog every day doesn't cut it though, people need to change their diet as well. It's not about eating less but about eating right. Ramen every day for dinner is not good for you eat chicken with salad. Oreos for breakfast isn't good for you eat eggs or greek yogurt. Drinking soda isn't good for you drink water or milk.

You need to get rid of the instant pleasures to get the more lasting ones such as increased confidence, intelligence, and energy. Making the change is definitely worth it.

edit: You should also get a healthy amount of sleep (6-8 hours). Too many people think they can function on 5 hours when only a small percentage can work effectively with that much rest.

<comment><USER11> I think though for someone currently doing nothing, the jog is a step in the right direction. I think the right amount to be doing is something you can keep to, can always add to it later.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, going to gym straigtaways is way too painful. I started gym once, and I my whole body was in pain for whole 1-2 weeks. (I gradually left after a month) I think, had I started in bit by bit, experience would have been better. I have to start again this summer break, and hoping to start bits by bits this time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Over the last year or so, after gradually changing my lifestyle to include some exercise and giving some attention to what I eat, I can personally attest to the fact that productivity and efficiency has greatly increased. There is also a marked improvement psychologically in terms of the will and desire to do things. There really seems to be an increase in energy levels as compared to before, and I seem to have a clearer dialogue with my body now. Post- workout metabolism has done wonders for my previously irregular and haphazard appetite.

I also agree with the bit about protein consumption in the morning. It can be a simple smoothie, along with scrambled eggs & some almonds, or it could be one of those whey-enhanced protein shakes - either way, it'll keep you going in full steam till lunch time.

</comment><comment><USER14> Interesting. I just listened to the Security Now guy (Steve Gibson) who has been going super low carb and has done a couple of geek specials on the subject. Very good information in the two podcasts he did. Here's the link to the first one:

<http://twit.tv/show/twit-live-specials/124>

If you have a lot of energy problems during the day -- besides exercising, going completely very low carb is a good way to even out the post-carb crashes that plague lots of people like myself.

<comment><USER15> Dropping carbs dramatically after living a life where you ate a normal/high amount of carbs is going to, most likely, make you miserable. If decreasing your carbs is of interest to you, do so slowly over time.

<comment><USER16> I can't really agree with this. The hardest part of going cold turkey "no carb" is the first week; after that, just watching weight literally fall off (I lost 15kg in two months) and having a constant energy level without the "carb crashes" are an excellent reward, which is important considering the time most people give up dieting is early, before they've really had a chance to change their lifestyle.

<comment><USER17> completely agree with you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Can't agree more. Here's a relevant talk with a Stanford lecturer talking about thethe science of "willpower". She specifically mentions exercise as being proven to increase measures of willpower (things like being able to delay gratification in the short term to fulfill long term goals).

<http://twit.tv/show/dr-kikis-science-hour/135>

And who couldn't use some more willpower?

Interestingly, another thing she mentions as having significant benifits is meditation. I've seen that anecdotally in successful people, as well.

As for exercise, it's very true that finding something that works for you is very important. Just to throw another idea out there: For me, I struggle to get full benefit out of going to a standard gym. What I've found works fantastically for me is going to a Crossfit gym in the morning. They're short, high intensity, varied, interesting workouts. Having a group of supportive people around you, and a skilled trainer has been invaluable. I've had great success (and fun) with this.

</comment><comment><USER19> I find that a consistent exercise routine helps to implement good habits in other parts of my life, such as making good food choices, sleeping well, etc. And it certainly spills over into my work, as well. I just have more confidence and improved sense of well being. One thing that keeps me going is keeping in mind the long-term benefits. Not only will it improve my day, but I have a goal of living a long life with all my capacities.

I've recently started swimming and love it. If you have access to a pool, I cannot recommend it enough. I'm also in the middle of the "100 Pushup Challenge."

</comment><comment><USER20> Great advice.

Just remember that whatever you do, do it with drive and intensity or don't expect results. In much the same way that leaving a tab open on Codeacademy won't magically make you a better developer, loafing around in a gym won't get you the results you want. Especially if you're lifting: if you aren't sleeping enough, eating properly (moar protein!), and training hard, you won't see the progress you're capable of.

<comment><USER21> I have to disagree with this part:

"do it with drive and intensity or don't expect results"

I made a pretty radical change in my diet and dropped 82 pounds. I think the first 70 or so came off in 6 months. It required some focus, but not a lot. I had done a lot of reading about habit, and was already professionally trained as a hypnotist, so I combined habits with hypnosis and made a fairly dramatic behavior change with pretty minimal effort.

Likewise, at the same time, I was going to the gym every day, but because I had a severe health issue, I was working out very, VERY gently. I was basically walking on a treadmill at 3 miles per hour for an hour every day. It's more active than not exercising at all, but I couldn't call it a "drive and intensity" situation.

I think this whole "drive and intensity" myth is the major problem with Hacker News as a community, in fact. I abandoned hacking entirely for almost a year, during which I just sold how-to videos and coaching on my blog. I made decent money and there was not a lot of drive or intensity involved there, either.

Drive and intensity can be great things, but I've definitely had a great number of experiences which point to them being inessential to success. I'm happy to go so far as to say that neither are of equal value to research, clarity, good logic, or sound strategy.

<comment><USER20> Yeah, I can definitely see room for disagreement with how I worded it. What I really meant was "do it with drive and intensity or don't expect optimal results."

I'm active enough on enough fitness communities to see plenty of people make good-great progress on their own or ho-humming things. Compared to a completely sedentary lifestyle, ho-humming it will result in great progress.

Drive and intensity for something unproven (working on a side project, startup, etc) obviously yields unpredictable results. That's where the problem with HN is. But for something like exercise that has a long body of research and countless case studies, drive and intensity (provided proper form, nutrition, etc) only improves results.

<comment><USER21> I think that's fair. I think plenty of people would describe a dramatic change in diet as an intense thing, and I certainly don't think there's any harm in intensity, as long as it's intelligently applied, and it's different from some kind of demented obsessiveness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> If you care about your long-term health, it is much better to get your protein (and all other nutrients, by the way) from an actual meal and not from a supplement, because of digestive issues:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whey_protein#Digestive_Issues>

<comment><USER23> What would be good foods for doing this?

<comment><USER22> In my opinion, if it's just about enhancing recovery after a workout, ideally you would eat any food rich in high-quality protein (chicken if you have access to grass-fed, pork, nuts if you vegatarian etc.) + some green vegetables (voluminous but low in calories, to supply fiber that will help digest the protein) and after the main meal maybe a grapefruit or orange (vitamin C speeds up recovery). If you look to gain weight, you can additionally eat more carbohydrates with the meat and also eat some carbs before the workout.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Another benefit I've found is that the majority of my "eureka" moments happen while I'm alone in the gym.

<comment><USER4> If I may ask, what are you usually doing when you get those moments? I'd love to be able to spend time at the gym thinking, but usually when the blood flows out of my brain and down to my muscles, I'm lucky to be able to add two numbers together.

<comment><USER24> Usually while lifting. They seem to come when I'm thinking about nothing at all! I don't think about it on purpose... just happens.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> A lot of say you feel great after an exercise section, but how? I always feel sweaty, my throat feels constricted and I feel I need to go drink some water.

And that is true, even if I only do it for 10 minutes in the morning.

<comment><USER26> Endorphins. It's strange that your body doesn't produce them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Goes for all skilled jobs where your create.

</comment><comment><USER28> Morning? What's that?

<comment><USER29> The last few hours before you go to sleep.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Summary: exercise is good. Eating right is good. Both can help your career.</comment>


Gistub - A gist-like application for sharing code snippets in house - <AUTHOR> http://gistub.herokuapp.com Gistub is a stand alone application for sharing snippet such as gist.github.com.
https://github.com/seratch/gistub
If you're familiar with Rails apps, you can set up Gistub in several minutes.
Many companies and organizations use Gistub for sharing code snippets safely in house. <comment><AUTHOR> [https://github.com/seratch/gistub](https://github.com/seratch/gistub)

Gistub is a stand alone application for sharing snippet such as gist.github.com.

If you're familiar with Rails apps, you can set up Gistub in several minutes.

Many companies and organizations use Gistub for sharing code snippets safely in house.

</comment><comment><USER2> It's quite nice a 99 percent code coverage.</comment>


Why my book can be downloaded for free - <AUTHOR> http://blog.plover.com/2014/12/01/ <comment><USER2> It is surprising to see a blog post like this published in 2014. Admittedly is refers to a 9 year old book, but the point it makes has been rendered moot by developments since.

A publisher recently contacted me to explore the possibility of me writing a book for them. The terms, which I believe are fairly standard, are you make about $1 for every book sold, or about 5% of the total revenue. A technical author can expect to make about $10'000 if their book sells well. The publishing house makes about $200'000 on this, with the rest going to distribution and book stores.

Now compare to people like Brennan Dunn who have made $100'000 or more from their books, by publishing online and capturing 90%+ of revenue. You don't need a publisher for distribution. You don't need a publisher for typesetting. If you need an editor or proof reader you can hire one for maybe $10K.

In short, publishing houses serve no necessary function in modern technical publishing.

<comment><USER3> _In short, publishing houses serve no necessary function in modern technical publishing._

...aside from the economies of scale that they can apply to activities like editing, typesetting, graphical presentation, technical review, release scheduling, marketing, publicity, and cross-format distribution. There's also the risk mitigation that happens when you get an advance that you can't deal with yourself.

There's a _world_ of difference between "publishing on the Internet" and "publishing in the age of the Internet".

<comment><USER4> Not vouching for him, but Aaron Shepard, a children's author, maintains you can self-publish efficiently and profitably these days.

"In fact, by aiming at Amazon, I was able to sell close to 30% the number of copies sold by one of those nationally-distributed competitors including its bookstore sales. And because the profit from my publishing system is so high -- generally half or more of the cover price -- I was earning about twice as much in total as that author would make with a normal royalty."[0]

He has a site on the subject[1], which looks like it was designed by me (it wasn't - I don't know him).

[0] [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Aiming-Amazon-Publishing- Marketing-A...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Aiming-Amazon-Publishing-Marketing- Amazon-com/dp/093849743X/ref=pd_cp_b_0)

[1] [http://www.newselfpublishing.com/](http://www.newselfpublishing.com/)

<comment><USER5> The problem is that he is biased. He is selling books explaining how to self publish on Amazon. So it is better for him to say that you will earn more money doing so.

<comment><USER4> Fair point. One more thing while I remember. He recommends a firm called Lightning Source[0]. I got the impression (when I read his book a few months ago) that they weren't too keen on dealing with small scale stuff, but just looking there now it seems they have another brand or a partner called Ingram Spark for dealing with independents. Might be useful for someone here, maybe.

[0] [http://www.lightningsource.com](http://www.lightningsource.com)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Unusually good book" may be too humble to be correct. It is a truly excellent book.

Many higher order concepts eluded me for years (SICP was a good introduction, but this goes much further, as an intermediate level book), but this was very enlightening. I recommend it for anyone working in just about any language. I was able to apply the concepts in Perl and JavaScript quite readily. And, there are translation s of the examples to other languages on the web these days.

<comment><USER7> >there are translation s of the examples to other languages on the web these days.

Do you mean to other programming languages? (I already did see that there are translations of the book to other human languages).

<comment><USER6> Yes, the examples (which are in Perl in the book) are available in other programming languages.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've been out of touch for many years, now, but the Perl community was one of the most generous I encountered. And they were relatively early to this, setting many an example that has been carried forward by other communities. (There were earlier communities, of course, but the Perl community seemed to be ascendent around the time that "programming" became "mainstream".

\+ CPAN

\+ YAPC -- a progenitor of the "just cover expenses", do it yourself un- conference

\+ Frequent, and sometimes surprising, contact with the luminaries. I remember the ongoing bait and switch BS at a few Microsoft events I attended.

I don't know... I was always on the margins, not in the midst. But Perl, as a community, was always willing to show you how, and to lend a hand and a few resources as appropriate/helpful. Very generous.

<comment><USER9> It's always been a good community. I think a lot of that comes from Larry.

<comment><USER10> LIGASWAG?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a very good thought! It's important for an author to break the barrier to entry for the potential readers of his/her work. It's not always easy or practical. Another way of doing this is publishing something in book form what you have already published elsewhere, e.g. your blog. After all, what a reader of free books, user of free and open source software is spending is the often neglected non-renewable source of energy -- her/his time!

Sometimes however, authors consider their book(s) as their 'life's work'. It's hard to imagine giving it away for free. Psychologically speaking, though best things in life are often free, some people think that something that is 'expensive' is 'good' \-- they somewhat erroneously believe that 'cheapness and quality don't go together'.

A related point that I have always wondered about is deciding the price of your creation. For stable businesses it is perhaps a straightforward thing to name the price of a creation, but I imagine it would be hard for an author to come up with the price of her book. By making it free on the website and leaving it up to the publisher to do the hard work seems like a reasonable way to get around this problem.

<comment><USER12> > Sometimes however, authors consider their book(s) as their 'life's work'. > It's hard to imagine giving it away for free.

I don't think of my book as necessarily my _life 's_ work, but it's certainly one of the most significant things I've done. People can read it online without paying cash, but I don't think of that as being "free".

I _do_ get compensated, even then. Every time someone tells me they liked my book, or enjoy my writing style, or finally understand something they've struggled with, it feels absolutely fantastic. Given how much money we spent purchasing good feelings, in many ways I feel like I just cut out the middle man. :)

> A related point that I have always wondered about is deciding the price of > your creation. For stable businesses it is perhaps a straightforward thing > to name the price of a creation, but I imagine it would be hard for an > author to come up with the price of her book.

I just did the obvious thing: looked at a bunch of similar products and priced it in the same ballpark.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This has worked very well for Eloquent JavaScript as well -- I suspect it'd have remained obscure if it hadn't been available online (as a proper, web- friendly HTML page). As it is now, it's being read by a _lot_ of people online, and though I suspect less people read it on paper than online, it is also being recommended and bought enough to financially compensate the time that went into it.

<comment><USER14> Thank you so much for Eloquent JavaScript, Marijn! It's a really great book, and it has given me a lot of value.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Cory Doctorow has a strong argument in the same direction, but with slightly different expression: [http://craphound.com/littlebrother/about/#freedownload](http://craphound.com/littlebrother/about/#freedownload)

<comment><USER15> One more story that appeared here in HN a few days ago: Bob Nystrom writes about the process of self publishing a book which is also available for free. [http://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2014/11/20/how-my-book- lau...](http://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2014/11/20/how-my-book-launch-went/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's an excellent book, too, even if you don't know Perl.

</comment><comment><USER17> I have yet to go wrong taking advice from Philip Greenspun. The whole idea that YC has been espousing recently about domain-specific knowledge often being more valuable than pure technical ability, which was brought up in the context of the female founder interviews, is something that Philip has been talking about for 10+ years.

</comment><comment><USER18> _Part of this is that it 's an unusually good book. But I think the longevity is partly because it is available as a free download. Imagine that person A asks a question on an Internet forum, and person B says that HOP has a section that could help with the question. If B wants to follow up, they now must find a copy of HOP. If the book is out of print, this can be difficult. It may not be in the library; it almost certainly isn't in the bookstore. Used copies may be available, but you have to order them and have them shipped, and if you don't like it once it arrives, you are stuck with it. _

Small publisher here. I believe other factors have contributed to its longevity. I just did a quick lookup of the book on Amazon ([http://www.amazon.com/Higher-Order-Perl-Transforming- Program...](http://www.amazon.com/Higher-Order-Perl-Transforming- Programs/dp/1558607013)) and it has a couple of things going for it that help contribute to long-tail sales:

* Availability of new copies of the book, which signals the content is probably still relevant/not obsolete and may also indicate it's a classic/foundation title considering how long it's been in print.

* A relatively high number of professional reviews and reviews from experts in the field

* A moderate number of great reader reviews, including many "Verified Purchases" from the past year

The current sales rank (579,897) indicates it's probably selling 1-3 copies per month on Amazon U.S. The fact that there are so many used copies available, not to mention the free PDF, no doubt reduces sales of the new book, but there are still enough people out there who want a new copy of the print edition for their bookshelves to keep the trickle of new sales.

Regarding the convenience issue: These days, it's possible to buy a new book online and return it or resell it later (as 63 other owners are doing right now on the Amazon U.S. site). It's a pain to list it and handle the packing, but so is driving to a bookstore to bring back a return.

A note about free book downloads: Free titles are indeed very convenient for those who are unable/unwilling to purchase the print edition, but they are less likely to be read. I currently have a title available for on Amazon and it's been downloaded thousands of times, but through various mechanisms (including reviews, follow-on sales of the 2nd volume, clicks to the website from the ebook edition, etc.) I have determined it's seldom read -- I'm guessing less than 5% of the people who have downloaded the Kindle edition have actually read any part of it. I think many free ebooks and PDFs end up on people's devices and don't end up being read because of a lack of time and all of the other free content that's available out there.

<comment><USER9> Attributing the book's longevity to "availablity of new copies" is tautologous.

<comment><USER19> No, it isn't. Some books that would continue to sell have great trouble due to the publisher not supplying copies for a period. Lovasz's "Combinatorial Problems and Exercises" was one such book which North Holland essentially "held out of print" by refusing to make more copies available at a reasonable price (and I hear refusing to admit it was out of print). This went on for years until a new edition came out under AMS Chelsea.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> To add some data around the self-publishing space overall, the best source by far is Authorearnings.com which is run by Hugh Howey (who is most famous for having become a success by giving away his book "Wool"). According to his data, the small press, indie authors and alternative press options are dominating the Amazon top 100 lists compared to prior years where traditional publishers owned 90% of the market (genre fiction doing the best overall).

On the other hand, to self-publish non-technical books, assuming you use quality service providers, you are probably looking at about $10K before factoring in marketing (according to people like Guy Kawasaki). Juxtapose that against the fact that 400k self-pubbed ISBN's were issued last year, and the true indie success story seems like the proverbial unicorn.

* Although clearly in deep technical knowledge, there will be less competition for the quality material (short supply and all that).

Of course to further muddy the issue, what market share will go to the subscription services as they become more popular? According to Authorearnings, early data shows they are grabbing a lot of eyeballs from those top-tier super-users.

</comment><comment><USER21> Your book may be the reason I decide to take Perl seriously :) Thank you for the share.

</comment><comment><USER22> Maybe his book is still relevant today because Perl didn't evolve much during these past years ? (no troll, I just read a few articles about Perl, I have no "insider" knowledge about the language situation except they're all waiting for Perl 6).

Imagine a book about web development from 10 years ago, I guess nothing would be usable without a lot of modifications and side researches.

<comment><USER23> _HOP_ is a brilliantly-written exposition of a set of techniques that are actually pretty ancient, but only commonly known in parts of the functional programming and specifically Lisp community. It's real connection with Perl is slim. The techniques are easily applicable to Ruby, Python, modern Perl, and Javascript.

Web development? Well, HTTP and the underlying technologies are roughly the same as they were 10 years ago; HTML, too. Relational databases haven't changed much. The underpinnings are probably going to be as recognizable 10 years from now. But web development as a whole is incredibly fashion driven. What will be popular in the future? I'm not even going to try to guess.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> One of the main problems for books, and particularly technical books, is breaking out and getting word of mouth, not avoiding piracy. There are a lot of technical books out there, and a limited amount of time to find the good ones.

Free content is a great advertisement.

</comment><comment><USER25> _" But I think the longevity is partly because it is available as a free download. "_

I'm not sure that's the correct conclusion to be drawn. I suspect the longevity of the book is more due to the fact that it's a perl (or rather, perl5) book. And perl5, as we all know, is now officially an eternal language, never to be supplanted with a newer version. perl6, that mythical beast, is now officially a separate language not really meant to supplant perl5.

more details for the curious here : [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl) )

</comment><comment><USER26> Of course the case would be very different if you wanted to publish your book as audio, which is probably much more expensive to produce.

<comment><USER27> > if you wanted to publish your book as audio

 _Higher-Order Perl_ as an audiobook would be quite an experience!

<comment><USER23> Can you imagine the syntax highlighting? It's a brilliant idea!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Is the PDF title mangled in anyone else's ebook reader?</comment>


Compasses to point true north for first time in 360 years in UK - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/aug/30/compasses-to-point-true-north-for-first-time-in-360-years <comment><USER2> The concept of a compass not pointing to True North was something I struggled with at first when learning orienteering because I had assumed north meant north. The reality is that you have a Grid North, Magnetic North and True North.

That said, orienteering is one of the most valuable skills I think a person can learn but it can be hard to grasp learning solo. For those not familiar there are really two ways to go about it: \- Dead Reckoning \- Terrain Association

Dead Reckoning is all about planning waypoints and using your compass and pace count to get you there. For example: I need to walk 5km at 220° then 2km at 90°, etc.

On top of that, it's easy to make simple mistakes when planning your route. Errors when converting from grid to magnetic(and visa versa) can put you off by a few grid squares so it's important to understand terrain association which is a technique of studying the terrain on a map, plan a route and use those visual terrain features to guide you(If the river is supposed to be on your left but it's on your right, something is wrong).

Having both techniques in your back pocket are essential, but like any skill, they're perishable so you have to practice often.

Some key mistakes people tend to make when orienteering: \- When you're dead reckoning through the forest, make sure you switch which side you favor. For example, if your compass points directly at a tree do you step to the right of it to go around or to the left? Most people will pick their dominant side and tend to veer to the right over time. This won't be corrected by staying on a specific azimuth. \- Night time is challenging when orienteering in a forest with no roads/creeks/etc to handrail. You often can't see more than 10-20 meters and there's no terrain for you to associate with. \- After you plan your waypoints out, do it again from scratch. You likely made a mistake. The protractor you used to get your heading represents your grid angle, every map will have a GM Adjustment(grid to magnetic) you'll need to make.

Source: I'm a former US special ops soldier with hundreds of hours using a map and compass humping through the woods.

<comment><USER3> I didn't know about having to correct for magnetic vs grid north.

Are the maps specialised for orienteering? Since I've never seen that info on a standard street paper map.

Is it something that a digital compass could automatically do? Especially since the article is indicating that magnetic north drifts.

<comment><USER4> In the UK the three compass points are on OS maps, sometimes with the changes predicted for multiple years.

The older the map the less useful it is. You then have metal in the local rocks which can cause problems.

Terrain recognition is far easier, there is far more error correction built in, but if you are hit by a patch of fog and visibility is down in to 30m (let alone 3m!) you need dead reckoning.

Trouble is even a 1 degree error can turn into significant errors after a very short distance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Here's a nifty visualization of magnetic pole location and strength from NOAA-

[https://maps.ngdc.noaa.gov/viewers/historical_declination/](https://maps.ngdc.noaa.gov/viewers/historical_declination/)

edit: Some more on this stuff here (probably to be taken with a grain of salt, but neat no less)-

[https://magneticreversal.org/](https://magneticreversal.org/)

<comment><USER6> I'm usually a Mercator apologist, but this is a really bad map to use that projection for

<comment><USER7> In this case they want to preserve directions rather than e.g. area or distance, so Mercator is suitable. (You can click the tabs on the right side to see polar projections.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have been working on a smartphone AR visualizer for the magnetic field. I was awarded a grant from the National Science Foundation to develop this app. One of the surprising things I found was the inclination of the magnetic field vector. You can test the free Android app here:

[https://www.vieyrasoftware.net/physics-toolbox- ar](https://www.vieyrasoftware.net/physics-toolbox-ar)

</comment><comment><USER9> So far as I understand it the existence of a magnetic "North Pole" is a weird temporary coincidence, like if you discovered a friend's phone number is the same as yours but in the opposite order of digits. It doesn't mean anything and it might change also for no particular reason, so you should probably avoid depending on it if possible.

Magnets are more or less bound to point somewhere on a planet containing a core of molten iron, but my understanding is that it could easily have been towards Australia, or Mexico or anywhere.

<comment><USER10> No, it's almost always roughly aligned with the axis of Earth's rotation. I believe that's because it's related to the rotation of the internal molten iron core.

Though every few million years, the north and south magnetic poles swap, for unclear reasons.

<comment><USER11> We are also about 350,000 years overdue for a magnetic pole swap. [1]

Also, it cycles at 300,000-400,000 years not millions.

[1] [https://futurism.com/earths-magnetic-poles-overdue- switch](https://futurism.com/earths-magnetic-poles-overdue-switch)

<comment><USER12> Looking at a map someone else linked to, the pole has shifted drastically in the last 50 years. Could that be an indication that it is in the process of shifting? It's been moving North in a straight line for the past 100 years, and now it's actually heading South towards Siberia.

[https://maps.ngdc.noaa.gov/viewers/historical_declination/](https://maps.ngdc.noaa.gov/viewers/historical_declination/)

<comment><USER10> > _Could that be an indication that it is in the process of shifting?_

It _could_ be. Since we've never seen a shift, we don't really know how it looks.

And a shift takes a few thousand years, so we can probably be centuries into it before it's clear what's happening.

<comment><USER13> Ah, too bad, it would have been great drama if it flipped instantly! Or even better, oscillated a few times over the course of a few years before settling in.

<comment><USER10> I mean, for all we know it _might_ oscillate like that.

I doubt the geological record is fine grained enough to tell fast oscillations apart from a slow drift.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


AVM violating license of the Linux kernel - <AUTHOR> http://gpl-violations.org/news/20110620-avm-cybits.html

<comment><USER2> This is much more than your typical license violation -- AVM is suing Cybits because Cybits exercised their GPL rights. So this is a very important case to legitimize the GPL.

more information on Harald Welte's blog: [http://laforge.gnumonks.org/weblog/2011/06/20/#20110620-avm_...](http://laforge.gnumonks.org/weblog/2011/06/20/#20110620-avm_cybits_gpl_violation)

</comment><comment><USER3> If AVM is trying to stop Cybits from reusing the code from AVM that was under GPL in their own stuff, fat chance at that lawsuit.

If AVM is trying to stop Cybits from running modified versions of the GPL code on AVM hardware, then it's not really illegal directly for Cybits to do, but AVM could enforce code signing DRM requirements in their hardware (like TIVO does) to prevent anyone with fiddling with it.

Really AVM could just give up warranty and support for customers that change their software to run Cybits, or if it really bothers them, put signing requirements in their firmware.

</comment><comment><USER4> If AVM were to win this case, could the copyright holders of the Linux source withdraw their license to AVM? Could the license be wielded as a sword and not just a shield?

<comment><USER5> If you could get every single person that has ever made an accepted change to the Linux kernel to agree, sure. Otherwise, I'm not exactly sure how that would work out.

<comment><USER6> You can't retroactively change the license on the software once it's already been released. You can only change the license for future releases.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > "Ironically, by preventing others from enacting the rights granted by the > GNU GPL, AVM itself is in violation of the license terms. Therefore they > have no right to distribute the software" says Till Jaeger.

Is there any more to this than the quote above? The GPL is viral. Sure, you own the copyright to any changes you've made to GPL'd software, but you give up a lot of those rights the moment you distribute. Don't like it? Look for something BSD/MIT licensed to modify and distribute.

<comment><USER8> It depends on the grand complexity that is derivative work. A while back some kid wrote an EverQuest FanFic that someone found objectionable. Sony was able to sue for copyright violation because it was a derivative work. So no you may not own the copyright to changes you make to GPL software(any software really, nothing GPL specific there), because the court may rule it a derivative work. Wikipedia has a few more interesting examples, see Pygmalion towards the bottom. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work>

<comment><USER9> But the GPL gives you the right to make derivative works. I highly doubt Sony did the same with respect to EverQuest. So I'm not sure how applicable that example is.

<comment><USER10> Absolutely nothing prevents you from making derivative works. You can write Everquest fan fiction until the cows come home.

Copying and distributing that derivative work _is_ restricted, however.

<comment><USER9> True... perhaps it would be better stated as the GPL gives you the right to _distribute_ derivative works.

I always thought that fan fiction lived in a legal gray area that was tolerated by some and not others. So in my opinion, it's a bad example to use in this case. GPL is very explicit as to your rights and responsibilities.

<comment><USER8> Some GPL projects sue for copyright infringement others don't. Does that make GPL violations a grey area?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Don't Pursue Programming if You Aren't Passionate About It - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@ebbv/dont-pursue-programming-if-you-aren-t-passionate-about-it-a5bd4e33cd01?source=linkShare-9058e34c01fe-1486724324 <comment><USER3> The discourse on "passion" in the context of CS has gradually been poisoned by commercial interests.

It started as a way of describing great programmers. Those who are at the top of the field probably are very passionate about it. Once "the best programmers are passionate" became established as a common meme, it was co-opted as a hiring signal since everyone only wants to hire the best. In response, all job-seekers are now obligated to being passionate, because after all thats what the companies are looking for and why wouldn't a company choose a passionate candidate over one who's not? Not to mention "passionate" is now abused as a euphemism for "60 hours of work at 40 hours pay! lucky you!"

The truth is the same as always - the majority of people have no passion for their jobs. That means they won't be as motivated as someone who loves the job, but they can do a good job nonetheless. If you do love your job, count your blessings.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree with you. My point was mostly that people should pursue fields that better fit with their own interests and enthusiasms, and that programming as a career is not a bed of roses and if you're going to go into it without passion you're gonna have a bad time.

<comment><USER4> Sorry, but that's based on wishful thinking.

Very few people are lucky enough to have their passions overlap with a career that's marketable.

What if your passion is woodworking? Making beautiful, detailed cabinets that sell for $16,000+ may sound profitable, but I took a class from a woodworker who did exactly that, and he said that the net pay after materials costs (which were less than $1000) came to about $7/hour. Passionate? Insanely so. Probably one of the best woodworkers on the planet; certainly top 100. Only reason he could afford to be a woodworker is that he was on disability and owned his home outright.

I know some passionate knitters. They would probably make about $3/hour, _if they 're lucky_, selling their wares.

Renovating old cars? Maybe $8/hour.

Cooking? Opening a restaurant is a huge capital outlay, and 90% fail in the first year. Working at a restaurant can maybe get you $16/hour. At least we've gotten past starvation wages here.

Singing or other musical interests? Only the very top make a solid career out of it.

Many, many domains that people tend to be passionate about have a power-law distribution of money making. A few knitters make decent money by selling knitting books or videos; the rest do it just because they like it. The top musical stars make _tons_ of money, and second tier stars can make a living, but you need the talent _and_ luck to make it to the top.

A rather mediocre programmer with a couple of resume items courtesy FreeCodeCamp can make $25-40/hour, and then pursue their passion in their spare time. Top programmers make more, but for many people $40/hour is outside of their earning potential in any other field they're qualified for. For some people $25/hour is a serious pay raise at this point. So I totally wouldn't discourage them.

<comment><USER5> Well said, though one small difference is that no one will call you at 2AM to work on their car / wait on another table / etc. Dev work is potentially stressful in ways most jobs aren't, which isn't to say that it isn't also very well compensated, too. Personally I'm content to like what I do without having that rise to the level of passion - and I don't realistically expect more from my mail carrier, my mechanic, my waiter, or really even my doctor. I don't want them to hate what they do, but I don't have any illusions about them loving it so much they'd do even more of it if they only could. It's work.

<comment><USER4> People will call you at 2AM if you're a plumber. Or a doctor. Or a dentist. Or a locksmith.

And sometimes you'll get stuck waiting tables on XMas because the restaurant you work for requires it.

Yes, it varies by job. But 2AM calls are hardly unique to programming.

FWIW I really _do_ want a doctor that's passionate about medicine, for the same reason that I want my lead developer to be passionate: If it's "just a job" they may not be following current best practices, which do change rather rapidly.

To be honest, I think the "GP" doctor's days are numbered. A registered nurse with a really good AI medical reference would likely to a better job than the 80th percentile of doctors, maybe even match the 99th percentile. There's too much information that _isn 't_ in any doctor's head, and a GP is basically a human expert system. A _really good_ AI expert system would do a better job, and a solid nurse following the directions could handle the human part of the interaction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Articles like this seem to be promoting the Cognitive dissonance that most developers hold. Namely: 1. I need to be always learning about programming, even on my spare time! 2. Work/life balance is important.

"Imagine a doctor who doesn't actually like helping people with their health problems. Or an automotive engineer who actually thinks cars are stupid and boring."

Lots of doctors and automotive engineers just do their job and then come home, in fact most employees don't come home and continue to work on semi work related things on their spare time. My wife is a civil engineer and yet she doesn't build a 1/16 scale bridge in our basement when she comes home. Does that make her a bad civil engineer?

"If you aren't passionate about programming I don't think you should become a coder."

"... lifetime of constantly learning and working in your spare time ... to keep your skillset fresh and relevant."

I have asked a few programmers I know what makes a successful programmer and I have always gotten the answer of "passion". But what even is passion? Maybe they are super passionate about VB and FactoryFactoryObservers? Is that good passion? Okay our field changes a lot. but then shouldn't seek the ability and willingness to learn rather then some vague 'passion'. Employers should also set up our teams in such a way that learning is encouraged. (Work Time + Money for conferences/continuing education.)

Edit: Changed the first cognitive dissonance to include the term programming as that was my implied but not stated meaning.

<comment><USER7> > I need to be always learning, even on my spare time!

You should always be learning even in your spare time. Maybe not always about programming but about something.

If you don't then you've relegated yourself to walking around like a robot repeating the same things you do every day not ever thinking about your actions.

Right now I have a huge facination with machining/metal working. I can't own any gear for doing such stuff but I wish I could and I devote a larger amount of my time to learning about machining just because I find it interesting. If I could get into, and start working at a, shop near me I'd be very happy with it as a hobby but I have no intention of being a machinist.

Why would I spend so much time learning about machining then? I enjoy it and it's something I've never seen. It has nothing to do with my programming ability and I'll never need the information in a practical sense but learning about it bings a sort of happiness to my life.

Learning is one of the few things that keeps us human. Always exploring ideas, possibilities, and how to solve problems even if they aren't directly applicable to us. When we stop doing that we just turn into vegtables in my opinion.

<comment><USER6> I meant coming home from your job and continuing to work on your job in some form or something that directly relates to your job. Because that strikes me as indicative of deeper issues. Does your job not give you enough time to finish projects? Does your job not give you enough time to stay up to date in your field? Do you constantly feel like an impostor?

I have no quarrels with someone having side projects. But those side projects shouldn't be fueled by some existential dread related to one's job or position.

I have corrected the language to be more specific.

<comment><USER8> > ...indicative of deeper issues. Does your job not give you enough time to > finish projects? Does your job not give you enough time to stay up to date > in your field? Do you constantly feel like an impostor?

You are confusing 3 completely different issues and not accounting the enjoyment of learning new things.

<comment><USER9> > the enjoyment of learning new things.

This is exactly what I believe passion is. Passion isn't something that's 'vague' or that you have to search for. It's the simple joy of doing some activity or learning something related to that activity. No joy, no passion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Programming as a career allows me to have a great lifestyle: I get a lot of time off, it pays me very well despite graduating college pretty recently, most tech companies don't drug test, and I have fun and get to solve puzzles every day.

It's a great job, but I'm not passionate about it. I won't go home and work on a side project or pick up a book about.. any learning or reading I need to do happens at work. I have other hobbies I'm actually passionate about and I simply don't have time or willpower to do something that feels like work not at work. And there's no way pursuing my hobbies full time would lead to me being happier - I'd be much poorer and have a way worse lifestyle.

I also don't feel like I'm locked into programming as a career forever - it's a great gig now but should it become less desireable then you can bet I'll adapt to whatever allows me to have the lifestyle I want. If that means moving into management in 5 years, so be it.

But that also doesn't mean I don't accomplish as much as other more passionate programmers per hour worked. I don't think passion has nearly as much to do with that as much as being able to find your work fulfilling and wanting to do good work. But those aren't the same thing.

</comment><comment><USER11> Why is "passion" such a driving-force for our generation? We keep hearing this word, and we keep applying it to the context of jobs. The more we talk about it, the more people get bogged down by the two not intersecting.

Let's agree to disagree and say "some people have passion, some people don't. If passion and job intersect, that's dandy. Either should be okay, just pay the bills and live your life the way you want.

<comment><USER12> Because young, eager, "passionate" uber-hackers are easier to exploit.

The idea of "passion" for programming might or might not have originated on the hiring side, but that side sure seems happy to run with it.

[EDIT: Not disagreeing with the original post, though. Just responding to the above comment about where this word comes from.]

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> As long as there is a market where <SOMEBODY> pays a _regular recurring paycheck_ for <ACTIVITY>, that <ACTIVITY> will attract people who are not particularly passionate about the job. This is ok.

That activity is different from <SPECULATIVE WORK> without a steady paycheck such as writing novels, composing a song, and painting original art. Those fields absolutely require passion because of the constant rejections and overwhelming odds that your work will not be a "hit."

Programming work is a very wide field that encompasses both maintenance work and the artistic work. The jobs that are mostly maintenance work can attract people who are _competent_ but not necessarily _passionate_. They're not going to wake up in the morning and get excited about moving a zip code field 1 pixel on a shopping cart form. But they compartmentalize that 8 hours of that programming that companies need and then go home to play with their kids. The essay ignores that scenario which is probably the vast majority of programming jobs.

</comment><comment><USER14> I drifted to a career in programming because I loved it. I used to do a lot of hacks and side-projects, but once in working life, I came to realize just how much legacy code bases I'm going to deal with. Nobody in general likes rewriting or fixing legacy code, but unlike others, I felt unable to enjoy the feeling of getting the legacy work done. As I worked more with legacy code, paying off the technical debt of others, I started having signs of burnout towards programming. I stopped doing side projects and even glimpsing code on the weekends felt bad.

Then I came across this career advice which suggested choosing a job which's struggles you love to solve. I realized that I loved the struggles of self- discipline to get the last 10% of a project done, the struggles of dealing with bad clients and the struggles of marketing and acquiring the first ones. I realized the programming required in professional software engineering was not the struggles I wanted to deal with.

Later on, I met a startup founder who had struggles with their company. The founder told that it seems like the end is near. Despite all the efforts throughout the years with many ups and downs, it seems like a single mistake took the venture down. It seems like the years were wasted on not becoming rich and successful, but then added that despite not becoming rich, she was happy with her life all the long way down. She told me that as long as I am comfortable with my life, I should not worry about the risks of running an unsuccessful company. Ultimately, a greater regret would be to push forward a life in which you don't find yourself happy in.

<comment><USER15> If you don't mind me asking, what did you do after you had your realization? Become a project manager or something?

<comment><USER14> Started my own company through the side projects.

Would I go back to be employed, I'd go after a product role.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The problem with focusing on passion as a driving force is that it reverses the direction of how professional "passion" is often developed - <USER2> experience. I can't find the source now[0] but I recall reading about research investigating professional passion in college administrators. It found that passion was directly related to work years. In other words, experience and advanced skills bred more confidence and passion over time.

The other problem with making passion a mandatory requirement is that it's selfish. Passion has nothing to do with providing value, which is largely what yields professional success. Most people are passionate about their fun hobbies, but that doesn't mean they should pursue them professionally. If an employee isn't passionate about coding but gets the job done, then what's the problem?

[0] Study Hacks blog by Cal Newport, maybe?

<comment><USER17> Interesting notion.i can certainly see that applying to me.

I'm a digital marketer and I love love love going deep on analytics, attribution, etc. as a part of that. However I wasn't even aware of half that stuff when I was first starting out.

Professional experience led to greater and deeper exposure of new areas of the discipline that were way more interesting to me than the fundamentals that first got me interested. I now engage in discussions on those topics with other professionals in my spare time because it interests me beyond my job.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I believe this is the worst advice ever. Passion is a really misunderstood concept. What does it mean to be passionate about something?

Does it mean enjoying doing something all the time? Well, that's just unhealthy.

Does it mean you have a skill in something you constantly improve? Everybody needs to start from zero.

Does it mean you work on your pet projects in your free time? This will likely change throughout your life.

Does it mean the field excites you? That is not a good reason to work on something - I'm really passionate about books, but I'm not a writer and don't think I will ever be(or will want to be).

The only real metric for passion is sticking with something for a long time and being happy about it. How the hell would you know it before you start? How would you even know it a few years in? People burnout all the time.

Saying that you have to be passionate about something is terrible. It discourages people from actually trying. It makes them question their motives. It makes them think if they should start doing something instead of actually trying to do it.

You don't need passion to be a decent developer. Hell, sometimes you'll hate your job and it's normal too. What you need is talent, by which I mean cognitive ability to learn field's concepts. You won't know if you have it unless you try.

Yes, people shouldn't get into programming just because they think it is a good career - there is a lot of stuff that will turn people off which code schools do not mention - lots of stress, cognitive load, sedentary lifestyle. It's not for everybody. But TRYING to get into field because it's a good career is as good a reason as any. Time will tell if you stick around.

</comment><comment><USER19> [https://www.wired.com/2017/02/programming-is-the-new-blue- co...](https://www.wired.com/2017/02/programming-is-the-new-blue-collar-job/) A lot of coding is just a boring job that has to be done. I never met anyone who is passionate about writing tests etc. but everyone knows that it has to be done

<comment><USER20> _> These sorts of coders won't have the deep knowledge to craft wild new algorithms for flash trading or neural networks. Why would they need to? That level of expertise is rarely necessary at a job._

I think the author greatly underestimates software complexity and future development in complexity. IT is not a narrowing field, where any task soon can be solved by _slinging some javascript_. I agree, that some tasks are simpler than others and don't require a full computer science degree, however software development still does require that you know wth you are doing. I do not want my bank software written by a guy who just finished a 6-month javascript course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Ignore this blog. Pursue whatever you like. Don't ever worry about whether you have sufficient "passion," that's a trap.

<comment><USER22> > Ignore this blog. 90% of the time this holds true for the whole medium.com > platform :)

<comment><USER23> and the rest of the internet.

<comment> nils-m-holm ...and everything else (Sturgeon's law).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > If, like me, you have no interest in managing other people and want to just > do coding for your career, then you're eventually going to hit a ceiling in > any organization

I can't think of one job where you _won 't_ hit a ceiling if you don't want to manage people.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a fair point. My thought was that some careers have a higher ceiling at least in terms of pay. Very quickly in programming you hit a point where you have to manage a team or manage projects or manage entire departments in order to get any more big raises. But you might be right that this is true for 90% of careers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Passion is not really interesting. I'd rather hire someone who is skilled, easy to work with, and will get stuff done. I don't really need him to get hyped up on caffeine and write medium articles about how passionate he is; I'm paying him to do a job.

I also am not sure what to make of the Op's mention of starting to program at 10. I read my dad's copy of K&R and installed some Linux distribution at that age too, but I didn't make any real progress until I realized that it's just a job and started acting more like a professional.

</comment><comment><USER26> I just spent several hours debugging a nasty npm / shrinkwrap dependency clusterf __* across multiple repos and I don 't think passion has any bearing on my state of mind right now.

</comment><comment><USER27> Yeah, no.

I strongly hate this idea that programming is for passionate people only. I interpret this as "You want to find a job that will improve your living conditions significantly if you're willing to put the work in? Fuck you; stick to the coffee bar."

I encourage _everyone_ who is interested in learning how to program and wants to make a lot of money to take this field up. Why? Because at the end of the day, programming is a device whose input is business needs and output is something that makes that business money. Maybe. Better programming saves money and makes those money-making machines cheaper to repair and fix, but if it still makes money, then it still makes money.

If they learn to become good at this stuff, then why _shouldn 't_ they take advantage of an amazing salary and usually fantastic working and learning conditions?

BTW: there are _plenty_ of great doctors and lawyers who are in it for the cash. Why? As it so happens, getting better at one's field leads to better chances at making more money. So you get better.

</comment><comment><USER28> I agree completely. I became a pro dev 31 years ago when I had passion, and while I don't regret my career choice, my passion has waned, especially for dev (coding ways & means). I could never have survived this long in this business without passion in what I do -- even if it's no longer a passion for programming.

I've also witnessed most/all of the points David offered, esp the ceiling in job growth and the tiresomeness of learning the latest fashion in coding that does the same old thing, just in a more complicated way.

My own solution has been to turn away from development as an end unto itself and to get more involved in the problem space du jour (social network analysis, data mining, image analysis, medical biomarker resolution, etc). This doesn't address either of the woes I echoed, but at least it motivates me better than fantasizing about category theory while I feed yet another database while sitting in my cube.

</comment><comment> FLUX-YOU It's a tool just like any toolset. You don't need an undying passion for mechanics fueled by a thousand suns to use and understand a torque wrench. The allure around this job is invented and idealized in too many cases for it to be genuine to me. It has too many ordinary and mundane problems shared with other industries (i.e. social) to be a special industry. If it were really special, people would be tripping over themselves to get out of your way and see what you build or do next. Some people get to this level but the vast majority don't. Compare to being an astronaut.

There's also no tragedy in being a doctor that just wants to do a good job. Not every case is going to be an interesting medical mystery. In fact, it's probably gotten more frustrating as people suddenly start trusting internet articles and you have to endlessly urge caution and explain anything they've got wrong.

</comment><comment><USER29> I don't agree with this article mainly because one's passion for anything in life is dynamic. It starts and stops at points in your life that you can't anticipate.

I didn't know anything about programming until university - I took the courses CS majors had to take in my stats degree until the end of 2nd year, and I definitely wasn't "passionate" about it. Actually, I was quite convinced I didn't want programming to be in my career whatsoever. But after my first co- op term in a start-up where I got to see what actually could be done with a team of people who knew how to code, coupled with 3rd year classes being more interesting and relevant than the fundamentals, I gained my passion. I now run a SaaS that combines programming, statistics, and other passions.

If I read your article after 2nd year while applying for my first jobs and taken this advice, I would have said "screw it, life's too short" and not be in the situation now where so many more doors are open compared to my classmates. I'd be on track for pigeon holing myself into boring stats jobs that need SAS certifications, with none of the skills I have now for a career in modern data analysis in the tech industry.

Side note, I hate reading about developers who lament about the career trajectory compared to being a doctor/lawyer. Most good developers are smart enough to genuinely believe that being a doctor would have been attainable if you just switched another lever earlier in life. I think this is a valid regret if you had actually always wanted to dedicate your life to legally/medically advising people, but you chose programming for the money. But for almost all of these developers, the decision to choose their career wasn't 100% about money and being a doctor/lawyer was never a serious consideration past wishful thinking. You're just viewing the grass as greener on the other side without considering the cons and consequences of actually being a doctor/lawyer, and that type of negative mentality is not healthy.

</comment><comment><USER30> Perhaps it's just my perception, but I find we as Americans are very keen on this notion of being absolutely "passionate" about the career we choose. My mother had a much more practical outlook (maybe it had something to do with her immigrating to America as a refugee at the end of the Vietnam war): she said "very few people are actually in a field they love. It's common for people to completely change their careers several times over their lives. If you can find a job you don't hate and it pays well, great! That's better than what a lot of people have. If you can find a job that pays well and that you maybe even like from time to time, even better."

Don't get me wrong; I enjoy programming. But it's far from my #1 passion in life. It's what pays the bills. I don't do side-projects (at least as of right now).

I'm actually inclined to agree with the author to a certain degree: being passionate about programming will make you a better developer. The same could be said for any field though.

Also, to his last bullet point about needing to constantly be learning: I think a person could learn a long-living language (e.g. Java, C++, C#) and expect to have a decent career. Sure if you're aiming to work for startup X, you'll probably need to be hip to newest (and therefore supposedly "best") tech. Even though Java has been the butt of many jokes, it seems like there's always a need for Java engineers!

</comment><comment><USER31> Not every job requires passion. I would venture to say that most jobs don't. Is it a desirable trait? Sure. Is it the only trait that matters? Most certainly not.

The idea that all programmers are super-passionate about the craft and never have any other interests can lead people to assume that if you don't have that single-minded focus that you aren't a _real_ programmer. This is an industry where many people deal with imposter syndrome already; they really don't need any additional help with questioning whether or not they have what it takes to succeed.

It's a common human tendency to assume that others in your group are exactly like you. The programmers with passion for the craft assume that everyone else who is a developer must share that passion. This is pretty short-sighted and exclusionary. Not every developer codes in their spare time. Not every developer learns new programming languages for fun.

I agree with the author that you need some level of enjoyment from the process of programming in order to succeed in it as a career, but I doubt that's specific to programming, either.

</comment><comment><USER32> My passion for programming varies.

Not quite as passionate Monday morning as I am Wednesday morning.

Decidedly less passionate after forced marches on crappy projects or putting up with BS.

Pretty passionate when things are just interesting enough but not frustrating, and most especially when I feel value in what is being done.

But really I've always felt passion for tools was a bit misplaced. Passion for results is where it's at.

</comment><comment><USER33> There's a really great counterpoint linked in the comments of this article. I dunno about you, but this pretty well sums up my take on it.

[https://medium.com/@WordcorpGlobal/programming-doesnt- requir...](https://medium.com/@WordcorpGlobal/programming-doesnt-require- talent-or-even-passion-11422270e1e4#.kls3q2a9d)

<comment><USER13> That Modmaj article is not really a counterpoint to DM's article because Modmaj's focus is whether passion is required to acquire "skill" at programming.

David Matteson's essay is talking about passion as a prerequisite for programming jobs to help with "happiness" and life satisfaction.

<comment><USER33> My apologies. It's just that "counterpoint" was easier to type than "an article that examines similar but not perfectly analogous ideas from a differing point of view."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> People should not become professional writers if they are not really passionate about it. This doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage everyone to learn how to write. Same thing for programming.

Of course, this is very different than companies trying to get more people into programming so they can have a cheaper workforce.

</comment><comment><USER35> Well then, I guess I am not a True Scotsman.

I am not passionate about programming, yet I program computers. I use the tools that programming algorithms provide in order to do the things that I want to do.

Sometimes that is for work. I model some bio-thingy in Matlab, or I use Arduino soft/hardware to generate said data, I do stats automatically, I manage the website and do fun stuff with it, etc.

Sometimes I program 'for fun'. I use Markov and RNN analysis for side projects, I do non-textual analysis on stuff I want to look at, I manage my home via smart-home hardware, I play video-games or sports games and then use various python programs to analyze stuff I want to look at.

I am not passionate about the act of programming anymore than the act of soldering or using a socket wrench. Programming is a method, a tool, that I use for my passions.

So what does this make me?

</comment><comment><USER36> What is passion anyway? It would suffice to say, that a person should like some parts of developing software in a way that creates a recognizable tingle of pleasure. Because that's what you will do. And sit in meetings. And if there is no tingle of pleasure from either of these, a career in programming will make your life less than it could have been.

The term "passion" makes me think I'm required to passionately make love to a superclass while domain requirements strap me to a table of molasses and legacy code, crying "Yes! You filthy amalgamation of mixed paradigms, take me any which way you like! Procedural! Functional! I want it all! I want you to be my precious Ruby! My cup of hot Java! My serrated blade of C! A twisting tangle of Python! A furious steed of Fortran and assembly!"

</comment><comment><USER37> In our modern economy, lots of people do things they aren't passionate about in order to live a life of relative freedom. You happened to find success programming, but that doesn't mean I'll find success writing music (or whatever else my real passion may be).

</comment><comment><USER38> Don't mistake/substitute passion for environment.

You can burn yourself out to hell, being passionate in a shit environment that doesn't care.

In fact, you can lose your passion, in those circumstances.

Whatever you do, find a good environment for it. This is an integral part of enjoying what you do.

</comment><comment><USER39> "Looking for your passion, purpose, or calling is an example of the fixed mindset. You're assuming that this is an inherent and unchanging thing inside of you, like trying to read your DNA or blood type. But you won't find passion and purpose there, because that's not where those feelings come from.

Passion and purpose are emotions that come after expertise and experience. The way to get them is to commit to the path of mastery, get great at something, and do great work."

From [https://sivers.org/career](https://sivers.org/career)

</comment><comment><USER40> I'm glad there are people who want to program. I have no interest in or patience for it, and there's no way I could stick with it long enough to make the tools I use for the things I'm interested in and have patience for.

Everyone who works on Scrivener, Reaper, the countless VSTs I use, Firefox, Windows, Android, Linux, all the backend and frontend technologies of the web, and all the hardware and software that makes it all work together are my heroes. They do the stuff that makes my eyes gloss over so I can crack jokes on Twitter, make music, and write.

</comment><comment><USER41> I imagine that most people here score higher on the passionate index because they've sought out hacker news which posits on entrepreneurship, programming, technology etc... But this advice should be for any career. You spend a lot of time at work and working. It should be enjoyable if you are fortunate. I have watched interviews of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and what is striking is the technical interests around their work, e.g. what they actually do on a day to day. That's the passion.

</comment><comment><USER42> This actually pairs nicely with the "How Do You Know a Developer Is Doing a Good Job" article on the front page right now.

Truly raising the standard of the development profession doesn't mean keeping out people who are less skilled, passionate or competent. There's a lot of room at all levels. What's most critical is that the people who form teams of developers, coordinate their work, judge their value and reward them are good at what they do.

</comment><comment><USER43> I'd rather have a colleague who isn't passionate about programming, but passionate about helping the customer than the other way around. Though I'm not even sure what people mean when they say someone has to be "passionate". How do you measure this?

</comment><comment><USER24> Passions don't necessarily have to be ingrained from birth. Plenty of people get into something for one reason or another and gradually build their passion

</comment><comment><USER44> "If you are pursuing programming to become wealthy, you'd be better off pursuing a career in management"

This is hopefully false for interesting companies, otherwise, just flee! If you are working for an organization that does not value senior software engineers, this organization is just crap.

<comment><USER45> It depends on what is meant by "wealthy" really. Plenty of non-manager technical staff in the bay area can become financially well enough off to be considered wealthy, given enough time and judicious allocation of their savings. There are very few programmers outside high-paying tech hot-spots like SF who will ever be wealthy without moving into management.

There are other factors to consider though. Generally speaking in most instances, even the interesting companies, management is going to be a faster, more reliable path to wealth. My observations lead me to conclude that:

1\. Most technical staff is generally considered fungible _by management_ , even at interesting companies, so layoffs can and do tend to impact non- management harder and more frequently, and this impacts long-term earnings.

2\. Even at interesting companies management is generally compensated better in terms of salary, bonuses and (as management level rises) bonuses and stock grants. This generally isn't just a few percentage points difference in the pay, either: in most places outside those high-paying hotspots managers tend to be paid wages that are much closer to SV wages than programmers will ever see, so the difference is even greater there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> The article is quite good, better than the title of it :)

We need a better way to interview :)

</comment><comment><USER47> No, I don't need to make my whole life about X to be decent at X.

</comment><comment><USER48> "Make Programming Great Again"

</comment><comment><USER49> This is more of a philosophical stance than one related to any given industry, and one I rather strongly disagree with. It revolves around the idea that a good enough person has a passion, that passion has been obvious to them since age 10, and it is something they should devote themselves to that in totality.

An essay of PG's [1] is in agreement with this concept, but even it at least makes note of a certain important point:

"Some people are lucky enough to know what they want to do when they're 12, and just glide along as if they were on railroad tracks. But this seems the exception. More often people who do great things have careers with the trajectory of a ping-pong ball. They go to school to study A, drop out and get a job doing B, and then become famous for C after taking it up on the side."

[1] [http://www.paulgraham.com/love.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/love.html)

I think PG's essay was written with fairly privileged people as the audience, though. Most people are surviving, they don't really have room to study different things and juggle professions. What kind of people often do? Software developers. For all the bad rap that software gets, it still strikes me as one of the most mobile professions out there, and it's fairly easy to branch out into something else from it, and it provides enough money for a good buffer that such life changes need. Yet the blog suggests you shouldn't even touch software unless you're already passionate.

But, aside from that point, I have never seen any evidence that every single person on Earth has a passion deep inside of them that needs to be unlocked. That sounds very metaphysical, like some mysterious force out there is bestowing passions on people (especially ones that neatly fit into societal boxes called "jobs", and, yes, I know PG is not saying that, but the blog post author appears to imply it). I'm sympathetic to metaphysical ideas, but they need to have a reasonable basis, and this one just seems to be wishful thinking. You would at least hope that passions are more diffuse or that people can have multiple ones, because some programmers must have been born when computers didn't even exist yet!

This seems like a very dangerous idea to throw around, too, how are people without a passion supposed to feel? The implication seems to be that something is deeply wrong with them and they need to go fix it. Also seems to be ripe ground for impostor syndrome.

My guess is that single point passion is likely a genetic or early developmental trait, and is an uncommon thing, especially since the average person usually needs to do lots of different things at varying skill levels. I imagine it's also somewhat associated with impulsive behavior because a characteristic of a passionate person is that they can't stop themselves from engaging with their passion. Most people are not like this and can't understand it, from what I've seen. Most people want to do multiple different things, hence hobbies. I would like to have 3 professions, just not do them all 8 hours each, and preferably ones not really related to each other. Like programming, martial arts, and cooking. Really, I'd like to do 10-20 things, and the list can get bigger than that, but I'd be pretty happy with 3.

There is someone that this idea really benefits - that each person will pick just one thing, and work almost exclusively on that one thing and little else - but I don't think that someone is the person themselves.

</comment><comment><USER50> Pursue programming with passion _</comment>


Implications of Recent PDF /Launch Hacks - <AUTHOR> http://siemblog.com/2010/04/implications-of-recent-pdf-launch-hacks/

<comment><USER2> This looks like it's on topic and might make some interesting points, but it's just plain tl;dr, and the formatting doesn't help. I read the first paragraph or two, clicked over to the description of the attack being referenced, and then couldn't make it through the rest of the wall of text. If it's really as concise as it can get, I would recommend substantially reducing the column width.

(This is intended as constructive criticism, not Internet rage, but I'm open to constructive criticism of my methods for same.)

<comment><USER3> Basically: in the dystopia that is the Internet, all PDFs could be considered a potential exploit vector by incident response teams cleaning up a corporate malware infestation. Discussed is a plausible scheme (edit: with a PoC) wherein all PDFs with write-access by the victim on a given system are infected virally with the same PDF/Launch code as the initial infected PDF. The result being even after a clean re-image and restore of all seemingly- harmless files, the infected PDFs remain and re-infection is likely.

It's no secret that PDF/Launch can be used to execute an attached binary. Didier's work shows a way to modify the dialog box's contents that ask for the user's approval to launch, giving the attacker the ability to craft a much softer-sounding "ok/cancel" situation or one that is more likely to result in the user allowing the attachment to launch.

As an info-sec guy, and with all the Adobe crap lately, I have to say that the article's author's opinion: "Do you really think the incident response team will suspect every single PDF file on the user's computer as being involved? I seriously doubt it." doesn't hold much water. I might very likely suspect PDF as the attack vector and would likely refuse to restore these files without taking a much closer look at them.</comment></comment>


Bumblebees Demonstrate the Power of Insect Brains - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/science/bumblebees-insect-brains-video.html <comment><USER2> According to wiki a bee has 1 mil neurons and 1 billion synapses.

Even if we consider one synapse=one parameter, that would be bigger than the models which learned how to play Atari games.

So I guess it's not such a big surprise.

Of course, bee neurons also do other stuff besides learning a game.</comment>


Adding up the cost of uncontrolled immigration - <AUTHOR> http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/harvards-george-j-borjas/ <comment><USER2> Thank you, HN peeps. Nice to see the loyal opposition appear on HN once in a while. I accept the site's left-of-center leanings, but it's heartwarming to see a different perspective hit the front page every so often. Speaks well of the mods and audience here.

<comment><USER3> Meanwhile the recent article on scaling back the house ethics committee is flagged/dead..

<comment><USER4> Well, that's "just politics". While immigration policy somehow is not.

But I bet if you suggested ruthlessly deporting anyone who overstays a student visa or cheats on their visa to do a startup, you'd get a different response, even though those things are just as illegal as the person working at Wal-Mart without legal presence/permission to work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It seems like an obvious result of the law of supply & demand that immigration will drive the price of labor down for jobs which those immigrants do: more (un-unionized) labor = lower wages.

<comment><USER6> Followed by the cost of the government paying for their children (who will be citizens), because they certainly won't be able to afford to take care of several children on those low wage jobs. School, and welfare programs will add up, even if the parents themselves don't get much. The average cost per student in public school is $10,615 per year alone With Utah being on the low end with $6,000 per year.

<comment><USER7> What's the cost to deport 11.1 million people? And is it more expensive to deport them then to assimilate them into the workforce on a permanent basis?

Remember, the fertility rate drops when women are educated and their children don't die; this would suggest state funded education and the continuation of low income healthcare for children is the financially superior option to mass deportations.

<comment><USER8> You don't need to deport people; make it tough to earn a living and they'll move somewhere else — that's what brought them here in the first place. Arizona cracked down on illegal aliens a while back and their intensive- English courses enrollment dropped by 80,000 students. While intensive-English course enrollment is an imperfect proxy for "illegal" (some illegals don't need it anymore and some born here still do), this saved the state $350 million a year. Annual ER spending on noncitizens dropped from $167M to $106M. And between '00 and '04, the annual cost to state prisons from incarcerating noncitizen felons dropped 11% from $202M to $180M.

At least $416M saved, per year on average, and Arizona didn't deport anybody.

[https://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/arizonas-e...](https://educationrealist.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/arizonas- experience-and-the-tale-it-tells/) (numbers quoted from the WSJ article quoted near the end: ctrl-F for "Remember education?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Sure, let's add up the cost.

What is the cost of a human life? What is the cost of the welfare of children whose only crime is _following their parents_ across a border?

I don't pose these questions to signal virtue, but to point out the absurdity of assigning something like a cost function to something as natural as wanting a better life for oneself or one's children.

It might very well be true that "uncontrolled" immigration has an impact on the livelihoods of poorer Americans. Does this really imply that we should hurt the former in favor of the latter instead of helping both?

<comment><USER10> Depending on how and where you spend it, its about $7500 or more to save a life.

[http://www.givewell.org/giving101/Your-dollar-goes- further-o...](http://www.givewell.org/giving101/Your-dollar-goes-further- overseas)

<comment><USER9> But is that life _worth_ $7500? More seriously, is a life that costs _more_ to save more valuable?

I think the answer to both of these is an unqualified 'no.'

<comment><USER10> A life is a life. If one life costs 7500 to save and another costs 15000 they are both still lives if you ask me. Should you spend 15000 to save one life or 7500*2 to save 2? If the one that costs 15000 is your child? Thats complicated of course. But the numbers arent really. Again, 7500 or more. As long as you have resources to share you can choose which life to save (or if you want to spend it on a computer and time on HN and let them all perish).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The article tries to paint both sides as adversarial and politically entrenched when clearly the researchers themselves (when quoted) want to focus on the data and the realities on the ground. I'm glad that it touches upon the fact that immigration policy is more complicated and nuanced then it first seems, with emergent behaviors that are reflected in more then just falling wages.

>Borjas suggests requiring employers to use the E-Verify system to ensure their workers aren't in the country illegally, and otherwise supports a period of "benign neglect" toward those already here: no deportation, but no amnesty either, at least until the enforcement-first strategy proves successful.

I think a huge gap in the article is the write-off of labor rights under this kind of "benign neglect" system. A policy that creates a second-tier system naturally depresses wages for both immigrant and citizen laborers. If "benign neglect" means that basic standards for workplace safety and the right to assemble are not recognized and protected by the government, employers can use this to perform wage arbitrage.

</comment><comment><USER12> Employment of illegal immigrants is not illegal in the US?

<comment><USER13> It's roundly ignored, because dark foreignors are easier for politicians to scape goat.</comment></comment>