The anecdote about reading a 3000 page manual looking for exploits is something I realized a couple of years ago.
Almost everything takes that level of dedication to be really good at, so there's no point in forcing yourself into something you hate. You have to invest an enormous amount of time and it doesn't get any easier.
The whole "I go home every night after work, pour myself a glass of wine and read the case law" is an interesting point as well. I quickly realized that despite a lot of techies being very loud about WLB, that's not how it works with exceptional people.
They are so interested in what they do that WLB is not really a thing. Or at the very least, it wasn't at some point in their life.
---
To that effect, I think consistency is overrated for skill acquisition.
1) A couple of months of intense learning can progress you the same as a couple of years of passive learning (Sidenote: this is why I think YOE requirements are stupid, it's measured in passive time)
2) Skill progression is very non-linear in my experience. At some point a bunch of knowledge clicks together and you're suddenly way more effective despite not having gained much extra explicit knowledge (Though you may have gained tacit knowledge!)
The main reason I'm trying to improve my consistency is actually for other people, not myself. I prefer to work in bursts, alternating between prospecting and intense work. But that makes it hard for other people to work with you because your output isn't predictable.
Are you aware that the first time you use an acronym you're supposed to define it? They're not even used in the article. I'm not a native speaker so I'm used to have to stop to look up words, but it makes reading the comment much slower, especially when it's acronyms that are used so little they don't even show up in search results.
Are you aware that the first time you use an acronym you're supposed to define it?
Tell this all the people who use abbreviations and acronyms in source code.
Of course there is no place of "first time" use in code as one does not read code linearly.
So abbreviations and acronyms in code are bad. Very bad. Most of the time you can't even look up the stuff someone made just up to save a few key strokes (which is irrelevant as there is code suggestion even in command line editors these days).
Using abbreviations and acronyms in code makes it cryptic. Always.
(The only legitimate place to use abbreviations and acronyms is imho some highly domain specific sub-language where all the domain experts know all the abbreviations and acronyms, and only those domain experts works on this code part.)
Q: In the following text, what do "WLB" and "YOE" refer to? [paste contents of GP]
A (GPT-4): In the given text, "WLB" refers to "Work-Life Balance," which is the equilibrium between one's professional and personal life. "YOE" refers to "Years of Experience," a common metric used to quantify the amount of time someone has spent working in a particular field or role.
Probably, yes. Is it more efficient for the single poster to write out a few extra words, or for the hundreds of readers to go to Google or AI to help them interpret the letters? I work in accounting, an industry that throws out work-life balance into daily conversations, and i still didn't recognize it.
I quickly realized that despite a lot of techies being very loud about WLB, that's not how it works with exceptional people.
They are so interested in what they do that WLB is not really a thing.
(I'm assuming WLB = work-life balance)
There's a really important distinction: a job asking someone to work crazy hours is very different from choosing to spend your personal time coding or learning technical things that may or may not be directly related to your $job.
Some people have hobbies as Nd interests that closely mirror what they do for work. Learning about stuff that you're interested in anyway, but also applies to your job, is not a problem of balance.
I've sometimes been so invested in something I'm working on that I'll pick it up late at night after everyone else is in bed. The balance part of this is when I do that, I'm going to take off early another day. That's a big difference from working extra hours or being told to work extra hours.
I have a similar opinion as you, but there seem to be a lot of people who advocate for strict 9-5 and will not do anything outside of that which feels very unrealistic to me.
Some of us don't have an option. My daughter's school is open from 8 to 6; I can't possibly get to work any earlier or stay any later than those constraints allow.
The whole "I go home every night after work, pour myself a glass of wine and read the case law" is an interesting point as well. I quickly realized that despite a lot of techies being very loud about WLB, that's not how it works with exceptional people.
I think there's a _huge_ difference between working all the time because you've got a boss threatening to fire you if you don't versus because you're voluntarily learning to supercharge your career.
The problem is the mental fatigue / penalty as a consequence of not working in things you are interested in.
I work @FAANG, for the stuff that I am actually interested in, I found myself casually hitting 60 hours per week without even thinking about it, plus M hours at home working on adjacent stuff / ideas. I worked here during my last semester of uni when I finished my thesis, and I was fine because I was doing genuinely interesting stuff.
However, the mental exhaustion that comes with context switches or dealing with uninteresting and mundane stuff that still involve effort makes it very difficult for me to actually spend time writing code or doing something productive after / outside.
This second point is under-appreciated. Many, if not most, skill based activities work like this. It's a weak mess for a long time then suddenly things start to click together and progress hockey sticks upward.
Comments
The anecdote about reading a 3000 page manual looking for exploits is something I realized a couple of years ago.
Almost everything takes that level of dedication to be really good at, so there's no point in forcing yourself into something you hate. You have to invest an enormous amount of time and it doesn't get any easier.
The whole "I go home every night after work, pour myself a glass of wine and read the case law" is an interesting point as well. I quickly realized that despite a lot of techies being very loud about WLB, that's not how it works with exceptional people.
They are so interested in what they do that WLB is not really a thing. Or at the very least, it wasn't at some point in their life.
---
To that effect, I think consistency is overrated for skill acquisition.
1) A couple of months of intense learning can progress you the same as a couple of years of passive learning (Sidenote: this is why I think YOE requirements are stupid, it's measured in passive time)
2) Skill progression is very non-linear in my experience. At some point a bunch of knowledge clicks together and you're suddenly way more effective despite not having gained much extra explicit knowledge (Though you may have gained tacit knowledge!)
The main reason I'm trying to improve my consistency is actually for other people, not myself. I prefer to work in bursts, alternating between prospecting and intense work. But that makes it hard for other people to work with you because your output isn't predictable.
Good article though :).
WLB: Work-life balance
YOE: Years of experience
Are you aware that the first time you use an acronym you're supposed to define it? They're not even used in the article. I'm not a native speaker so I'm used to have to stop to look up words, but it makes reading the comment much slower, especially when it's acronyms that are used so little they don't even show up in search results.
Tell this all the people who use abbreviations and acronyms in source code.
Of course there is no place of "first time" use in code as one does not read code linearly.
So abbreviations and acronyms in code are bad. Very bad. Most of the time you can't even look up the stuff someone made just up to save a few key strokes (which is irrelevant as there is code suggestion even in command line editors these days).
Using abbreviations and acronyms in code makes it cryptic. Always.
(The only legitimate place to use abbreviations and acronyms is imho some highly domain specific sub-language where all the domain experts know all the abbreviations and acronyms, and only those domain experts works on this code part.)
Hmm, I've binged and googled "YOE meaning" and both showed me site with those definitions as 2nd result
Acronym Definition
YOE Year of Entry
YOE Years of Experience
YOE Year of Exchange (Australia and Japan)
YOE Youth Organic Environmental (UK)
YOE Yeshivat Olam Echad
YOE Youth Orchestral Experience (South Africa)
Thank you.
They're both common acronyms that have been around a long time.
Both of them are also on the first page of results when I google for the acronyms, so I don't know where you were looking.
Is it really necessary to define acronyms that an LLM can easily explain? https://sharegpt.com/c/b0IJEzZ :
Probably, yes. Is it more efficient for the single poster to write out a few extra words, or for the hundreds of readers to go to Google or AI to help them interpret the letters? I work in accounting, an industry that throws out work-life balance into daily conversations, and i still didn't recognize it.
(I'm assuming WLB = work-life balance)
There's a really important distinction: a job asking someone to work crazy hours is very different from choosing to spend your personal time coding or learning technical things that may or may not be directly related to your $job.
Some people have hobbies as Nd interests that closely mirror what they do for work. Learning about stuff that you're interested in anyway, but also applies to your job, is not a problem of balance.
I've sometimes been so invested in something I'm working on that I'll pick it up late at night after everyone else is in bed. The balance part of this is when I do that, I'm going to take off early another day. That's a big difference from working extra hours or being told to work extra hours.
I have a similar opinion as you, but there seem to be a lot of people who advocate for strict 9-5 and will not do anything outside of that which feels very unrealistic to me.
Some of us don't have an option. My daughter's school is open from 8 to 6; I can't possibly get to work any earlier or stay any later than those constraints allow.
poor girl, hope she at least likes it there
I think there's a _huge_ difference between working all the time because you've got a boss threatening to fire you if you don't versus because you're voluntarily learning to supercharge your career.
The problem is the mental fatigue / penalty as a consequence of not working in things you are interested in.
I work @FAANG, for the stuff that I am actually interested in, I found myself casually hitting 60 hours per week without even thinking about it, plus M hours at home working on adjacent stuff / ideas. I worked here during my last semester of uni when I finished my thesis, and I was fine because I was doing genuinely interesting stuff.
However, the mental exhaustion that comes with context switches or dealing with uninteresting and mundane stuff that still involve effort makes it very difficult for me to actually spend time writing code or doing something productive after / outside.
It's like the Penn (or Teller) quote:
Sometimes magic is just someone spending more time on something than anyone else might reasonably expect
Actual interest also brings a quality of attention that is hard to compete with.
OTOH seek and ye will find: immerse yourself in anything and you will find it interesting.
Taking a step back, driven people are often unhappy, the latter causing the former. Family life etc is more deeply reaarding than "success".
This second point is under-appreciated. Many, if not most, skill based activities work like this. It's a weak mess for a long time then suddenly things start to click together and progress hockey sticks upward.