This post, where someone from one field decides to do something they love but in another field, reminds me of the below:
At my kids' elementary school there is a yearly "Dad's Night" show where the dads get up and do skits, dance, sing and/or make funny videos.
You get to see dads who sell insurance or are lawyers do dance numbers that look professionally choreographed or make music videos that look like they could have been on MTV.
It's a reminder that "The Sort" pulls people very strongly into certain fields but there is always that question, from the movie Up In The Air and asked by George Clooney, "How much did they pay you to give up your dream?" [0]
Part of me is VERY excited to see AI/LLMs help facilitate this for the people who always thought "I have always wanted to write a piece of software but didn't know how and now I can!"
> The community is incredible. When I moved from Chicago to Denmark, it took me less than three days to find a local 40k game
Somewhat off topic from the rest of the comments but:
Knew someone who was in the Jane Austen Society (New York City chapter). She told me how a member from the Melbourne (as in Australia) chapter was visiting NYC, had never been there and so reached out to the NYC chapter to see if people wanted to hang out.
After the hang out, my friend says: "OMG, she was one of the coolest and most fun people I've ever met! So much fun to take someone else from JAS around NYC for their first time"
This is one of my favorite stories about how a community can grow out of an interest in something and then span the globe. Cool to see the same thing is true of 40k
Of all of the uses for AI/LLMs, setting parental controls feels like it would be such a massive net win for everyone involved.
Instead, LLMs are being used to replace support people at the larger platforms (e.g. X Box) with the clear goal of "make it HARDER to get support" (or as patio11 would say "their goal is to get you off the phone as quickly as possible ")
Back in 2019, got to go to Hong Kong for a couple months for work and got to bring my family.
I was about to turn 40 and realized that the place we were staying had a rock wall. In a somewhat "mid life crisis" spur of the moment decision, I decided to go buy shoes, a belt and a chalk bag (I did a lot of indoor rock climbing in college).
We get there and the rock wall is a. closed and b. only for kids.
Get back to the US and COVID lockdown starts. As things open up, I go on the town dad's Facebook group and ask if anyone wants to go rock climbing with me. Multiple dads say "hell, yes!" so I start a rock climbing club.
One of the dads that joins the climbing club loves board games, is inspired by my starting the rock climbing club so he starts the town board game club.
I tell people this story to illustrate that:
- if you don't have a club or org for something that you're into, go start one
- you doing the above can trigger other people to start clubs too
Two years ago, my son was REALLY struggling with his depression. Having tried almost everything, at the suggestion of his therapist, he tried cold showers. To show some solidarity, I decided we should do cold plunges into the ocean together. A guy that I was starting to become friendly with humored us and came with.
Two years later, that guy and I are best friends, and we cold plunge every Saturday together. Just did a new years plunge with our friend group that is growing. My wife commented this morning that I've really 'farmed' my friend group, whereas a few years ago. I was myself very frustrated with having no real friends anymore.
There’s something about cold plunges. My group started when some of us started meeting for drinks and a swim after work during the summer, and we just kept doing it every week through the winter. Some joined the group during the winter. Those people became my closest friends:
- We see each other every week, almost without fail
- I suspect the invitation to a cold plunge pre-selects for people with very high openness, and those people aren’t afraid of deep friendships
- Doing something hard and a little bit scary together strengthens the bond
> Doing something hard and a little bit scary together strengthens the bond
This can’t be underestimated. Most of my adult friends come from my trekking hobby. Everyone struggles during a trek, group dynamics form, you stay surprisingly close with the people you trekked with.
I used to do long distance cycling with a few friends. We have a ridiculously tight bond around that suffering. So many hours asking each other what the hell we were thinking, and so many hours planning the next trips. We'd do 300, 400, 600km in a go. I miss it, and I miss them.
600km?! at what pace? I've ridden 190km a couple times, but that was a. a long time ago b. took all day. In my defense, it was on a fully-loaded touring bike, but even on a high-spec racing bike I can't imagine cranking (heh) out more than maybe 300km in one go.
For those really long guys we'd manage just 18kph or so. On shorter ones like 200km, we'd average more like mid 20s. I think beyond 300km is where the big shift happened and our average dropped a ton. Though we rode with some guys who had averages in the high 20s, even on 600s or further.
We initially wanted to do a ride in France called Paris-Brest-Paris, but never got good enough. That's a 1200km ride. Then kids happened, careers, etc. I'm too bad at time management for that kind of riding, haha.
I’ve done some long rides to be sure, but the longest I’ve ever ridden non-stop-ish is probably about 14 hours. I think riding through the night is a deal-breaker for me. I’ve never been on the road earlier than 6am, or later than 10pm.
14 hours is a solid trek! The 30 hour+ rides were relatively uncommon for us. I'd say the majority were closer to what you've done.
For sure, riding at night is awful. I'm too risk-averse to do it much these days. I've got kids who depend on me to be more careful than that.
We typically left around 4am, and on some rides would finish after midnight if not riding most of the night. Those dark hours were always pleasantly low-traffic, yet I always wondered if the ratio of drunk and/or tired drivers was far worse.
I think that's really the only part I don't miss, come to think of it. Headlights at night were always unsettling.
The way Finns do it they take a hot Sauna in the winter and when they get out of the hot-room they go lay naked in the snow. Or plunge into the frozen lake through a sawed-out hole. Then they go back to the sauna again to feel the warmth again. It does feel great and stops you from dwelling in miserable thoughts. That may be part of the reason why Finns are ranked happiest people for multiple years.
I have to mention the 300 club at Amundsen-Scott station. When the temp outside hits -100 (F) they crank up their sauna to 200, then run from the sauna to outside in their underwear.
I think people often underestimate how, for dad's in particular, there's a massive need for this.
Prior to Covid, I'd started a Wednesday "Dad's Night" where we just got together from 9-10 in my backyard to hang out and have a beer. Eventually we'd move to random local pubs and often it would go to 11pm. It grew with consistency as people would invite other folks. Had one of the assistant basketball coaches from Clemson show up one time. Some of the guys who home brewed would bring something.
The key was a time, after the kids are in bed on a night in the middle of the week when people didn't have other plans.
Covid killed it, but we eventually just became a "grab lunch" text group.
I think Country Clubs and golf used to be the "default" outlet for a lot of people, but as those prices have increased there's a gap to fill.
I imagine lonely men seeing you playing basketball together on the street and thinking “How come I never make friends”…
> how, for dad’s in particular, there is a massive need for this
- Yes
- And also for single men at 45, because everyone’s busy and they feel like a failure for not having a family (meanwhile having a family is such an incredible performance)
- Teens. There is a massive loneliness epidemic among teens. At least we 40-year-olds have had friends before. But the iphonocene (the era of smart phones) has created a generation of people whose friends were always, constantly, busy with phones.
We play a game (whichyr.com) were we guess the year of random pictures. The first criteria is whether people are bent while walking. Not bent: pre-2013. Bent on the phone: Post-2013. It’s not the invention of the phone, it’s the usage of it.
> I think people often underestimate how, for dad's in particular, there's a massive need for this.
One of the things that really drove it home for me was going on r/daddit and seeing post after post of dads with young kids talking about how lonely they are.
In the scenario of the "working dad, stay at home mom" + elementary age kids, it's REALLY tough b/c moms can socialize during school hours whereas the dad is only available from 5-6pm onwards which coincides with dinner/bed time.
Some tips for the above:
- Have regularly scheduled "hang out with friends night". Lot easier to manage than "hey, can I hang out with my buddy tonight?"
- Do "swaps" e.g. where after kids are in bed, dad A hangs out with dad B at house B, wife B hangs out with wife A at house A (so you don't need to get a babysitter)
One thing I noticed, is that as I meet other new Dads in my area, they are all inviting me to go do things.
I mean not just 1 or 2, every single time. It maybe golf, gun range, driving, anything. I'm a introvert that has problem scheduling time, but a lot of Dads don't have male friends and are desperately seeking other male-only quality time.
One of the things becoming an adult that people miss is that somebody has to set stuff up and that somebody can be you.
It's really easy to be in the mindset that someone else should have already set up the rock climbing club and that if it doesn't exist it just can't.
Turns out that someone can be you! (and this is the thing people miss out on, you can actively make your world more like the way you want it to be by being that leader yourself and doing so is often way easier than you think)
Volunteering in smaller orgs is also a great option because it naturally filters for people who actually want to do something good around them, and the way you work together leaves more space for communication than a lot of group-but-actually-solitary hobbies out there.
A few years ago I joined my rural neighborhood council, and I’d never been around so many people consistently being generous with their time and energy. It’s really uplifting, and you end up learning a lot from each other in the process too.
Maybe it's been "just" my bad experiences, but in volunteering i've always seen some social "power" dynamics that I don't really like.
Some person somehow gets to be the leader and bosses people around. Those people aren't always the brightest or the most compassionate. They often are pushy, they are somewhat totalitarian, they really don't like their ways to be questioned. Sometimes (not always) they are the most dedicated but only because they made volunteering their identity or their main source of self-esteem (this can either happen because they don't have anything else going on in their life OR because what goes on in their life do not satisfy them).
They are often "open to new people, ideas and contribution" only as long as anything new is very well aligned with their (personal) line of thinking and/or does not question their "authority" in any way.
Either way, I've seen that happen too many times to take volunteering any seriously.
I’ve met some of them. To me: don’t get stuck. If it’s not working, move on. There’s a zillion volunteer orgs, so keep shopping until you find somewhere that you like and appreciates you.
I stay volunteering for the people I work with even more than my investment in the goals of the organization.
I've met all kinds of people and surely enough, some can be toxic, dark triad, etc. I'd say some topics, such as politics and animal welfare, seem more prone to attracting those types. But having a few of them here and there also helps to develop patience and diplomatic skills for de-escalating and creating a healthier environment despite their presence.
In my case, local community orgs are usually run by older, often retired people. Doesn't mean there's no drama, but it's not the same kind of drama you'll find in predominantly younger organizations.
I have had this discussion with my wife, men need activities more than women to bond. My wife can make friends just by randomly running into other women at events or my daughter's activities.
Basically the whole point of the Freemasonry fraternity as well. Male only. It is dressed up with some altruistic goals and rituals, but it is a social club for men essentially.
> Basically the whole point of the Freemasonry fraternity as well. Male only. It is dressed up with some altruistic goals and rituals
Freemasonry began as a workers' guild, but the accreted "goals and rituals" take a group far beyond the simplicity of a men's shed.
The simplicity of any club rapidly becomes complex when monotheism or henotheism (any theism) is injected:
From Wikipedia:
* Anglo-American style Freemasonry, which insists that a "volume of sacred law" should be open in a working lodge, that every member should profess belief in a supreme being, that only men should be admitted, and discussion of religion or politics does not take place within the lodge.
* Continental Freemasonry or Liberal style Freemasonry which has continued to evolve beyond these restrictions, particularly regarding religious belief and political discussion.
* Women Freemasonry or Co-Freemasonry, which includes organisations that either admit women exclusively or accept both men and women."
I don't think it is complex. The theme of a social group is just there as a filter. If you like rock climbing and meet someone at a rock climbing gym that person is far more likely to be interested in things you are interested in: physical fitness, the particular mental challenges of rock climbing, etc. It was just an example. I won't analyze the sexism or male only nature of the fraternity, but I think Freemasonry anecdotally reinforces the idea that men want/need/form these kind of clubs more than women on average.
When we study this we notice very small actual bias at an individual level on socialization preference. The differences are modest and more like slight preferences. There is more overlap than not at a local individual level. What gets missed is that even though the differences are relatively small, the network effect greatly amplifies these small variances resulting in non-linear outcomes. Even small biases at an individual level essentially produce significant effect in socialization behavior.
> but I think Freemasonry anecdotally reinforces the idea that men want/need/form these kind of clubs more than women on average.
There seem to be as many Women’s Institute members in England as there are Freemasons.
And that is before you consider more ad hoc organisations like book clubs that are definitely more female dominated (though sports clubs perhaps the opposite?)
I'll defer to you of course if you have personal experience that I do not. But would it not become more complex than a "woodworking club" (men's shed) or than a brick mason's guild as soon as a complex filter such as religion is introduced?
> I won't analyze the sexism or male only nature of the fraternity
No need to analyse the usefulness of fraternity (or sorority), I think. It's just a fact that sometimes the sexes don't want to mingle. What could become problematic are cases of gender-fluidity.
Honestly, as a non-sports loving male, it makes it much harder to build male friendships.
Not that its impossible, but the majority* of men get together to watch, play, or talk about sports the majority of the time... whereas I'm perfectly fine just hanging out where hanging out is the activity!
I eventually just stopped trying to invite most of my guy friends out for 1-1 meals, etc.
Kids these days get together and give presentations to each other. For example, a co-worker of mine had everyone at her birthday party present on an inventor they chose.
This is generally known to be true for men. We have a much harder time connecting socially without some sort of shared activity or action. The OP isn't trying to project on to you.
While that may be true, there are exceptions. And hence I think parents comment is more inclusive to say: some people (that are overwhelmingly male) need activities to bond, while others (majority female) do not need that. (May not be the best example here but helps i.e criticising certain toxic behaviours that are somehow more linked to one sex without blaming everyone of that sex)
To be honest, I apologise if the following appears a bit terse; I’m just really frustrated with what you’ve said and this is the best I can describe why that’s the case (without watering it down)
We don’t need to step back and work out the fundamental nature of sex and gender in order to have a functional conversation about them.
I don’t need to provide a definition of a chair before I can tell you that ones with three legs are more stable (“but what is a chair? what is the exact definition? aren’t some of them tables? aren’t some three legged chairs less stable?”). We just don’t have to do this. Do you do it for chairs? Or just gender? Why? Does it help feminism or trans rights to interrupt a conversation about male mental health with a semantic rabbit hole?
As for your second paragraph, there very much are studies showing the correlation being described, and they’re very easy to find. It would have been far more constructive to actually ask rather than suggest it’s an “assumption” — or even better, to research it yourself.
>For example, when someone calls a statement "x-ist," they're also implicitly saying that this is the end of the discussion. They do not, having said this, go on to consider whether the statement is true or not. Using such labels is the conversational equivalent of signalling an exception. That's one of the reasons they're used: to end a discussion.
>If you find yourself talking to someone who uses these labels a lot, it might be worthwhile to ask them explicitly if they believe any babies are being thrown out with the bathwater. Can a statement be x-ist, for whatever value of x, and also true? If the answer is yes, then they're admitting to banning the truth.
----
Please don't try to end our constructive discussions, mmoose; people (men and women sure fine) have a tough enough time without having to get the language police involved.
[this will be my last response to this thread, as I continue hoping somebody learned anything, today]
There is an interesting thing. If you study the socialization patterns there are only small to moderate average differences and huge overlap between individuals (all genders). This is in part social construct and in part nature. When you average things statistically you can mislead yourself pretty quickly reading some of these studies.
There is more overlap than not. So, how do we reconcile that with how things end up: network effect. Small biases in socialization norms lead to significant non-linear outcomes due to amplification of these biases leading to norms that exaggerate these biases and end up creating norms that are quite distorted from the average. Leads to some significant consequences for how different genders end up socialization.
> We have a much harder time connecting socially without some sort of shared activity or action.
You might have a harder time doing that; other men have different experiences. The average man has brown eyes and is 1.72m tall; does that mean your eyes and height are that way? It's certainly an error to take statistical generalizations and apply them to individuals - one of the first things you learn in statistics.
Also, the studies you cited don't address this issue. The psychcentral link is about memory research. The other looks at social relationships, but doesn't look at this aspect of them. Do you actually know of any research?
Do you have something to say about the issues? Don't worry about me, thanks anyway.
Edit: As far as learning something, the GGP's citations were nonsense, as I pointed out. What has anyone offered, other than a demonstration of the fundamentals of misapplying statistics.
lol. Just address the issues, if you can. I've done nothing more.
I don't even see something negative in what I posted - it's pretty positive to me. I didn't say, 'we're all going to die' or say something fatalistic (like the comment I originally responded to).
Unless you mean 'negative' is 'disagrees', which of course badly is miscontrued in open intellectual debate, especially on HN.
I don't know what the 'personal' issue you have is. Perhaps a stereotype of people whose beliefs might overlap with mine in this area? It's not personal to me.
Just stick to the merits of the issue; you don't need to bring in ad hominem arguments.
All they need to know is their own needs. Mine are not defined by my gender/sex, but by me; same with the person I'm talking to, same with you.
I'm not thinking about myself on the basis of what someone else thinks all people of my gender/sex do - that's irrelevant. Do you redefine your own needs based on what you read someone else thinks half the population does?
Why does anyone need to be defensive about what someone has found for them?
For example, studies have shown that men who decide to isolate themselves to be "family men" die earlier at age 58.
It might not need to be a pub, but having a club house to do pretty much anything is enormously beneficial to the human brain to have positive social interaction.
We get to decide our own social interaction.
The world is not responsible to not triggering us.
> For example, studies have shown that men who decide to isolate themselves to be "family men" die earlier at age 58.
Yes, but isn't it a benefit to society as a whole though? All the prime working years are gone by then and there is no need to pay pension to those men or for expensive medical treatments. And younger generations can be happy for there being one less cishet white male boomer in the world.
I mean, it sure sucks for the individual not being able to enjoy their retirement, but for the society it seems that it will be a benefit.
Of course people dying younger is a benefit to society. Old people cost a lot, they're not productive, and (unlike children) they don't have any productive years in their future either. Ideally we would all drop dead of a heart attack 10 years after reaching retirement age (this would also solve the geriatocracy we find ourselves in).
Instead we clutch to life far beyond any societal benefit and, in many cases, beyond personal benefit too, spending a fortune to delay death another few weeks or months… but with incredibly low quality of life.
That said, dying at 58 is probably of no real benefit. But everyone dying a few years younger would have prevented Brexit.
I notice that both you and bragh have this idea - bragh calls it "working years", and you call it "productive years". You only value the lives of people so long as the wealthy are able to extract value from them.
I'm all for death with dignity and not being a burden on your loved ones. But people who've worked all their lives deserve to have a period after where they can enjoy life without the burden of "productivity".
Eventually it doesn't end well indeed. But modern society has made it pretty clear that older men aren't actually needed and are more of a burden. Just look at how triggered the GP of the thread got just about a mention that men might want a different approach when it comes to social stuff.
Well, not needed, unless an actual shooting war breaks out and you need a lot more people pulling guard duty or just some very high-risk stuff younger men should not be wasted on. Like that Ukrainian unit of pensioner men in a ground-attack missile unit who source their own missiles by repairing unexploded ones.
> modern society has made it pretty clear that older men aren't actually needed and are more of a burden
The mistake - which leads to disaster - is more fundamental. Modern society isn't an actual thing with needs, just an abstract concept. Individual people are real, and we all have real rights and needs. 'Goverments exist to protect rights' - society exists to serve the individual, not vice versa. Almost all morality includes protecting and helping the vulnerable.
Who decides who is a burden? Infants and children are also a 'burden' as are people with all sorts of illnesses (and people spreading disinformation). Only the cruelest fascists have suggested they should die to help society, as if that's a reasonable discussion.
> Just look at how triggered the GP
Ad hominem is against HN guidelines. Just stick to the issues instead of trying to change the subject by attacking and characterizing people who don't agree with you.
Rock climbing (in the US gyms, anyway) is such an easy way to meet new people.
You don’t even to find a group or friends before you go. Just go to the bouldering area and hang out during a popular time.
Most gyms have partner finder programs and designated social nights.
Every gym I’ve been a member of has also had a bring a friend program where you get to bring one new person for free periodically.
Online groups are also a good way to meet new friends. This is HN so a lot of people will turn their nose up at Facebook but it’s full of groups of people who go out and do things.
> - if you don't have a club or org for something that you're into, go start one
This is how I met most of my local friends; I went out and started a D&D game.
D&D is slightly tricky, because most people want to play a character, instead of be the DM - so, you either need to find a DM, or be the DM. I'm lucky - I love DMing.
Another problem is maybe similar to what OP was facing; I see many people joining our local Discord, looking for a game, but none of them or the people welcoming them seem to take the actual next step of picking a time and a place to meet and start discussing where and when to actually play.
I have no interest in starting a club, but what I do (and you can too) is open your activity to others, (a) for easy access, and (b) with no strings. Typically all this means is reaching out to a small group to say "hey I'm planning to do <x>; want to come?". Encourage them to pass on your invite, don't take it personally if nobody comes (or even responds) and when they do bond over you shared love of <x>. Maybe this grows into a club, or just a shared message group, but regardless you still get to do what you wanted to in the first place.
+1. A WhatsApp group with 10-20 ppl (in similar stages of life) worked well for a while for organizing hiking/tennis/squash/some sport/DotA. We got consistently 4-5 people including their spouses showing up. Usually 2-4 weekends a month. With that size, many people can comfortably pass on the invite.
Then organically these tend to turn into trips together or simple hangouts for someone's birthday or a holiday.
Not really, they said 'maybe this grows into a club', and I agree that just asking if someone wants to come along to something you're going to do isn't a club.
Once you don't need to ask, because it has a standing slot and standing membership, that's a club; once it has organised and centralised payments, that's a club.
"Hey tekno45, pub?" is not an initiation of a drinking club.
This is awesome and I wish I had the courage to do it.
My experience is, in the USA, eventually nearly every meetup is ruined by politics. Eventually someone says something unintentionally trigging someone else and then off it goes.
I haven't had that experience too often here in New England. Though I'm typically involved with specific hobby based groups. Usually politics are avoided and if someone insists they are basically politely ignored.
In my experience honestly this isn’t common. People really hate disagreeing IRL and can often sniff out when a disagreement is happening that’s just a form of trying to control the environment unnecessarily due to one’s personal issues. However it is important not to be too tolerant to straight up antisocial behavior that uses “don’t be political” as a form of self defense too. I’ve definitely had to kick out guys who did shit like treat women in the group like unwilling romantic targets even after being turned down, or guys who take being turned down personally and then tried to call the woman a fat cow over it who then also tried to use “stop being sensitive and political” as a cover for just being a poorly socialized male.
Every person I meet in climbing gym defines their life in two words: BC and AC: Before Climbing and After Climbing. Had the same experience as OP, thanks to it, I am more fit than ever and have a much better social life :)
Everyone I know in LA that beat the social stagnation had started their own event
Many people also just put you on a text messaging list when you exchange numbers. They only tell you the number to their list, but they are capable of responding individually from it
When they go somewhere, they tell the list, if you come you come, if you don't, nobody's missing you. No obligation, reply STOP to end. Otherwise you can bond at the event and meet everyone else too
I'm a great lover of going to places with no real plan and just wandering the streets finding stuff. Hong Kong is a great city for this. Have a general plan, e.g. visit the memorial to the walled city, but get distracted along the way.
Also watch Ghost in the Shell which is vaguely set in Hong Kong then feel the vibe when you're there.
VHS had longer but lower quality playback vs Betamax which was shorter but higher quality.
It wasn't clear when VCRs came out which version consumers would prefer. Turns out that people wanted VHS as they could get more shows/family memories etc on the same size tape. In other words, VHS "won".
Most people have heard the above version but Betamax was widely adopter in TV news. The reason being that news preferred shorter, higher quality video for news segments as they rarely lasted more than 5-10 minutes.
My point being, the market is BIG and is really made up of many "mini-markets". I can see folks who are doing work on projects with big downside risk (e.g. finance, rockets etc) wanting to have code that is tested, reviewed etc. People needing one off code probably don't care if the failure rate is high especially if failure cases are obvious and the downside risk is low.
It wouldn't surprise me if physical advertising, as mentioned in the post, makes a comeback. Especially coupled with magazines etc apparently making a comeback too.
Also, a lot of ads now have QR codes so you can tell which physical ads are driving versus traffic versus those that aren't.
e.g. the "half of my advertising is a waste but I don't know which half" is not true anymore if you are using specific QR codes per location/advertisement.
I assume physical still works. LIDL closed their shop in our neighborhood, so we stopped going unless their paper ads were interesting. Then they decided with a lot of fanfare to go all-in on digital, and as they decided we should want their ads we should install their app. Well, naughty us, we didn't. We simply stopped shopping there completely. A few months later, the paper ads are back (with a lot less fanfare), and no other shop followed their lead, so I assume LIDL was hurting hard.
This is true of a lot of experiences in life though and isn't necessarily bad.
e.g. let's take a corporate example:
- New software is written to solve a problem
- It kind of works. At least, well enough that it's less of a problem
- An intern comes along and is told to make it better. They have nothing else to do so they give it their full attention for two months.
- Software runs 5x faster. Intern gets hired for doing such great work
Who should the credit for this? The person who originally solved the problem? or the intern who made it 5x faster?
At some point, does it matter? The original writer probably got credit for solving the problem and the intern got hired. Basically, everyone got some kind of benefit.
(This being HN, I am SURE there is going to be a debate about the above...)
this example isn't a great example for the academic situation given the way "getting credit" works and how important it is in academia. getting credit for your work in academia isn't just about ego, it's the currency you use to get and keep your job.
imagine if in software land you had to periodically assemble a list of your lifetime accomplishments and you were getting stack-ranked against every other dev in existence. if your list is found lacking, you have to leave software engineering for a different career.
when work gets moved from a postdoc or gradstudent to serve as a vanity project for a connected high-schooler (i'm not saying that that's what happened in this case, but it is something that happens), you're hurting an early-career scientist that is actively contributing to the field in order to support a kid that "maybe someday" will start to contribute to the field.
Being senior, to me, is best illustrated by a story:
Me: "Sometimes I feel like I'm psychic"
Co-worker: "How so?"
Me: "Many times on projects, I can tell at either the planning stages or the very early implementation steps if it's going to go well or be a disaster. e.g. people will say they love templated configs but they don't account for what can go wrong when there is a bug in the template etc etc"
Co-worker: "I don't think that's being psychic. That means you are a senior engineer who has seen so many projects that you can quickly pattern match on if the project is going to succeed or fail based on only the first 20% of the project."
Ironically this can cause a lot of senior engineers to double down on conservative practices and fail to innovate or take risk imo. I’ve worked with several people at a higher level than me with more work experience who were for all effects and purposes complete idiots.
Not trying to counter your post but this reminded me of this --
"Have you ever noticed that everyone who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everyone who drives faster than you is a maniac?"
Though I agree there are some folks who resist change while others who seem to jump into new things without enough care about hard lessons of the past. And sometimes you are the one trying to keep things sane and mitigate risks while majority of your team seem to treat you as a joyless guy who always sees risks and drawbacks.
'Principal' engineer here, looking to perfect being the idiot! Knowing how to do things, and being known for it, has been an endless source of heartburn. All to say, I think there's wisdom at play. Even there.
Having 'innovated and taken risk', juice is rarely worth the squeeze. Watercooler is too crowded and layoffs too arbitrary. A middling job rewards exactly as well. Reliably.
That's great (unironically) for you and the shareholders. I've lost the joy of learning things, honestly. After two decades of skill-building and 98% of it being utterly useless, I have a certain complex.
Said another way: the job needs 2+2, rewards poorly, and I'm too tired for Calculus.
No shareholders. I'm retired, after a long career, doing stuff I found meaningful, but never really earned me huge piles of money. Being retired has been wonderful. I get to learn whatever the heck I want. I still make stuff that is meaningful, but I don't make money at it (which isn't actually a bad thing).
I guess finding a meaningful life has always been more important to me, than being rewarded in money. I know that makes me a mutant, around these parts, but that's how I roll.
That's great for you. Sarcastic this time. I truly meant well, now I don't care. To be clear: 'shareholders' was a quip at the industry, not you.
Well, you see, life has demanded I trade a certain meaning for value creation. Hence my attitude. There's that complex I told you about. Ghoulishly wanting reciprocation, or day I say, a payoff.
I'd trade half my salary/effort to live in my home town and closer to meaning... yet, I don't. Not an option. Can't avoid RTO forever or pay bills with back-pats.
Nice implication on my life meaning, bro. Sorry, sir. I lower the rim and you dunk. Well played.
Learn for yourself then. I run my own company and learning new stuff so I can use it in my business is one of the few joys of being the owner. No permission required to try the new hotness (And if you screw up -- you have only yourself to blame.)
I think we have to enjoy what we learn. I have no motivation at all, to learn stuff I don't like doing.
In my case, I really enjoy coding, and making stuff that people use.
Part of the impediments that I have encountered, is other people's attitudes. As long as co-workers and technical peers thought of me as "competition," they would deliberately make it difficult for me to access the stuff I needed to learn.
LLMs have absolutely no fear of me, and gladly give me exactly what I need (sometimes, too much).
I'm glad to hear LLMs help you out. They don't, here. Learning isn't the issue: I already have a wealth of information I can't put to use, or perhaps more accurately: won't be sufficiently rewarded for.
Perhaps I could use them for the parts I don't enjoy. Or I could... not.
It's all a wash, I guess is my point. While we're out here working, leagues are idling. I aspire to be more like them.
Thanks for sharing!
reply