Posted by gavinray 23 hours ago
I *always* tell older people looking to switch into tech to start at agencies/contracting firms for this reason.
They are much more likely to hire people without experience, invest in your training (even if it's training by fire), and because they are usually heavy cert-driven, they'll pay for certs as well.
It doesn't pay well, and the work can be brutal (nights and weekends; on-call) but it's a great way to get the experience needed to get the job that does if you're starting from zero.
Not to say they cannot learn that, but worth being aware if you're building something long-term and does hiring for that sort of project, to be upfront that the development process will likely be very different compared to what they're used to.
Many years ago, some famous developer said, "Always write your code as if the person who's going to maintain it is a violent psychopath who knows where you live." As I fixed my poor design choices one by one over endless late nights, I sometimes felt the anger of a violent psychopath toward the former, ignorant me who had stupidly plagued current me with all these problems.
When you learn the hard way, you know exactly why good design decisions are considered good. In later jobs, one of my fundamental goals for every new project was "I never want me or anyone else to have to answer a 3 a.m. call about why this system isn't working."
sadly that's a non-starter for a lot of people in this economy. doubly so if you have kids.
90s early internet/BBS punk rocker/computer nerd. Hated school angry.
Dropped out to work as a bike messenger for 5 years before packing a bag and moving west randomly. Couldn't sit still. Rode freight trains around the country for a few months.
Washed dishes and landscaped to cover my cheap rent till that fell thru. Discovered shop lifting. Covered food and beer stealing from local progressive grocery store chain. Stole goods to sell on CL to cover my rent. That scam went tits up and narrowly escaped serious charges after the head of loss prevention from a regional retailer caught up to me
Was sleeping in the park--this was pre super meth/fentanyl crisis so street living was a bit more stable and low key. Didn't want to wash dishes or dig holes any more so looked around on CL. Found a small company trying to bootstrap a regional office for an established linux-related open source company. Worked for free / interned using a stolen laptop for a year or so while sleeping outside or couch surfing local punk houses.
Eventually got hired on for s but stayed for a couple years and made many FOSS connections. Eventually left to join a well known FOSS-centered company that was fully remote.
Told myself when I was young that I would never work in an office. ~15 years later and I never have ,but now work in bit tech, get paid too much, own a home and have a great family with kids who play at the same parks I used to crash at. We shop (and pay) at the same stores I used to crib from.
I'm respected and tenured at my gig but Imposter syndrome still holds me back. Nobody I work with knows where I came from and thankfully have nothing incriminating that would block a background check
34yo Patrice has a stable job, a fiancé and broadly speaking has his life in order.
Nobody in his circle knows he dropped out of high school, got in the wrong crowd and, inevitably, did time.
This archetype is a mix of several people I've met and I usually mention it when a younger person says this and that thing (e.g. dropping out of college) is the end of the world for them. In your 20s it commonly isn't and you can start from scratch - after a decade or so nobody will have any idea about this unless you tell them.
couple decades later lives in the burbs, wife, kids, regular coding job, etc.
Seriously, they seriously do. There's always someone as qualified as you applying for whatever job. Why would anyone choose someone with a record over someone without, all else being equal? It's a liability that can turn into a headache, so most employers will choose the person without the record.
*Providing the drug use was short lived.
you're ~35 and admit to smoking a buncha weed and maybe some other stuff in your college frat 10+ years ago? not much of a discussion topic, esp. if you've had a steady job, house, family, etc. since then. doesn't have to be short, you could have been called Mikey Pipes for all 4 years of school... just that it was a phase, and it's been long gone.
smoke weed and pop some lsd 1.5 year ago? that could be a problem, esp. if you're still living the same life essentially as then.
There are two aspects to the type of question that was asked. How do you prevent people from ha I g to make choices which are rational and good for their options but still really bad overall, and how do you convinve/educate people about available options they weren't aware of so they don't make outright bad choices when better ones are available that they are unaware of.
There are many possible answers to "why did you take off to the west and ride trains and sleep in parks and steak to feed yourself", but most of them aren't "well I just felt like leaving my entirely stable, loving and supportive friends and family." What to an outsider seems like a poor choice to a specific person imight seem like the decision that saved their life, even in retrospect.
Education is a very different story which ends with letting people make their own decisions after (hopefully) having more information about realistic outcomes.
I don't personally want a government preventing me from making my own choices. That line is blurry for sure, like if my decision directly negatively impacts someone else for example. But if packing up and riding the rails or sleeping in parks primarily impacts only me, the government shouldn't be able to stop me because they "know" its the wrong choice.
It didn’t need that level of sermon. Every reasonably educated person got your point after the first sentence.
When your choices include terrorizing businesses and being a public nuisance to everyone else, then yes, government should prevent people from making those choices.
Personally I'd rather gut the legal system and drastically raise the bar by which people are locked up as punishment, but that's beside the point.
You seem to agree that punishment and violence is the primary tool of American government, and then you want to use it to control more choices. Call me cynical, but I expect that's how it will be approached. Theft and vagrancy is already a crime. Maybe it was the punk music that led to those so let's criminalize that as well.
We don't have a honest discussion about the progression of addiction so the choices are not visible, until later.
The first beer is the most critical choice, yet it's made for us (in 99% of the cases) by our peers. So is it a choice really?
We're routine (addiction) prone herd animals and as long as we pretend otherwise (free will and the likes) we're stuck in repeating this.
Why isn’t the last beer the most critical one, for example?
In a healthy society there would be no need for intoxicants with so severe harms (BBC list for substances by harm is a good reference) and thus no exposure for a addictive substance.
Now the norm decides that, almost without exceptions, we must all be exposed.
This is true of coffee, sugar, alcohol, social gatherings, work, play, and everything else in life.
It's legal only because it's been grandfathered in, from before legal systems were created.
1. There have been plenty of other substances that have been banned which were legal and widely taken since before such laws existed. Demonstrating that governments are willing to control substances that were previously legal.
2. There have also been other drugs that have been legalized after they were previously banned. Proving that governments are willing to accept the risk of people taking drugs.
3. And your augment about alcohol specific actually did happen in some places. It is commonly referred to as "prohibition". And that decision never stuck.
The reality is drugs aren't legal nor illegal based on solely the harm they do. They are judged based on how easy they are to regulate (read: monetize and tax) and the subsections of society which enjoy them.
To expand on that last point: there's a reason cannabis was illegal in most countries while cigarettes weren't. And that reason wasn't because cannabis was considered more dangerous than tobacco. It's was because certain leaders wanted us to think that the people who smoked cannabis was more dangerous than the people that smoked cigarettes.
sticks pretty well in muslim areas.
They do it because the unhealthy effects are desirable.
Which is why moderation is the key. There's absolutely nothing wrong with someone enjoying a drink. But there is with people who need to drink. And that's just as true for sugar addition and caffeine addition too.
Now I'm not suggesting that the negative effects of all vices are equal, because clearly they're not. But suggesting that total abstinence is the answer completely misses the point of why people enjoy a drink to begin with. You're setting an unreal expectation that will never work with society. Just like telling people that they shouldn't ever eat cake or drink coffee would be an unrealistic demand on society.
We already have a mountain of evidence that prove the removal of said vice without solving the underlying problem only drives people will just switch to something else. Often that "something else" can be much much worse. So it's far better to give people outlets but ensure there is support to ensure they descend into dependence (and the vast majority of people do consume in moderation).
> What’s healthy isn’t complete abstinence, it’s moderation.
With alcohol this is well established to be false.
https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/04-01-2023-no-level-of-...
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h... (Headline: "Drinking alcohol is a health risk regardless of the amount.")
Actually no I wasn't. It was shrubby who mentioned "health" in the medical sense. I was replying to them using "health" in the social wellness sense. ie making the point that "health" is a nuanced term and shouldn't be used in an absolute way like they, and yourself now too, have done.
Health isn't just about physicality. There are social and emotional benefits. For example, enjoying a beer, or glass of wine, with my wife on a Friday evening when we rant about work is a great way to unwind for the weekend. It improves our mental health to have that shared experience. Our relationship is closer for spending time together. It has a net benefit despite it being an unhealthy treat.
You could replace the `wine` with `cake` in statement and have a similar point. But I don't personally enjoy cakes. Also take notice of how I'm not telling you that you shouldn't eat cakes because I don't personally like it ;)
> With alcohol this is well established to be false.
Again, you're missing the point. People enjoy stuff that isn't healthy, but sometimes that can still promote other benefits. Such as mental health. "Health" is a broader term than you give credit for.
Also the links you shared do not prove your point. There's no actual data in either of them. It's just pop-science articles with zero substance designed into scaremongering people. For example their arguments that it takes just one drink to become an addict is just laughable. The real statistics they don't print show a very different story where occasional to moderate drinking is not going to significantly increase your risk of cancer nor anything else. You're talking about fractions of a percent in the change of risk -- and that risk was already a low percentage to begin with. This is where understanding how statistics actually work makes a difference ;)
For example, some studies studies only show a correlation in 5% of cancer cases being related to alcohol consumption and that was proven against heavy drinkers. And the percentage of drinkers who have that cancer are < 1%. eg
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a...
And a lot of these studies exaggerate what I'd classed as a "light drinker". Take that link I shared:
> Even light drinkers can be at increased risk of some cancers. For example, women who have just one drink per day have a higher risk of breast cancer than those who have less than one drink a week, and risk is increased even more in heavy drinkers and binge drinkers (3-7).
If you're drinking 1 drink per day then you have a dependency. That isn't occasional consumption. I would not class that as demonstrating moderation. If you need to drink every single day then you fall into the category I described in my previous comment when I said there is an underlying problem that needs addressing.
Most people do not drink every day.
---
So to summarize:
- light and occasional drinking is a rounding error of 0 in terms of physical health risk. But it can have much more significant positive effects on mental health.
- understanding the actual statistics and how they work matter if you're going to argue about the risks to health
- people don't become alcoholics from one glass of wine
- if you don't want to drink then I agree nobody should force you. But please don't share bullshit pop-science articles claiming we're all going to become cancer-riddled addicts from an occasional drink just because you don't understand why some people do enjoy the occasional glass of wine. That just demonstrates you don't understand the subject matter.
- and please don't ignore the parallels I made about coffee and cake. They demonstrate the hypocrisy of comments where people claim absence is the only smart choice.
(and no, those bullet points were not AI generated)
edit: sorry for all the crappy grammar. I'm multitasking...badly it seems haha
If we perform a cost benefit analysis on alcohol the downsides are plentiful and then some.
And the pluses are practically masked versions (taste, buzz,...) of the two major things that make human do anything: what others are doing and what I'm used to (which are pretty shit reasons to do anything IMO) it basically boils down to addiction. Not chemical, but functional and social.
Then we return to the cost benefit analysis and start figuring out how far the lying disease has progressed. The fierceness of the debate feels like a good indicator of this usually.
I'd be tempted to explain this more in depth, but I have stuff to do.
Let me put it another way: banning something that most people use sensibly and enjoy in moderation isn’t a society that anyone wants to live in nor should live in. I'm sure you'd be the first to complain if the government went after something you enjoyed that caused harm to a minority of other people.
Which is why I keep coming back to the cake analogy. The only reason people eat cake is because of the buzz and taste. Which are pretty shit reasons to do anything in your opinion. And people do get addicted to sugary snacks. Some people even eat for comfort. But a lot of other people do have self-control. Should we ban cake for everyone regardless? Of course not!
As I said in my earlier comment, the problem with substance abuse isn’t the alcohol. The alcohol is just a tool. If you banned alcohol today then people who want escapism will switch to something else. And we’ve seen this trend time and time again throughout history. And it's what any experienced doctor of medicine will also tell you.
So if you want to understand the problems of alcohol abuse better, you need to first understand what drove people to abuse alcohol. Banning alcohol isn’t a shortcut to solving that problem -- despite how much you might like it to be.
Also accusing all people who drink, even those who only do so occasionally, as being addicts (as you literally have done) is so far wrong that it’s just insulting.
Yeah but we don't live in a healthy society. We have more abundance and more advanced healthcare and drugs than ever before, but we are sick in terms of missing social connections and family unit, even in big cities. Hence why mental illnesses and substance abuse are going up.
People don't thrive on GDP line go up and cheap large screen TVs. People need friends, family, and a support network.
First the close ones see the problem and the individual in question is the last to see it. Thus a lying disease.
In retrospect? It's really not hard to determine before the fact that petty crime is not a road to good things.
We have ways to prevent people from going down this path. It's called enforcement. He was more or less allowed to steal and sleep in the parks. If there was strict enforcement, this wouldn't have been a medium term viable option. Doesn't have to be throw the person in prison for the rest of their life, but either accept help, go through the criminal justice system or figure out another way to contribute to society in a positive way. It sounds like the author at any point could have found some kind of employment, but chose this because it was viable. And society wasn't doing him any favors by looking the other way
While one might say strict enforcement would discourage particular behavior choices. I would not disagree and add that suppression of behaviors is not as effective as replacement of behaviors.
So for instance I'll happily tell my kids that marijuana is enjoyable and relatively harmless in and of itself, yet you end up smelling bad, it ruins motivation, hurts your short-term memory, gives you the munchies, and is just generally is self-escapism, like most drugs. Gotta work on my exact pitch there, but that's the spirit of the point - honesty. They will make plenty of bad decisions in life, but I'd rather that with each one they see I was right, rather than see that I was lying or exaggerating - driving them further away from everything else I taught them.
I am not a parent, but I have observed that the best style of parents adapt to the natural personality of each child. For example, I was very contientious from early childhood (I assume that part was genetic), and my brother was exactly the opposite. My parents really had to work with him to get him to take school seriously. Fortunately, he has a naturally high IQ, so it wasn't so hard for him.
grew up around the military, ended up enlisting out of HS.
buncha my friends, all army/navy brats from outside of DC, all went off to college. easily 1/3 drank themselves stupid or otherwise went nuts.
off the leash they decided they'd rather be in a band and work part-time at the grocery store than keep going down the path they were forced. Most of them have since graduated and several are doing pretty well. Had to do that freedom thing, tho.
better choice than the one I made, too
"Do whatever you want and things will work out because it worked out for me" is not a good (or honest) message for children.
[survivor-bias-airplane.jpg]
Why do you think they'd know it? Working out in the end for you was the less likely option. Everything is possible but if you manage to explain the likelihood of each outcome compared to the expected payoff it could make the case clearer. Not an easy thing when dealing with small kids. It's hard because even adults are blinded by survivorship bias. Kids are easy victims, they can all become Cristiano Ronaldo, they can all launch the unicorn startup after dropping out of school, etc.
> I have nothing to offer.
Kids need guidance whether you think they'll take it or not, especially at that age. It's up to you to strike the balance between guidance, trickery, heavy handed rules, something works. Your teachers probably didn't care enough and your parents couldn't find the right button because it's not an easy job but it doesn't mean you can't or worse, that you shouldn't even try because you "have nothing to offer".
You need to stop seeing me so hard rn
I dont know if you intended to reply to the OP/author or my reply. In my case, I dodged hard drugs for $reasons and can safely say that I chose my own adventure. I was had anxiety and apprehension about status quo and what was expected of a HS graduate circa 2000 so I said F it and did my own thing.
No, mostly just American 90s suburban boredom and at-home dysfunction.
At around 12/13 my old siblings drug addiction began tearing my house/family apart. The only escape available to me at the time in my town was a nascent, opioid-fueled high school party scene. Other kids might have followed their brothers footsteps but computers and music really interested me. I retreated to my bedroom and dialup modem for the next 5 or so years. I discovered the local BBS scene and (via that) the internet. Likewise, discovered a lively punk music scene in my region. Both connected me to other like minded ppl in my region and beyond. Very thankful for that.
My experience (and impression of others) is that sure, it's incredibly good by certain very basic metrics but that doesn't mean all participants find it desirable or even tolerable. I slogged through it for no reason other than that's just what was expected and I didn't see any realistic alternative but in retrospect I think I would have been better off dropping out and attending a community college (of course I could be wildly wrong about that).
This is exactly where I zagged. To this day, I still think avoiding college was the best decision I've made in life. Both from the POV of finances and personal growth. I learned so much about the world and life between the ages of ~18-26. I did not own a computer or have internet access during any of it, and neither did most the ppl I knew. Feel very lucky I spent those years YOLO'ing it and not in front of a screen.
That said I also felt that many of the people I encountered there most likely weren't gaining enough for it to be worth the cost in time, money, and effort. I know some people who went the trade route straight out of highschool and provided that jobs were available it seems to have been a very good choice for most of them.
> Feel very lucky I spent those years YOLO'ing it and not in front of a screen.
Even in a STEM program I only spent a small fraction of study time in front of a screen. That said, the degree was indeed a huge time commitment overall.
Nah, just throwaway here. A few tech/work friends know of it, most of my non-tech friends know of my background but most them have crazier stories. And those folks dont really understand what I do for work or how much money I'm making. I'm too much of a dirt bag for the tech world and too much of a yuppie for my old punk friends. Its double-sided imposter syndrome.
(Yeah, armchair doctor and all that. But doesn't make it wrong or at least worth a look.)
Fwiw, I didn't mention it because of your writing style at all, I wrote it because you literally said
> Couldn't sit still.
Also, for anyone curious, drug use and being in prison is much more common amongst adhd folk than the general population. A staggering 25% (approximately) of prison population is ADHD [1], far higher than the general population.
To get the whole discussion of “I have seen this behavior before. I know an addict when I see one”. It was embarrassing. And then to hear “you’re 16 and acting out your puberty”.
Adults are silly sometimes when they are convinced of something, and fucking persistent.
Let's say they are correct. What would the solution look like from there?
As an example, and this is only 1% of it, but I have had my utilities turned off several times for not paying bills, while having $400k in the bank.
It took me five years to actually get to a point of a) having a diagnosis and b) getting medication. Most of that was due to the perverse way this process works in the UK, where to get a diagnosis of executive dysfunction you have to do a ton of personal admin, after which you’ll be handed another todo list in order to be able to get drugs prescribed.
I’m now on a good dose of drugs and I honestly mourn for the decades of my life I could have been feeling how I do now had I known. They don’t make everything better, it’s still an effort to make myself focus on the things I should be focusing on, but once I am focusing on them I’m able to continue doing so, and I no longer find myself having done no work for the last week because I was putting off a ten minute task I didn’t want to do. Despite spending 12 hours a day with a steady stream of amphetamines being released into my blood stream my blood pressure has dropped significantly since starting the drugs because I’m no longer in a constant state of low grade panic at all the things I’m not doing.
Please, go get a diagnosis (or not, maybe they’re all wrong). Talk to whoever you’re referred to about options, decide whether drugs are something you want to try. Give yourself options at least because it is possible to stop playing life on hard mode.
And I'm saying this as someone who lost circa 120k in work I never invoiced because of ADHD
If you get your utilities shut off due to ADHD, and that is only 1% of it as you claim, your instinctual coping mechanisms obviously aren't enough to prevent a pretty bad impact on your day-to-day life. As you would seek help for acute medical problems from professionals, you should seek help for chronic mental problems from professionals.
> without the drug addiction
and
> beer stealing
doesn't compute.
No disrespect, but this is not at all comparable to the situation described in the article. A few nights sleeping on the streets is much (!) easier when not addicted to substances.
That every time he came down from his high and was lying in bed unable to sleep, the guilt was like an ocean devouring him. That tonight would be the last time he would ever touch anything.
That he wanted to stop, knew he should stop, but when you wake up sweating & shaking all logic leaves your mind and the only thing you can think of is where to get more.
That it's not your (or anyone else's) fault, you did nothing wrong, and quite probably everything right. Some of us are just born with demons on our shoulder that won't stop whispering in our ear.
He would tell you of all the the plans he had come up with over the years, to make up the lost time with you and the rest of his loved ones. Doing things that YOU want to do, just to make you happy, because he had been selfish enough and you were owed at least that much.
That when things were their darkest, and he felt his lowest, one of the few saving graces and safe havens in his mind were the times he spent with you, before he fell into this pit of darkness.
---
I am, genuinely, sorry to hear that. Not in a "my condolences way", but in a grief-ridden and deeply personal way.
I lost my father and several of my closest friends to fentanyl. I know your grief. I know the feeling of anger that also gives you guilt, that they should have robbed the people that loved them most of the opportunity to experience them, and robbed themselves of the bright future they were capable of having.
Nothing I, or anyone else says, can make it any better.
I shed tears while writing this. Nico mourns for you as much as you mourn for him.
Also, Preston Thorpe (who Gavin mentions as inspiration) has an interesting story as well: https://pthorpe92.dev/intro/my-story/
<3
Key insight: relying on AI for writing assistance helps neither the author nor the audience.
You're absolutely right! Would you like to delve into more issues like this one?
Not saying it is, just pointing out how messed up the world we live in now is.
But... was it?
Even LLMs have better sense of humor than HN readers.
I still crack jokes, anyway. Get the occasional downvote, but life’s too short…
Wish and reality aren't in alignment here but some places like HN or /r/AskHistorians are my refuges.
She's been trying to get anything, even an unpaid internship, doing sound design, going to local meetups, online conferences, and hasn't had much luck.
But I told her: it's just a matter of persistence and time. If you're agreeable to be around, passionate about something, and just show up everyday, eventually something is likely to happen.
Successful people in the music world (both on and off stage) HAVE to mingle with musicians (not other engineers) heavily to get noticed and recommended
I applied for about 50+ jobs as a graduate engineer in 1991. Back then you wrote letters. Hmmm: You printed letters - mail merge was a thing.
You signed each one by hand, with a quill pen and used a wax seal and cast a Spell of Engagement.
OK, you signed your covering letter with a pen (might be a Biro but I did use a Parker and Quink, myself) You also had to put your covering letter and curriculum vitae (CV == resume) in an envelope and pop a stamp on it (2nd class) and post it. None of that Linked In bollocks.
Your covering letter would be bespoke to the company approached. You did some research and mentioned something pertinent.
Nowadays I'm the employer.
I applied over and over using Monster dot com.
Would recommend joining a local film club, and get a few small projects done. Additionally, volunteer with local church events, or regular city music festivals.
Also, could join the local union intake for the production studios. It will be awful until one gets the base hours completed, but it is a feast or famine kind of work schedule some can tolerate. Fine work if you are still a kid.
Finding stuff online is usually a fools errand these days mostly due to "AI" data mining operations, or outright cons. Best of luck =3
It allowed me to "get my hands dirty," and experiment, as well as build a portfolio.
To this day, I have a large amount of public code. It's a habit that I've had, all my adult life.
The other part of this is why it's so frustrating for me to find the right person. Everybody's resume looks perfect for the role, and I have to waste 30-45 mins digging into their actual experience. You have done yourself a great disservice by wasting that time sitting in an interview you were not qualified for, and worse still I always feel there are other, more qualified people, who I have missed/passed over their resume since it wasn't AI tuned.
Sincerely, I don't know how t make this better.
One of the 3 jobs require hiring other developers. I don't find it difficult at all. I have my own intuition and technique I rely on. If you are wasting 30~45 minutes on a resume, you are probably chasing the wrong signals. It's not my fault.
> You have done yourself a great disservice by wasting that time sitting in an interview you were not qualified for, and worse still I always feel there are other, more qualified people, who I have missed/passed over their resume since it wasn't AI tuned.
How can I know if I meet the prospective employee's criteria or not before I do the interview? How am I to be held reliable for other people's failure to make themselves visible or your frankly your lack of skill at recruiment?
It's convenient to blame AI for any shortcomings these days but if you don't know what you are doing, you were always going to reach for something external something imagined to deflect your own areas that need improvement.
Or maybe there really are people who think its okay to use AI to hire/filter candidates but not when candidates use AI to optimize to get around that screen. Using AI, I've been able to land several interviews and work 3 jobs remotely currently without much effort.
17 interviews
5 offers
I accepted 3 of them and work 16 hours a day. So thats roughly 5 hours of deep work per day. if I wasn't remote working then the extra 3~5 hours would've been spent on commute, figuring out where to eat, silly banters with coworkers or office politics and just non-essential stuff that anti-remote people advocate for.
I would accepted all 5 if I could but its just impossible to fit more than 3 stand up meetings in different time zones. It's also tricky at times to manage schedule, you have to keep your work space segregated.
So it's a combination of Resume strength (don't spend too much time on polishing it with AI as it can't replace experience) and market demand (really question if you have anything special)
Don't get discouraged brother! I hope this can help you.
You're the reason companies are pushing return to office and putting candidates through gauntlets of interviews and homework - because otherwise they end up hiring someone who lied on their resume and is trying to collect 3 salaries until they get caught and fired.
how am I to blame you cant work remotely ? I dont even know if you work!
Working 3 jobs is almost certainly defrauding the employers, your employment agreement likely forbids this due to IP ownership issues and expectations that you're, ya know, working for them when they're paying you and not secretly collecting a paycheck while working for a different company during the time they're paying you to work for them?
Also, unclear if you're also fraudulently claiming experience you don't have by having AI write a resume tailored to the job posting rather than representing what you've actually done.
If your 3 jobs are actually part-time jobs, with clearly delineated and compartmentalized time and work tracking and the employers are aware and the contracts allow that, then fine. But your description definitely reads like someone bragging that they're hacking the system to get away with tricking multiple employers into thinking you're working full time for them.
Not paid hourly rate and we are about delivering milestones on time
Everyone is satisfied with the rate of PRs closed and fine with AI use
I'm still waiting to hear what part of this is fraud?
> Also, unclear if you're also fraudulently claiming experience you don't have by having AI write a resume tailored to the job posting rather than representing what you've actually done.
Where have I said to use AI to fabricate experience? Do you actually believe that will work and thats what people are doing before background checks ?
Programming is by definition technical work that requires a significant amount of brain power and focus and if I am an employer (a good one!) I would intuitively expect a certain level of focus from each employee that also entails a certain amount of downtime in order to stay fresh and alert.
This is my attempt at a steel-man of their argument. If your employer(s) is happy with your output and you aren't lying about your availability in order to juggle everything, then there is no harm imo.
Thus 3 laptops and sometimes there are meetings which can overlap and that is always a challenge.
Yes nobody is complaining about the output and they are getting their money's worth.
I just think that as a modern day salaryman its silly to rely on one employer now or have any sort of loyalty.
It's okay to ** over the average working guy but not okay when they do anything to position themselves away from that arrangement.
where did i say this ? this is getting weird now. can you please follow HN guidelines and keep discussions relevant ?
I was reminded of the book when I recently watched the origin story [1] of the Differentbreed TV channel on youtube that gives attention to the trench war in Ukraine. The channel owner went from serious alcohol addiction while working in a liquor store, to going in a coma when deciding to go cold turkey. And then a journey to almost becoming a policeman, then a firefighter, and deciding based on training and certifications gained there, to become a combat medic in Ukraine. Then fought in the International Legion and Azov brigade. And then settle in Ukraine running the channel, and be involved in all kinds of activities that help the defense of the country. Very interesting to hear the story told from first-hand experience.
[0] https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/montyn_dirk-ayelt-kooiman/3291...
I could've never imagined long-term-thinking like this from a former addict.
I know a couple people who recovered from addiction (and lost a few who sadly couldn’t).
They’re just people from all walks of life. There are a lot of stereotypes about addicts, but drug addiction can hit anyone. The first few people I knew who became addicts were actually from good families, were educated, had good career prospects, and were happy people. They thought addiction didn’t apply to them because they were too smart or happy or wealthy. In my opinion, those stereotypes made them more vulnerable to letting their guard down and thinking they were going to use the drugs smartly.
Most of them are recovered now and back on track, minus a large chunk of their younger years and a trail of destroyed relationships and wasted opportunities. You wouldn’t peg them as former addicts, though. They’re just people.
Nothing personal, but you are part of the problem here. You are why these stories are so rare and difficult to achieve. Not out of malice on your part, most likely. But addicts are not humans to you. Please rethink some things.
I also found the article written so well (I suppose we don't encounter native English speakers in the blogosphere as much as we think we do), that it was a joy to read, if I can say so considering the subject matter.
That reflects how many people's experiences, especially in this job market.