Paul Erdös was eccentric, for sure. But he was a genius, so he could afford to be eccentric. Some people try to do the opposite: act eccentric, so they will be perceived as geniuses (Caltech undergrads are a prime example).

First, I did say, but perhaps not strong enough, that I include myself in the list of people who do not what they are talking about (or, more properly, in the group of people that do not have strong opinions).

I’ve done a fair bit of reading on topics like the Federal Reserve and money creation, like any good amateur, and the only thing I know for certain is that it’s insanely complex.

More importantly, however, you've missed my point. Nowhere did I want to claim that you shouldn't have opinions, beliefs, or the desire to argue about topics you are interested in, even as an amateur. "Its complicated, trust us" is not my point. It's missed my point by a wide margin.

My point is that bringing a false sense of expertise, or authority to the issue makes the discussions worthless and turns them into flamewars. People in online discussions want to pretend they are experts in macroeconomic theory. That makes them defensive and emotional. That makes the discussions uninteresting.

It's emotional blackmail. I was told, in black and white, that I sucked and I was holding everyone back. For anyone with any self-doubt or need for social approval, a statement like that will feel like a ton of bricks. But then they offer a path to redemption: sign a document, then complete these tasks, and all will be well again. Since I have a programmer's ego I feel I can code my way out of any situation. So I signed.

And I did so knowing full well that I was doing something against my interests. But oddly, at the time, that didn't matter as much to me as redeeming myself in other people's eyes.

If this ever happens to you, the thing to recognize is that at that moment, the company is no longer your friend (if it ever was) and from now on, every dealing with you is probably going to be backhanded. Loyalty and pride in accomplishment are suddenly bad traits for you to indulge in.

The best option may be to sign and slack off while you job-hunt. Or, if you are quick to realize that there is no way out, to offer to go away, in exchange for a decent amount of severance.

Either way, I was foolish to sign without getting a lawyer to examine the document first.

1. Desiring efficiency, so one can achieve more with less effort.

2. Not wanting to think very hard, and putting off difficult decisions.

This article argues that programmers aren't number 2. I'd agree. Others argue that programmers are number 1. I'd agree. There's no conflict here, just confusion!

I stopped reading there. "You" did what? Is the author suggesting that "slackers" brought us the internet? It seems to me that a vast army of workaholic scientists and hackers of all types "brought us the internet", not a bunch of wannabe artists working part-time jobs at Starbucks.

Perhaps I'm missing the point of this article, but it seems overly loose and unjustified, and filled with fallacies. Freelancers aren't slackers, they work harder than people in regular jobs, in most cases. Hackers aren't slackers - they have many characteristics of slackers, perhaps, but if you get down to it, most of us are obsessive, driven workaholics - for the right work.

I'm glad I'm not applying this time.

Never mind the irritation of figuring out how to create a video (I'm sure it's easy, but why spend time figuring that out when I could be hacking?) -- I simply don't video well, especially in artificial-seeming situations. And I don't think a video would tell you anything useful about me anyway; my most natural voice is the written voice, so that's what you should listen to if you want to learn anything about me.

I can see a couple of potential advantages to requiring an introductory video -- first, it allows you to detect some fraudulent applications; and second, it raises the bar for entry, thus removing some of the less serious applications -- but my impression from everything I've read here is that neither of those are particularly problematic even without videos. I'll admit that some people speak better in video than in writing -- although I think this applies more often to business people than to hackers -- but surely the right solution to deal with such people is to make an introductory video optional, not to make it mandatory. I know there's a lot you can see when you engage a candidate in conversation which you can't see on a written page; but a unilateral video doesn't tell you how well someone can carry on a bilateral or multilateral conversation either.

I'm sure you guys have some reason for this... but I certainly can't see it. Why?

You lose either way.

I suppose I had to learn that lesson sooner or later, so I'll go glass-half-full and be grateful that it was on tens of thousands early in life, instead of more later. But that was a pretty expensive lesson.

Then came Auto-Tune. That meant that less perfect singers no longer would have to strain themselves by performing a dozen tracks, we could do with three or four, focusing on performance and feel. AT would assist with the pitch. Sessions actually became more creative, since the tools were better than before.

So "perfect vocals" have been around way longer than Auto-Tune. We just did it in a more tedious way, and wore out the singers vocal cords in the process. Pop is just pop. Other genres will always cater for those who want to listen to more "real music".

  Easy to grasp (the basic principles, anyway)
  Experiments are pretty much impossible (making being disproven relatively rare)

A cynic might observe that all of this is true of both the author and professional economists (and other soft scientists). Many of their theories cannot be tested, presumably this fact ought to temper their certainty. As far as I can tell, it doesn't. No lack of certainty is evident in this post.

The author's chief defense of academic economic hypothesis is they are complicated. I have not had much patience for the "its complicated, trust us" idea since Catholic school.

Perhaps the author's and our time would have been better spent if he offered a coherent defense (maybe even using vaguely correct grammar) of these academic economic hypothesis rather than a sweeping ad hominem attack.