Thank you for posting this. Restored a little bit of faith in humanity for me. It just felt like people were being needlessly cruel to someone who is clearly struggling.

that's the question, ain't it? Telling people to just suffer through terrible therapy probably ain't the answer

I think the question to ask is: is this therapist helping me or not? If not move on to another one.

For all the "just go to therapy", what's the best way for me to accept your payment for this? Paypal? venmo? ko-fi?

Oh how I envy the luxurious life you must have had to reach this conclusion

Amusingly to me, I think the opposite.

That’s fascinating to me. I’d love to chat more deeply about that, but I can’t see a way to get at the essence of the difference in an HN thread.

I tend toward your side of things. In your first 0-n years of experience, you're growing extremely quickly (hopefully). You're working with a lot of new tech, new people, if n is greater than 4 or 5, hopefully at least two companies if not three. But by the time you have n-teen years of experience, it's much more like you've been repeating the same year of experience over and over again.

Growth, especially if you have a decade of experience (and not one year ten times), is hard. I think especially at the upper end it takes dedicated effort.

About 15 years into my career here.

I stopped learning programming skills on the job about 7 years ago.

Today, Im still learning new languages, frameworks and libraries.

I'm also still growing in regards to,

Management skills, project skill, leadership skills, self time management, effective habits, not to mention work life balance things as my life now requires it.

One thing I have noticed is that (prior to the pandemic) new positions in my geographic area were almost always limited to the kind of roles that could be successfully handled by programmers with 3-5 years of experience. There simply weren't many higher-level roles available.

I'm in a standard tech area outside of Silicon Valley - plenty of standard enterprise Java jobs with a slightly smaller number of C# positions. My experience here has been that I seem to be able to make lateral moves into similar jobs that don't particularly offer more technical or career growth.

This relates back to your original comment about not seeing correlation to gains in output and skill versus experience in years 12-15 for working engineers. Most job roles in my area simply don't require more output or skill than a software developer gains in those first 3-5 years.

I would guess that for people who do observed a significant correlation in growth in output and skill over those longer years of experience are biased by seeing engineers who were in positions that required growth in output and skill.

Another weird effect (at least in my group - which tends to have long tenured employees - I've been here 12 years) is that I see engineers get stuck in specific responsibilities centered around institutional knowledge. For example, being the devops type for three legacy systems that will exist forever. If a new need comes up, my group seems to prefer hiring a totally new person to own that new project. We have actually lost a couple of employees who (rightly) were frustrated by not being able to get off of legacy support projects. These are the programmers with 20 years of experience but really have that initial 3-5 years plus the same year of experience * 15.

In my case, I had personal reasons for staying in the area and have had to manage my own tech growth. Typically by side study and programming. Some of this has led to new work in the day job but I realize I traded career growth that I would have very much enjoyed for stability. I have also have enjoyed a tremendous amount of flexibility, some autonomy in choosing dev stacks, and collaborating with medical researchers.

I just want to say I'm impressed by your intellectual generosity here!

You may be right about many things you said, but this comes off as though you've got a complex about something.

I’ll extend you the benefit of the doubt and assume your intention is to be helpful.

Can you be a little more specific and thus potentially actionable?

I'm just a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude. But I'll give it a shot.

You come off as having an inflated sense of the value you provide while being very bitter that you're not recognized for it. You seem to project the meritocracy playing out in your head on the "inevitable future."

The work you do is no doubt challenging and you seem to find it very rewarding in and of itself. There are presumably few people that choose to do this work, but you need to keep in mind that does not mean there aren't lots of people capable of doing it.

I mean, if anything I’ve spent more lonely nights with a bottle of Four Roses and some depressing existentialist book on a high rise tower balcony over not finding happiness in absurd pay than for any other reason.

Being overpaid even by the standards of what I outlined in the post tends to provoke a little guilt, in me at least.

Finding no joy in it whatsoever was legitimately depressing. Tyler Durden: “What now dad? I’ve got the degree/job/whatever, what comes next?”

Can’t buy that answer with RSUs. Or at least I never figured out how.

But yeah, the heavy duty hackers / mathematicians, who I am not one of! Are going to fuck everyone else up.

Unfortunately, I have neither the proper information nor interest to dig into that specifically. My best recommendation is to look into why I might have said that, and decide if you care at all what I thought. If so, take actions to change what things that you have a desire to change.

Maybe keep it to yourself if the game plan is to half-ass psychoanalyze someone and then bail when asked a follow up question?

Just because it's obvious to many that you need therapy doesn't mean that any who notice are capable or willing to give it.

If it’s not obvious to anyone from the recently deceased kid brother thing that therapy is indicated, I’d be curious how.

I’ve been getting therapy since way before that happened, most people could probably benefit from a little mental health checkup now and again.

What did I do to get your knickers so twisted that you’re banging on a recently-bereaved guy with thus far zero productive suggestions?

I'm sorry for your loss. I'm not trying to hammer on you for that. I hope you feel better soon.

That’s big of you. Thank you. We all lean on one another to make the community more positive when someone else is starting to fail at civility.

In that comment you were the person who sent things in a better direction. No sarcasm whatsoever: my regards friend.

I mean, I’m a little edgy about a fairly recent bereavement, but if that’s filtering into my opinions about comp structure then I’m probably pretty bad at my job, and therefore my opinions will trend towards utter irrelevance.

I feel like I have read this same article two dozen times, each by a different author.

The internet and I grew up together; it's nearly always been a part of my life. I use the internet every day for several hours. My career involves constant use and access to the internet. I also get my news and communicate with friends via the internet.

All that said, I spend time away from the internet every day and not as some forced action to distance myself from it. I don't see the internet as some perverse addiction that I need to break. If I'm not working for a stretch of days, there's a good chance that I will not use the internet simply because no situation comes up that calls for it.

The idea that 3 days away is life and mind altering is deeply concerning to me.

Speak for yourself, man, cause it can get bad. During the work week I can sometimes go from unconsciousness to TikTok to podcasts to web development to Zoom to Twitter to Spotify to YouTube and back to TikTok and then to sleep without any real breaks in between. One can get into this habit of exhausted yet nervous information seeking -- "doing without doing".

I think three days off might be just what I need.

I am speaking for myself.

My concern is that when I read these articles, the authors often seem to be speaking for more than themselves. It seems as though they are projecting an unhealthy addiction on all members of society. I see that as likely incorrect and potentially harmful.

I'm not certain what's unhealthy about what you listed other than the self-imposed exhaustion. Humans have been exhausting themselves unhealthily long before the internet came about. If you feel you're doing so, by all means, find the way to give yourself the rest you need.

> It seems as though they are projecting an unhealthy addiction on all members of society. I see that as likely incorrect and potentially harmful.

There are always some folks who show up in these threads who seem to have perfect control. Or maybe a well developed ability to delude themselves, I have no idea.

But out in the real world, my observation is that probably better than 90% of random citizens are addicted to their phones and spend damn near every waking minute on them if there isn't something else to entertain them.

"But out in the real world" - What a dismissive thing to say. The commenter is in the real world. There are multiple types of people in the real world who deal with things differently. Why would you say that?

The only attitude here is yours. "The real world" means "not on HN", in other words out in public.

> Why would you say that?

Because it's true. Go out in public and tell me what fraction of people are buried in their phone. To a rough approximation, all of them.

I'm not sure if I'm more likely than the regular person to be addicted to the internet because I'm so plugged in to the industry or less so because I "know how the sausage is made" and have been very conscious of my usage patterns over years.

Still, I agree that it seems to be a pervasive thing, and I do believe a little reset period like the author describes would, on average, do the population some good.

I know I personally don't have anything near perfect control.

I think a lot of these articles come from a place of surprise more than necessarily projecting that everyone has the same issues: they recommend everyone try it because it becomes a surprise how much online activities have become the background radiation of our lives. We live with such things as absolutely normal every day things, "addicted" or not, and have stopped questioning their general place in our lives because they are just so "normal". It probably is fine that all of these things have so quickly become "normal", but it is noticeable how shocking it can feel when you take a break from the current "normal", and that probably is worth reminding people to try to take such breaks if only to also experience such "culture shocks". (Whether or not you projecting that as a societal "problem" or not.)

More than 50 years ago one prominent philosopher anticipated an increasing problem with "Future Shock" where the world has just changed so much so rapidly that people would have a harder and harder time dealing with technological life. (This was a spark that ignited a lot of Cyberpunk tropes in the 80s among other things.) With hindsight, it seems clear that we've intentionally and/or inadvertently "boiled the frog" better than philosopher's like that one anticipated. We made technological life the background normal of a huge populace. So much so that it is perhaps a lot more noticeable this sort of "Past Shock" where someone disconnects for long enough to feel it.

Speaking only for myself, about a decade ago I started taking advantage of some of my vacation time to entirely disconnect for at least a week. (In my case, by doing Caribbean cruises where data plans are so expensive to not be worth it.) It is shocking. It does feel healthy and useful to me and my mental health. I don't consider myself an "addict" and have taken a lot of steps to eliminate some of the worse "addictions" of modern internet life (I left Twitter for slower Mastodon feeds, Discord chats with chosen communities, and a broader return to RSS; I dropped all non-comedy news sources; as a couple examples), but there's still so much I take for granted in the current "normal" that is lovely to have at least one, shocking, week long break from each year. I would recommend it to other people. Not because I think other people are "addicted", quite the contrary, I think other people are "normal" and maybe just don't realize how hot the water is all around them (whether or not that's fine to be in such generally hot water; to abuse the metaphor a bit, as my vacations also remind me sometimes it's great to be in a hot tub or sauna for longer than is "strictly healthy" per posted signs, it feels normal and fun and if you don't dehydrate yourself or accidentally heat stroke in the process what was the harm).

(ETA: given some of the other comments in related threads, it may say something that for me it takes at least a full week to really feel the shock. Three days does seem too short to me. I don't know if that says my attempts to eliminate some "addictive" sources have worked better than I think they have or not, but anecdotally, it is interesting data to add.)

There's some distinction between 'using the internet' and 'social media' (which is a somewhat nebulous term, possibly).

Could I go 3 days without 'social media' or 'socializing online'? Yeah - it might be a bit tough as it's definitely a habit, but... it's not 'vital'. I went to the beach last year and ... just sat and read a book. Got a phone call from my wife, which ... perhaps that's 'social media' in some sense? But I had a bit of time away from the standard online social places (including HN) and it was definitely doable.

Three days without 'internet access'... including driving navigation, banking, access to my health information, etc? That would be harder. Doable, but would definitely be a lot more noticeable. Would ideally plan for it a bit in advance :)

Okay then what's stopping you from deleting TikTok and quitting Twitter? Sounds like a hell you've created for yourself.

My opinionated guess is many people are afraid of being alone with their thoughts.

    Dave, your behavior indicates a possible existential crisis in the next hours.
    How about watching people making food in the most ridiculous way on TikTok?

To be fair, being alone with your thoughts can be scary. That's why even before the Internet we read cereal boxes during breakfast, or shampoo bottles in the toilet.

Or, maybe these platforms have A/B tested dopamine hits for its users? Nothing to do with being alone just engineered technology tapping into our normal brain function.

I bet you could find some science to back up that opinion because I deeply suspect that's by-design.

Put down the Heroin, John.

> to TikTok

That's your problem. I once logged into tiktok and found myself clicking next for four hours without blinking. Never again have I logged into this addictive platform. It's engineering to keep eyes on screen, scary.

> The idea that 3 days away is life and mind altering is deeply concerning to me.

I agree. I was left with the impression that the author could benefit from a therapist. It is a strange and unsettling concept to me that someone should be so emotionally vested in being connected to the Internet as much as possible.

Yeah, that sums it up pretty nicely. It's like tap water, I'm used to it being there and I use it without thinking about it. But there's no problem just going on a weekend (or week long) trip without any internet connectivity (unless you depend on your phone for navigation, but you get what I mean).

I am the same. Grew up with the Internet in the beginning of 90'. I have my phone always on silent and notifications mostly disabled. I work on a computer and online all day and have no issues with 'going away' from it. When on holiday I don't check personal email for a few days and work email - never.

When in company I find it disturbing that people pick up their phones to check messages/notifications, etc.

I still remember the time when it was not polite to talk in public on your mobile. Phone ringing in public was frowned upon. Much changed :)

I grew up before internet, but was an early adopter. I don't have a bad relationship with my phone/devices, but I am interested, when you say 'without internet', what do you mean?

For example: WhatsApp, Messenger, iMessage, Netflix, a lot of cable services (I just changed providers, their tv service now runs over wifi to the router with no option for a physical cable to connect to your tv) that now run on the 'internet'. You mean if you are not working, you don't interact with any of these services?

I think it might be worth making a distinction here between the Internet as a venue for communication and information, and the internet as a connection method. I wouldn't consider text messengers or cable services that connect over the internet as part of the Internet, any more than I would consider a VoIP landline to be part of the Internet.

I gave up my smartphone for several years. When I rejoined the smartphone world last spring it was weird to me how so many apps expected a constant connection, since I had grown accustomed to only having internet access at home and (sometimes) at work. My feature phone had a browser in the old-school mobile sense (Opera mini over 2G) but unless I really needed an answer to some question right away I would wait until I got home.

The main thing I noticed was that if there was something I wanted to learn more about, or look up an answer to, I need to remember it until computer time--and write it down if it's important. Usually it's not that important, and I ended up becoming more okay with not binging information immediately every time I had a craving for it.

I don't mean that at all. That's the point. I happen to not use any of those services you listed, but I do use discord to communicate with friends, and I enjoy listening to podcasts/audiobooks for entertainment. It's more common than not that I am listening to a podcast or audiobook when I take my dog on long walks in the evening, but I just don't see that as a sign of an unhealthy addiction.

It's possible that you are underestimating how much time you spend on the Internet and how often it punctuates your day.

I also don't like to think of myself as Internet addicted and like to believe I'm pretty self disciplined about my usage.

Even so, doing a 24-hour no media with my family led to an experience very similar to what the author describes here. I had no idea how often I was throwing away little five minute slices of my life to staring at my phone.

Not use the internet including to check email or chats or messages or Google random stuff or map to anywhere on your phone?

I can't hardly be bothered to check email when it's relevant to do so.

If the people I care to talk to are in the room with me at the time, I don't need to get on my phone. That's not always the case. Sometimes I will stick my nose in my phone in a public setting, and it's not intended as a slight. I just have a fancy in my head about something I'd like to go read about.

However, this is more to my point. My separation from the internet has never needed to be some all-encompassing effort. I have never thought about needing to make sure that there is absolutely 0% access for an extended period. If I go on a multi-day backpacking/camping trip, it's not to escape the internet, it's because I like being outdoors.

If I go on a backpack, I'll make sure I have paper and downloaded maps, have checked the weather forecast, have maybe told someone where I am, maybe have a paperback with me, etc. but mostly I won't have researched if I'm likely to have cell reception or not and that wouldn't factor into my decision about where to go in any case.

I've certainly been places where I've been out of cell reception for days at a time. Not frequently but I also wouldn't consider it some weird anomaly.

I'll be honest, I didn't expect the article about the anti-intellectualization of our culture to be veiled apologetics for Joe Rogan. It's not censorship to choose not to spend every moment discussing the basest topics that have already been belabored far beyond what they deserve.

If you want to argue that the potential harm of a large group of people other than yourself is fine, I won't censor you. Stand in your truth and hear what everyone else has to say about the matter. Considering only your own unpopular opinion while ignoring all others does not a philosopher make.

Do the moderators engage when someone says "Dude, that was fucking sick!"?

I'm just saying, I'm not surprised that a moderated server is more, uh, moderated, compared to an unmoderated server. I'm not sure the individual word choices are the determining factor compared to having someone paying attention and removing people with undesired behavior.

> Do the moderators engage when someone says "Dude, that was fucking sick!"?

Hard to tell because of the different language. They wouldn't engage someone saying something close to that but people wouldn't express their admiration or congratulations with swear words anyway (because it's not the style of the house ?). Of course they'd be using the community's lingo though to express sick moves but these aren't insulting/taunting/agressive to begin with.

> I'm not sure the individual word choices are the determining factor compared to having someone paying attention and removing people with undesired behavior.

I think too. For the comparison I should try a CS:GO or valorant or pubg or fortnite next week-end to see the difference.

You certainly are.