|
Leng Vang wrote: Is my observation off?
Just by responding, I could affect your observation. Ergo, no comment. But keep observing.
|
|
|
|
|
Schrödinger's answer...
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
|
|
|
|
|
Yes and no at the same time, until you observe.
|
|
|
|
|
quantum 
|
|
|
|
|
Leng Vang wrote: Is my observation off?
There's an absolute possibility.
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.0 Beta
Have you ever just looked at someone and knew the wheel was turning but the hamster was dead?
Trying to understand the behavior of some people is like trying to smell the color 9.
I'm not crazy, my reality is just different than yours!
Not my circus not my monkey's!
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: Not my circus not my monkey's!
So, you do own a circus, just not the one referred to? Your monkey's what? That implies you do have a monkey (In your circus?) that is properly referenced by the question but your monkey doesn't own whatever the subject of the question is.
Sorry, but the thread itself seems a bit silly.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, probably; as it is only an anecdotal observation.
From my anecdotal observations, people with interests outside of their field of work perform better in the long run.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, right off, I code for fun these days, but I come nowhere near the likes of Sacha B, Pete O'H, Mark C, OG, Eddy V, Torsten H, Superman and others too numerous to mention.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you regret asking yet? 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
No. Now I got to hear what others' opinion too. It just that developers whom code as hobby spend more time with their traits. Called it geek or nerds but they seem to get into much deeper and understand broader technically.
|
|
|
|
|
I used to do both, and while I do agree that my tech skills were greater than my coworkers, I lacked in so many other areas in life (like people skills) that my life sucked. You can't rot in front of a computer your whole life and be happy, and I find now that happy people are the most productive. So while I don't know as many random facts as I used about tech, I still get more done with a balanced life.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: You can't rot in front of a computer your whole life and be happy
...but you can try to!
I haven't noticed any rot setting in yet and I have done both professional and hobby programming since 1975.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Forogar wrote: I have done both professional and hobby programming since 1975.
Yes, but you can't do it all the time, unless you met your wife like in Weird Science[^]. Wait a minute... you are Gary Wallace, heh?
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
----
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
I met my wife 40 years ago when she stood in front of an IBM 1401 printer. Those lovely long legs were very distracting. I was working with another programmer teaching an IBM 360/30 to tell time.
|
|
|
|
|
I do envy you. I could imagine the harmony of a couple converses on a subject without having to translate into plain English for the other. 
|
|
|
|
|
Depends if the person is an outlier, in my experience people that are an outlier in one field or area usually are in others. In my experience prof devs often work in large teams of 2-10-20 developers and you learn from your peers if you want to rise to the top of the heap you have to know more adopt quicker and prof devs are in it for the money so there is motivation. Further to that if you are on a salary usually working with the latest and greatest tools and who ever is running the show will always be on the hunt for new and better and faster. Final point you learn from the the tech you might be using as well.
|
|
|
|
|
"Balanced life" sounds like one of Those Things from the type of magazine that women read, along with "balanced diet" and "balanced body".
They'll probably recommend a couple of fads in order to attain it.
|
|
|
|
|
To me, A Balanced Life would mean doing no work at all! 
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
Tightrope walkers lead a balanced life. Why not join a circus?
I may not last forever but the mess I leave behind certainly will.
|
|
|
|
|
vertigo!
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
I know plenty of 'successful' people who lead extremely 'unbalanced' lives.
If you want to be good at anything you will need to be obsessed with that thing, in one way or another, which in itself is probably 'unbalanced'
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: I know plenty of 'successful' people who lead extremely 'unbalanced' lives.
Success in one area does not make up for failure in all others.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
What if Einstein lived a balanced life? Would he have bothered with any equations or theories?
To be good at something you have to concentrate and work hard on it. To be great at something you have to work very, very hard. Thus, somethings else have to be ignored or minimized. Olympic athletes are great. And they don't really do anything else besides practice all of the time.
I've never met a really great coder/programmer/developer who did not spend more than "balanced" time getting there.
But for other people, who don't care about greatness, then a balanced life is great for them. But don't equate "balanced life" with greatness. There is no such thing.
- Grant
|
|
|
|
|
C Grant Anderson wrote: What if Einstein lived a balanced life? Would he have bothered with any equations or theories?
While I don't know him personally, Einstein was balanced. Perhaps not so much as John Doe in a bar, but enough to at least function well enough to be happy. Anyway, he played instruments, messed around with women, etc.
C Grant Anderson wrote: To be good at something you have to concentrate and work hard on it. To be great at something you have to work very, very hard. Thus, somethings else have to be ignored or minimized. Olympic athletes are great. And they don't really do anything else besides practice all of the time.
I totally agree with you on that man. I really do. Bodybuilders that are hardcore spend their life inside a gym. And yet, most of them are miserable. The gym almost becomes a church for them because that's all they know.
C Grant Anderson wrote: I've never met a really great coder/programmer/developer who did not spend more than "balanced" time getting there.
I have to agree, but coming from that myself, as I've aged I realized what's really important in life. Back in "my day" I lived that crap and knew a lot, but I couldn't communicate well to others. So, I was the only one that knew it. Therefore, my life's work would not have been much useful if I never bothered to learn other skills to get it out there so people can use it. Einstein did this as well. What's the point if you can't market it and you die being great at something nobody ever knows about for instance.
And while I agree with the premise of sacrifice, I really do man. Being happy accounts for a lot. I suppose if you're truly happy doing nothing else with your life then more power to you. I just don't see how knowing one extra tech fact can make up for never knowing the true love of a good woman for instance.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
That doesn't work for surfing 
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
