When I worked remote, I found I worked more hours than the days I went into the office and spent 40 minutes each day commuting. It's a lot harder to walk away from work when it is embedded in your home life. I actually quit my most recent job when they decided to close the office and move to full time remote work, so YMMV.
A compromise could be a co-working space or separate office in the house. It is very beneficial to have a clear divider between home and work life, so if you felt you weren't achieving it I totally understand the departure.
For me, I still have no idea what the visual of a venn diagram is trying to tell me within the context of SQL. Just having a visual that I can't even understand does nothing to benefit the situation either.
> the sheer amount of screen real-estate and convenience is really unparalleled.
Personally, that's my exact complaint. I miss smart phones I could operate with one hand without straining my thumb to reach the opposite corner. I want a quality smart phone with a screen size ~4.5". I don't really want a screen larger than that. It would be nice if the big brands made a small version instead of a "normal" and "XL". The iPhone homepage currently has the motto "Welcome to the big screens". If I wanted a tablet, I'd buy a tablet.
A few scattered thoughts:
Much of this article seems to only apply under the assumption that people didn't have hobbies prior to being a working adult. Most people I know have hobbies, but those hobbies were developed prior to being working adults. The article states:
> most of us will be truly excellent only at whatever we started doing in our teens.
So what about all of us that have had our hobbies prior to even being a teenager? I've been playing piano now for almost 3 decades. I played nearly every day from age 4 to the day I graduated college. By the article's admission, I'm supposed to be excellent by now. But... I've steadily gotten worse since becoming a working professional. I have my 5000+ hours of practice, but only a few hundred in decade since graduating. My experience when it comes to these hobbies is that most people drift away from their interests due to self-comparison, not societal comparison.
The activities mentioned by the article seem to be of the everyday athletic variety. As adults, we're supposed to be conscious about our health. Nobody cares if you're a shitty runner when it's an expectation that you're health-conscious. The same can't be said for the arts and crafts variety of hobbies. The home brewer doesn't necessarily want you to try their shitty beer; The illustrator doesn't want to show their stick figures; The woodworker doesn't want you to sit in the chair that's probably going to break under your weight, regardless of whether or not they had fun making it. The office talk of "what did you do last night?" is a lot easier to answer with "went for a run"/"watched the same TV show as you" rather than having to follow up with the inevitable Q&A about your hobby. Let's say I mentioned that I was playing piano ("I've been playing since I was 4!"). The next time my team goes for drinks and there is a piano in the bar, people want to hear me play. Do I really want to publicly struggle to play a piece I was able to easily perform when I was 12? That doesn't sound like very much fun to me.
> you are trying to land a gallery show or at least garner a respectable social media following
People put their best foot forward, which also assumes they have a good foot to begin with. If you suck at something, you usually don't put it up on your Instagram. My point is really just that I don't talk about my hobby, and I assume that's also somewhat common for hobbies that aren't the typical everyday athletic variety. While I realize there are statistics that heavily back TV-as-a-hobby, I think the author has a bit of a selection bias and that there is under-appreciated amount of people that simply have no desire to discuss their hobbies. The discussion can detract from the enjoyment you get from the hobby itself.
I'm not sure of any precedent, but the disclaimer isn't just a "don't hold me to it" liability insurance. There are certain certifications required related to various types of products and recommendations (primarily Series 6, 7, 65, and 66). If they don't have that certification and act in that role, it's not just oops-you-can-sue-me liability, it's an actual possibility of jail time.
Ha, you're right. Economics is an exception. I minored in economics, and found it amusing that professors who expounded on the virtues of capitalism were doing so within an socialist institution.
However, looking back, I'd probably place most of my economics professors in the neoliberal camp. I'd propose that the left/right divide is primarily about nationalism vs globalism now -- my professors would have tended to support international capitalism rather than national capitalism.
Figures like Mises weren't mentioned in my classes, despite his famous prediction that the economic calculation problem would cause the fall of communism. Yet Keynes was discussed thoroughly.
> so as you can imagine, a birth certificate isn't enough. it wasn't even enough for me to get a job in a sanctuary city. I had to show a passport.
I can't imagine this at all. I've never needed a birth certificate for a job, let alone a passport. What do "sanctuary cities" have to do with this? SS# and an address for healthcare; bank account for direct deposit. I can't think of anything else I've ever needed.
If your employer is part of the e-verify program you need identification. Proof that you're allowed to work and photo ID. So either a birth certificate and a drivers license or a passport(current or expired) which satisfies for both requirements. You can also use a Social Security card in lieu of a birth certificate. I think e-verify is required for a company to hire people on Visas.
