1penny42cents

OP wanted to distance themselves as far from a bad economic environment as they could.

For people early in their careers, working hard is the best way to grow their future earnings and opportunities. They have too few skills, connections, and experience to differentiate otherwise.

Focusing only on the asymmetry between those with and without meaningful equity misses the point.

Not everyone is lucky enough to get equity from day one. The rest of us have (at most) a few critical points in our careers to do well enough such that we get a shot at meaningful equity at some point in the future.

For those from underprivileged backgrounds, they’re lucky to get even one chance in their careers for meaningful growth.

People without equity will work harder if they expect it to bring career or compensation growth.

If it’s a great company, people will work extra hours to move ahead, knowing it will pay off in their careers. “Great company” is always relative to the individual and where they are in their careers.

As people mature in their careers, they split off into “people with equity who continue to work hard for it” and “people without equity who have a good work/life balance”.

But as long as there’s the promise of a life-changing development, people will (sometimes rationally) work outside of their agreed hours.

> What I've seen with AI is that it does not save my coworkers from the pain of overcomplicating simple things that they don't really think through clearly. AI does not seem to solve this.

100%. The biggest challenge with software is not that it’s too hard to write, but that it’s too easy to write.

An addiction is when our dependency an activity outweighs the net-negative effect of it.

If there’s no net-negative, there’s no addiction.

So yes, some people just enjoy working. Others are workaholics. It’s not all-or-nothing and the evaluation depends on how you calculate the net impact of work on the person’s life.

What OP was calling out is that chronically sacrificing sleep seems to consistently take its toll down the road. So chronically enjoying work at the expense of sleep can be a form of workaholism.

everyone talks about the alignment problem, not nearly enough about the accountability problem

I’m actually working on this now, starting with sleep quality and cognitive performance (memory/attention/fluency) as dependent variables.

The vision is to have an index of protocols that people can try for themselves and see whether and how broader claims apply to their own minds and bodies.

If you or anyone else is interested, please send me an email at camhashemi (at) gmail.com. I’m looking for early adopters!

Regarding the “realism” proposed here, that leadership defines what shipping means: there’s a good faith and bad faith interpretation.

The bad faith interpretation is that this is corrupt and misaligned.

The good faith interpretation is that each leader has context and motivations that are important.

The right interpretation depends on the exact circumstance.

Getting leaders aligned on the right definition of “shipped” is a separate problem to the one described here, and it’s not the project lead’s direct responsibility. It’s the responsibility of the leadership team, the CEO, and the board.

But the realism proposed in the post is useful for project leads. Meeting leadership’s expectation is not necessarily corrupt, and if it is corrupt, it can be improved by directly discussing and negotiating what it means to ship a project.

crazy double whammy:

1. US gov trying to break up your search monopoly

2. ChatGPT disrupting your search monopoly

The original post is a question about people’s beliefs, not a proof or a case for any one belief.

Many believe in determinism, or at least the functional equivalent, and it poses a challenge to the popular belief that we can choose what we do. That’s the problem I’m interested in understanding.

Indeterminism, which includes that base layer of randomness, still presents a dilemma with regards to free will, doesn’t it? From the perspective of free will, and absent a more explanatory theory, they are functionally equivalent theories. Whether my brain is randomly producing actions or from an infinite chain of determined causes or a mix, free will is nowhere to be found without a more precise explanation.

The question is about free will given different assumptions of reality. My main challenge with your angle is that it’s firmly missing the point.

I am not arguing for determinism, nor the existence of God, but since I’m asking what people believe, I’m including both answers as options.

Thanks for this!

I suppose for our purposes, both determinism and indeterminism create the same paradox of free will. Determinism gives every event a determined prior cause, and indeterminism opens the door for random or otherwise undetermined prior causes, but both are incompatible with the notion of free will.

Would you agree with that reframing, or am I missing something?

> The problem starts in assuming “the portion humans operate in” is relevant or reasonable

the question is whether humans have control over their actions. human operations are definitionally relevant.

you seem to suggest throwing away determinism because there are open questions at extreme scales. but determinism does explain reality at the scale we're interested in, and you haven't offered a comparable explanation.

occam's razor would suggest we take determinism seriously until we have another theory which more clearly explains the phenomena of interest while also addressing the challenges you've raised. and it seems that most people do take determinism seriously, which is why free will is such a debated question.

It’s a reasonable challenge to determinism, but quantum decoherence seems to make that opening smaller, no? It seems you can explain much of reality using determinism, especially the portion humans operate in.

Also, in case it’s not clear: I am not assuming determinism or claiming that free will is an illusion, just explaining the challenge if one does assume determinism, which many do.