> After the pandemic, workers in remote-capable jobs spent more time working alone and avoided social activities with their friends, remaining more isolated both during and after work. This pattern was most pronounced among remote workers living alone: They spent entire days without human contact and their mental distress, use of mental healthcare, and antidepressants increased acutely.
One of those results which is exactly what anyone paying attention would predict. I'm glad there's hard evidence.
I'm sure this is true. Also true is the mental distress I experience having to work in an crazy noisy open office space. Give me an actual office, and I'll go there.
An actual office is not even that expensive. All they have to do is double the height of the cubicle walls and slap a door on there but they won’t do it.
I'll settle if they double the height so my eyes don't get blasted by sun glare.
There's beautiful views from my current office..but my job is a screen all day and having dim interior lighting versus direct sun fighting it out across my retinas means the effect is entirely lost on me.
>This pattern was most pronounced among remote workers living alone: They spent entire days without human contact and their mental distress, use of mental healthcare, and antidepressants increased acutely.
I guess there is a cultural component to it too, or maybe I'm just that much disconnected from humanity. It's just hard for me to imagine that spending time alone would, in general, affect someone so much that they would begin to rely on drugs and other means of mental care. Maybe it has little to do with isolation in particular and the source of distress is simply the abrupt change in lifestyle. For example, forcing a person to socialize every day when they aren't used to it would put them in a similar state. I've lived alone for over a decade (since I was 19), and by far the biggest source of mental distress to me are interactions with people. I have never seen a psychologist in my life nor ever taken any mind-altering drugs. Remote work came and, thankfully, hasn't fully left, but I barely even remember the pandemic. Of course, it's just a personal experience, not a generalization.
It's certainly personal. I live alone for the last 11 years and I remember the pandemic as the worst period of my life exactly because I couldn't interact with people. Surely moving to another city just before played a role, but I realized that one week stuck at home was enough to drive me completely insane. While going to office doesn't replace normal social life, it's still something that helped me before. After the pandemic I kept WFH, but found a relatively big and diverse friend circle. Now I treat social life as something mandatory like food and sleep because I learned that even "going out" alone (grab a dinner somewhere and go to a cinema or something like that) barely helps when I need to connect with someone and have a meaningful conversation. And yet, some of my friends are exactly like you, they barely noticed the pandemic and were perfectly happy to stay at home and tinker with their side projects.
IDK I quite enjoy being home alone with no human contact. Interacting with other people is so tiring, and there's not much reward in it for me. Being with other people is stressful.
What I feel like cannot be missed if you're paying attention is that other people suffer from it. Whether individual mind it or not doesn't disprove the general observation.
this is flawed in a way, they're presupposing social contact is always positive or healthy? It is biased because it isn't looking at the mental health state of individuals prior to remote work, as well as post RTO.
Fork always seemed conceptually terrible even when I first learned about it.. If you want to do one thing (start a process) you should not have to use a mysterious incantation that does a different unrelated thing (forks your process) in order to do it.
I am curious about what the best way to handle the example in the article of one process spawning many git subprocesses is. Surely it just doesn't make sense to repeatedly start git from scratch in the course of a long-running parent operation. What's the low cost abstraction for the same result, though?
Yeah, as someone who originally came from Windows, the fork+exec model never made sense to me. Now I know it's just a historical quirk, but for some reason there are still people who pretend that fork+exec is actually a good thing...
Fork is conceptually simple. Without bringing in any other layers, you start a process with the one thing known to exist: yourself.
Otherwise you need multiple steps to create a process, fill it with something to run, and arrange for it to execute. Or like Win32 you permanently smush them together with other layers, like filesystems and object loaders and linkers.
It's not conceptually simple. No other object creation API works by copying an existing thing and then modifying it. You don't create a new file by copying an existing one and then modifying it. You don't create a new window by copying an existing one and modifying it.
Attempting to justify clone/exec as a reasonable design is just Stockholm syndrome.
> Clone-and-modify is almost universal in version control systems.
It's closer to copy-on-write. Also, it actually makes sense there because in 99.999% of cases a commit actually is a modified copy of its parent. That isn't true for process spawning.
The only thing I want to inherit from the parent process is its cwd and environment variables, even those are often overridden. The rest can easily be passed explicitly through other channels like pipes or command line arguments.
Back to the example from the article. It makes no sense that a git-subprocess forked from a web server need to have any process state inherited from the web server.
Yes, exactly. Cloning, as a process creation primitive, is the one thing that doesn't need to be concerned with other stuff.
> … a git-subprocess forked from a web server …
That's pulling in a whole load of assumptions that are distinct from process creation. You can have processes in an environment that has no concept of file system or persistent storage at all.
I gues that way of thinking makes sense if you have a certain model of what a process is, in terms of the data structures and runtime state etc. But, tbh, I think of processes as glorified function calls, which happen to have that stuff involved as an implementation detail. And if spawning a process call is supposed to act like a function call, then of course it should not inherit state. You should call the function you want to call, not call yourself with an instruction to switch over to it instead.
libgit2 exists. You could imagine communicating with some gitd over a pipe/socket but I don't know why that would be a good idea. Short of that you have to spawn processes.
I'd really be worried if a competent company was trying to make people addicted. This is absolutely a thing. Social media, mobile games, LLMs, tobacco.
If someone gives them shit about their writing, that's on the critic for being shitty. If they use AI to write, that's on them for being fake. But, to write online at all requires being ready to have people be shitty to you and ideally not reacting in a way that makes the situation worse. Sounds like they need work on that part.
Anyway it is basically always possible for someone to find something legitimately bad about anything a person does. The question is, how much of an issue is that? Not much actually. So you have flaws. Fine, just be flawed. It had no affect on your life beyond your reaction to the attack. And putting aside that reaction is a prerequisite for learning anything useful (or discerning that there is nothing to learn) from the experience.
Good people will trust good intentions through the flaws, while shitty people will write off your work and your intentions because of the flaws (and try to make sure you feel bad about it in the process). But it's always they're too weak to express disagreement maturely, or sometimes because they're bitter and threatened by your good intentions directly. Either way, it's their flaw, not yours.
My brain immediately fills in the whole story that happens after this.
1. Someone links this post in an internal Slack-like app to relevant PMs and designers.
2. Someone in leadership respond "dang we should look at this deluge of CTAs". In doing this they pretend as though it's new information that people didn't have until now, since that avoids anyone being responsible, even though every single engineer and the designers that still have their idealism are full aware of it.
3. Some PM is assigned a project of cleaning up CTAs, which they half-heartedly do, and the situation is slightly better afterwards, although nobody is accountable or really cares and the same problem will happen again for the next round of launches, since everyone's OKRs are tied to getting users NOW and CTAs that stupid people click on / random people accidentally click on are the best way to drive a metric in the near future. Somehow they manage to spin the cleanup as a positive and wholesome metric-moving project instead of what it is, which is doing extra work to fix other peoples' negligence.
4. Nothing like introspection happens because the org is entirely driven by short-sighted metric-maximization. It continues to gradually rot, losing the engineers and designers who care about the users, with the main decision-making roles turned over every couple years so pointless pms and managers can stick stars on their resume.
5. In a few years when the accumulation of misanthropic decisions starts to actually affect metrics in a way that nobody can easily bandaid, some executive will start a new project to do something about modernizing the whole app. A bunch of people will ship things to clean it up, and a new design will launch with a bunch of user studies that validate it as better. It will almost certainly be worse, but nobody cares, they just need work to do, and they'll massage the metrics to make it good enough until they can switch roles again.
6. At no point will the organization be capable of anything like shame, which is a shame because that is what is needed: someone in charge has to believe in doing things because they are good for the users and not for mindless metric-moving, and hold those under them accountable accordingly. Instead we get this, which is basically the long-term symptoms of going public in an industry where user growth and retention are not very quickly correlated with changes in the product. As a result bad product changes alienate users slowly and there is little incentive to make good changes, because neither result affects anything in the next few quarters. So instead you get this bullshit: because it's an easy way to hit OKRs and get promoted, and people's bosses have no reason to disagree because it's a cheap way for them to hit OKRs and get promoted also. Not that they're wrong. When the goal of the company is mindless optimization instead of anything socially positive, maybe this is truly what optimal behavior looks like. Although you can be sure that internal messaging nevertheless focuses on how socially positive the changes are. Gotta keep the illusion going so nobody realizes their job is shameful.
Or maybe that won't happen. But ... I've been around this cycle a few times, at companies who inherited Google's contemptible style of management. Somehow feels like I've seen this before.
nevertheless most people can be a lot better at most things than they are, in the same amount of time, if the education and culture around education is of higher quality.
I can be better at programming than I am, and I do it for a living. At certain point, I'd rather spend time kayaking or playing chess. I don't know why this is some kind of education problem -- it's opportunity cost.
The real issue is that if you do manage to build a cheaper clone they can just delete you by lowering their prices. It'll hurt the growth they have to show investors but not as much as letting you live will.
>The real issue is that if you do manage to build a cheaper clone they can just delete you by lowering their prices.
Yep, this is why cost leadership strategies tend to be unattractive to startups. Finding ways to be meticulously frugal just isn't exciting to most people, I would think.
Well my point is that it's not a question of how exciting it is. It is that it is essentially unworkable as a business strategy, unless you have a technique for being more frugal or efficient than it is possible for your competitor to be. And they have scale on their side, so it is doubtful.
(that said I'm just an engineer parroting things I heard while working there, I wasn't involved in any actual strategy)
reply