How can you take "the environment in big companies is toxic to programmers." and say "Paul makes no claim about employees being unhappy [...] the absence of something you don’t even know you’re missing is hardly likely to make you unhappy on its own" ?
There's a difference between an environment where something is missing (and having it would make you happier, but the lack of it doesn't hurt you) and a toxic environment which by definition means "Harmful, destructive or deadly to living things." (at least one of the definitions).
It seems to me that Paul's essay claims that working in a company is detrimental to programmers and the way they're "supposed to work". This means everyone should quit working for big companies and start working the way they're supposed to (since programming has so much in common with hunting...).
But then Paul and several others jump to defend the essay and claim that this isn't really the message, that working in a company is fine and that some people would thrive and do better in a startup environment. I fully agree with this point, but if this is the intended message the article fails to deliver it. Drop the toxic, lions in cages and constant references to how you think people should live (society has greatly advanced since the days people used to roam around in groups of 10, and has primarily done so by organizing in large groups and figuring out way to function and work together).
How can you take "the environment in big companies is toxic to programmers." and say "Paul makes no claim about employees being unhappy [...] the absence of something you don’t even know you’re missing is hardly likely to make you unhappy on its own" ?
I can see how someone might have difficulty making the connection, but I think the food analogy addresses it. Most food that people eat is in fact toxic to humans. However, its toxicity, on average, is fairly low; it is only in aggregate over an extended period of time that the consequences become apparent. In some cases, it will never even cause a problem.
Eating this "toxic" food doesn't cause anyone unhappiness in the short term, it may even cause a great deal of happiness, but it can have long term consequences.
I don't want to get into an argument about food, but I don't buy the argument that the food most people eat is toxic to humans. Eating too much of it, and lack of exercise/physical activity can certainly be toxic. But you feel and see the consequences when you're doing that (having been there I can give a first hand account of what happens).
wtf? How many people will write blogs about lions and cages? And how many times will it get featured on news.yc? Cmon .. there has to be something better to read. This is becoming like a literature class now where everybody is discussing what they mean by lions and cages. If you do have a comment just leave a comment on YC or reddit or something instead of writing more blogs. Sheesh.
There's a difference between an environment where something is missing (and having it would make you happier, but the lack of it doesn't hurt you) and a toxic environment which by definition means "Harmful, destructive or deadly to living things." (at least one of the definitions).
It seems to me that Paul's essay claims that working in a company is detrimental to programmers and the way they're "supposed to work". This means everyone should quit working for big companies and start working the way they're supposed to (since programming has so much in common with hunting...).
But then Paul and several others jump to defend the essay and claim that this isn't really the message, that working in a company is fine and that some people would thrive and do better in a startup environment. I fully agree with this point, but if this is the intended message the article fails to deliver it. Drop the toxic, lions in cages and constant references to how you think people should live (society has greatly advanced since the days people used to roam around in groups of 10, and has primarily done so by organizing in large groups and figuring out way to function and work together).