If you can't imagine how, that says a lot about you.

Maybe humans will still be here in a century. But you won't be. It didn't have to be this way.

The UX/UI of Windows 98 is far, far ahead of whatever Linux DWM we have today. It's nowhere near close. My KDE is usable but everything feels off, from icon shapes and sizes to mouse cursor icons, mouse cursor speed, the way settings are organised, almost everything. And it's not a matter of habit, as I've been on KDE for years, and I kept trying to make it work. Windows just clicks out of the box, it's more comfortable.

Microsoft, once upon a time, put an enormous amount of money into creating a user experience that makes sense for a maximum amount of people. Even though this experience suffered enormously over the last decade, it's still better than everything else, including OSX. And I'm not praising Microsoft, everyone else (including Canonical) is just that bad.

Users don't really care, do they?

Git's difficulty is NOT intrinsic; it could be a much better tool if Torvalds were better at UX. In short, I don't blame people who don't want to "learn git". They shouldn't have to learn it anymore than one learns to use a browser or Google docs.

There's cars everywhere, cities are optimised for them. There's nowhere to kick the kids out to play without the risk of them being run over by a car.

Github was more popular than Bitbucke, so git unfortunately won.

IMO it was funding that made the difference. People outside of USA did not have any less passion towards the field.

Sure. I feel good about being kind to other people, whereas the author's specifically chasing some sort of highs. I don't know where this expectation could have come from, considering managers are almost universally considered to have "more responsibility". More responsibility means more stress and less fun. You'd expect an adult to understand this before moving into management, but alas.

> Second, this requirement doesn't preclude you from thinking of others. Just like a parent doesn't have to hate themselves to love their kids.

To continue your comparison, a parent is expected to think of their kids first. We call that responsibility.

> third, if you expect your managers to never take care of their emotional needs you are only pushing them to burn out.

Nobody said that. But if your emotional need is to get constant highs and you didn't have enough foresight to realise you won't get that in management, I simply don't want you as my manager.

Like I said in my original comment, this blog post is a signal. I could be wrong, but I've seen so many bad managers that my intuition tells me something's off.

Yeah, poor poor lonely managers. They hold a lot of power over other people ("responsibility") and yet we're supposed to be sorry for them. Their burden is so great that they cry on the internet that they're not getting their endorphins.

As a person who's had only bad managers (with one exception), this is a signal that I wouldn't want this person to be my manager.

Being a manager shouldn't be about yourself, your focus should be outwards.

I get it, not everyone can be the kind-hearted Samaritan who always thinks of others. But even if you're one of the self-centred majority who thinks the universe revolves around them, keeping your subjects happy is still a requirement if you want them to be productive and motivated over a long period of time. Don't they teach that in Management 101?

Well...