Seriously though, I bet finishing up this project felt great, then posting it to HackerNews was a huge dopamine rush, and now... everybody's just pointing out issues left and right because they accidentally stepped on a dozen landmines that are irrelevant in day-to-day life for 99% of us but entirely relevant when you post to an audience of millions.

Anyways, I definitely agree that swearing isn't the same as abrasive, but swearing at people is definitely an abrasive trait. Also agree that some of the biggest dickheads around keep up an air of professionalism.

You're reading the idea of language policing as some actual thing, like people are hanging over someone watching every word they say. It certainly might be true in some offices or with some coworkers, but, I'm pretty sure feeling that your every word is policed is closer to a form of anxiety than an actual problem in most offices.

Or, your coworkers are basically bullying you over minor nitpicks, which will keep you in a state of mild anxiety.

Either way, having to monitor your every word is definitely closer to being anxious than not, and is definitely going to have some impact on your performance.

It's really not a big leap, though. People who are afraid of violating a code of conduct because they're "under the watch of language police" are basically experiencing a form of anxiety that may or may not have a basis in reality.

Being afraid of being sent to the HR DEI board because you named a process 'Child1' then ran Kill(Child1) ... or any less obvious scenario similar to that ... is not going to do great things to your ability to work.

They were not great people, and I'd happily kick them in the face if I would encounter no legal or professional repercussions, but, there definitely does seem to be some correlation (in my experience) between being abrasive and being a skilled programmer.

Let me just hop on my wifi and browse the web. Lets do it on a computer from 1999. 2000. 2001. 2002. 2003. 2004. 2005. 2006. 2007. 2008... etc, etc.

Why is it that every couple years from 2012 onwards, doing the same thing keeps taking longer, even with new hardware, without the same revolutions in quality and experience that came with that new software previously?

Does the switch to 64 bit slow things down enough to explain what happened between Windows 2000 and XP?

Does the operating system have to support virtual machines? Seems easy enough to install vmware then run operating systems inside it for most use cases.

I mean, you can keep 'what if'ing me here, but, is it really worth having all the features that you, clearly as a power user or professional, use installed on every computer everywhere? No. No it really doesn't. It's bloat.

My guess is: yes, it will.

Somehow, in the past 15 years, "progress" seems to include "software keeps getting noticeably worse, but anyone pointing this out has to be shot down because progress."

Nothing will change my mind about this, ever. It's been downhill since then.

Not much, but, there is some.

After working on infotainment, I'm doing my best to avoid purchasing a car with an infotainment system. I had to compromise and got a Civic with an infotainment system for my wife, but I'll probably stick to late 2000s, early 2010s for as long as I possibly can to avoid them. Seriously hate touchscreens, and there's just not enough value in an infotainment system for me to be OK with what I'm losing by having one.