Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why you need a home lab to keep your job

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 46 posts

Re: Why you need a home lab to keep your job

#21

Post by rayiner »

Wilya wrote: post #6
cup wrote: post #3

Unless I've misunderstood this article, I think this is a bad idea. When working for a company your work should ideally stay at work. Come 5pm, if you're privliged enough to work a 9-5, your day should be done. This growing push for work to be extended into the family home really erodes the necessary work life distinction that allows for a happy life. Thats not to say you shouldn't have a lab at home to train yoursel…

It's less about what your company wants you to do, and more about what you need to do to develop your career. If you want to stay on top and keep being employable, you'll have to invest in skills, and I see no reason why your employer would provide that for free, especially if those skills aren't directly useful to them. Company's job isn't to help you find a work-life balance. Its goal is to find the long term plan…

This mentality towards training people is common, but is a textbook case of stupid management. Companies under-invest in training, then pay enormous recruiting costs in getting people with the "right skills" as well as paying opportunity costs when projects can't go forward because they can't find the "right people." It's a bit of brain-dead management that's common in some other fields, but acutely common in software/IT.

Re: Why you need a home lab to keep your job

#23

Post by rayiner »

ajross wrote: post #19
anigbrowl wrote: post #5

Companies that won't invest in training or research are not worth working for. If they want you (as an employee) to pay for that out of your own pocket and you do, then you're a sucker, unless you've negotiated a fat salary and a 4 day week.

True enough. And employees who wait to be "trained" on interesting new technology instead of learning it for themselves aren't worth hiring. Obviously neither statement is (completely) true. At the "rockstar" level, all learning is self directed. And rockstar employers expect and rely on that. But for everyone else I think it's reasonable that there be some level of support for education from employers, and some leve…

> And employees who wait to be "trained" on interesting new technology instead of learning it for themselves aren't worth hiring.

> At the "rockstar" level, all learning is self directed.

This is a bit of brain damage that is, as far as I can tell, limited to programming, for various weird cultural reasons.

Go to Goldman Sachs and ask them how many of their "rockstar" traders learned the craft at home on their free time. Or go to a top research hospital and ask them how many of their surgeons did the same. Or go to a top architecture firm and ask them how many of their architects learned skyscraper design on the weekends. They will probably all laugh at you.

Rockstars can be created through institutional processes by identifying, nurturing, and systematically training talent. All industries have their rockstars, but ones more mature than the software industry have saner and more efficient ways of taking raw talent and nurturing them into rockstars.

Re: Why you need a home lab to keep your job

#24

Post by esperluette »

"Girlfriend Impact" -- bleh. Yeah, I know, 99.99whatever9% of IT workers, esp in the ops role, are guys, but would it have taken so much extra thought to put "family impact"? Or even "balanced life penalty"?

And I say this as someone who has spent a ridiculous amount of money on tech books in the past year (probably four figures) and who is giving up 1.5-2 nights a week, on average, to tech meetups.

Re: Why you need a home lab to keep your job

#25

Post by plinkplonk »

rayiner wrote: post #23
ajross wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True enough. And employees who wait to be "trained" on interesting new technology instead of learning it for themselves aren't worth hiring. Obviously neither statement is (completely) true. At the "rockstar" level, all learning is self directed. And rockstar employers expect and rely on that. But for everyone else I think it's reasonable that there be some level of support for education from employers, and some leve…

> And employees who wait to be "trained" on interesting new technology instead of learning it for themselves aren't worth hiring. > At the "rockstar" level, all learning is self directed. This is a bit of brain damage that is, as far as I can tell, limited to programming, for various weird cultural reasons. Go to Goldman Sachs and ask them how many of their "rockstar" traders learned the craft at home on their free t…

"Go to Goldman Sachs and ask them how many of their "rockstar" traders learned the craft at home on their free time. Or go to a top research hospital and ask them how many of their surgeons did the same. Or go to a top architecture firm and ask them how many of their architects learned skyscraper design on the weekends. They will probably all laugh at you."

The difference in all these fields is that the practitioner, to learn, needs to things that cost significant amounts of money (trading/building skyscrapers), cause people to live or die (surgery) or go to jail or be executed (law), or need to do things that require significantly altering the real world to create an artifact(setting up skyscrapers). Hence the need for supervision, and systematic training with a lot of 'apprenticeship' feel.

In most programming, the real rockstars (say Carmack or Linus or whoever) are self taught, and did learn on their free time, because all you need is a laptop and the internet and you are ready to go and creating a significant artifact (a programming language, a game, an operating system) needs only knowledge (easily acquired from books and the internet) and time.

Not to take away from your larger (and valid) point that company training can be effective. But your analogies are a bit 'off' and that affects the power of your argument (imho, feel free to ignore).

Re: Why you need a home lab to keep your job

#26

Post by mathrawka »

esperluette wrote: post #24

"Girlfriend Impact" -- bleh. Yeah, I know, 99.99whatever9% of IT workers, esp in the ops role, are guys, but would it have taken so much extra thought to put "family impact"? Or even "balanced life penalty"? And I say this as someone who has spent a ridiculous amount of money on tech books in the past year (probably four figures) and who is giving up 1.5-2 nights a week, on average, to tech meetups.

I'm pretty sure he was referring to his own personal "Girlfriend Impact". It was not a general statement about all IT workers, just the one who was talking about the lab.

Re: Why you need a home lab to keep your job

#27

Post by greggman »

samstave wrote: post #7
cup wrote: post #3

Unless I've misunderstood this article, I think this is a bad idea. When working for a company your work should ideally stay at work. Come 5pm, if you're privliged enough to work a 9-5, your day should be done. This growing push for work to be extended into the family home really erodes the necessary work life distinction that allows for a happy life. Thats not to say you shouldn't have a lab at home to train yoursel…

DAMMIT, I accidentally downvoted you from my phone when I meant to upvote you!! I totally agree. You should have all the things you need and love for both your job and your passions, but keep a line between home-time life and work life. Anyone who says otherwise is likely It is wise to do this even when you have roommates and are not living with an SO / our own family.

Yep, because no one wants to change the world like Steve Jobs did. Nope, everyone should have your values and value family. If they don't something is wrong with them.

:-(

Re: Why you need a home lab to keep your job

#28

Post by rayiner »

plinkplonk wrote: post #25
rayiner wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And employees who wait to be "trained" on interesting new technology instead of learning it for themselves aren't worth hiring. > At the "rockstar" level, all learning is self directed. This is a bit of brain damage that is, as far as I can tell, limited to programming, for various weird cultural reasons. Go to Goldman Sachs and ask them how many of their "rockstar" traders learned the craft at home on their free t…

"Go to Goldman Sachs and ask them how many of their "rockstar" traders learned the craft at home on their free time. Or go to a top research hospital and ask them how many of their surgeons did the same. Or go to a top architecture firm and ask them how many of their architects learned skyscraper design on the weekends. They will probably all laugh at you." The difference in all these fields is that the practitioner,…

The comment to which I was replying stated: "At the 'rockstar' level, all learning is self directed."

Parse this out logically. I read this as: "self-directed learning is a necessary condition for achieving rockstar level skill." My point is that in other fields, institutional training can create rockstars without self-directed learning. That is to say, self-directed learning is not a necessary condition.

Your point is that programming is different from those other fields, because you can become a rockstar learning on your own. I.e. that self-directed learning can be a sufficient condition for achieving rockstar level skill. But that does not contradict my point, which is that it is not a necessary one.

Re: Why you need a home lab to keep your job

#29

Post by Too »

rayiner wrote: post #23
ajross wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True enough. And employees who wait to be "trained" on interesting new technology instead of learning it for themselves aren't worth hiring. Obviously neither statement is (completely) true. At the "rockstar" level, all learning is self directed. And rockstar employers expect and rely on that. But for everyone else I think it's reasonable that there be some level of support for education from employers, and some leve…

> And employees who wait to be "trained" on interesting new technology instead of learning it for themselves aren't worth hiring. > At the "rockstar" level, all learning is self directed. This is a bit of brain damage that is, as far as I can tell, limited to programming, for various weird cultural reasons. Go to Goldman Sachs and ask them how many of their "rockstar" traders learned the craft at home on their free t…

Many architects i know do a lot of drawing at home. Mostly just at concept level or things different than houses though, no structural rigidity etc.

Re: Why you need a home lab to keep your job

#30

Post by samstave »

greggman wrote: post #27
samstave wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DAMMIT, I accidentally downvoted you from my phone when I meant to upvote you!! I totally agree. You should have all the things you need and love for both your job and your passions, but keep a line between home-time life and work life. Anyone who says otherwise is likely It is wise to do this even when you have roommates and are not living with an SO / our own family.

Yep, because no one wants to change the world like Steve Jobs did. Nope, everyone should have your values and value family. If they don't something is wrong with them. :-(

That's not at all what I said, nor what I was implying. Further it's asinine for you to claim that anyone who wants to have cut off time is the antithesis of someone who wants to change the world.

You sound like an idiot.

Post reply on HN