More from macwright.com
I have a non-recently post ready to write, any day now… Reading This was a strong month for reading: I finished The Hidden Wealth of Nations, Useful Not True, and Cyberlibertarianism. I had a book club that read Cyberlibertarianism so we discussed it last week. I have a lot of qualms with the book, and gave it two stars for that reason. But I will admit that it’s taking up space in my mind. The ‘cyberlibertarian’ ideology was familiar to me before reading it. The book’s critique of it didn’t shift my thinking that much. But I have been thinking a lot about what it argued for, which is a world in which the government has very extensive powers – to limit what is said online, to regulate which companies can even create forums or social media platforms. He also believed that a government should be able to decrypt and read conversations between private citizens. It’s a very different idea of government power than what I’m used to, and well outside my comfort zone. I think it’s interesting to consider these things: the government probably should have some control of some kinds of speech, and in some cases it’s useful to have the FBI tapping the phones of drug smugglers or terrorists. How do we really define what’s acceptable and what isn’t? I don’t know, I want to do more thinking about the uncomfortable things that nevertheless may be necessary for functioning of society. Besides that, there is so much to read. This month I added a lot of news subscriptions to my pile, which I think is now Hell Gate, Wired, NYTimes, Bloomberg, 404 Media, The Verge, and a bunch of newsletters. This interview with Stephanie Kelton, who is at the forefront of the Modern Monetary Theory movement in America, and wrote the very good book The Deficit Myth. This 404 Media story on an AI-generated ‘true crime’ YouTube channel is great because the team at 404 Media does both deep research and they interrogate their sources. Nathan Tankus has always been good but in this era he’s essential reading. His piece on Fort Knox is quick and snappy. His others are more involved but always worth reading. Listening We’ve been rewatching The Bear and admiring the dad-rock soundtrack. This Nine Inch Nails track shows up at the end of a season: And this Eno track: Besides that, this track from Smino played at a local cocktail bar. The bars at 0:45 sound like they’re tumbling downhill in a delightful way. Watching So I bought a sewing machine in February, a beautiful old Kenmore 158-series, produced in the 1970s in Japan. It’s awesome. How sewing machines work is amazing, as this video lays out. There’s so much coordinated motion happening for every stitch, and the machines are so well-designed that they last for decades easily. Besides that, I just watched The Apprentice, which I really did not like. Elsewhere I was on a podcast with Jeremy Jung, taking about Placemark! My post in the /micro/ section, All Hat No Cowboy, probably could have or should have been a blog post, but I was feeling skittish about being too anti-AI on the main.
I am not going to repeat the news. But man, things are really, really bad and getting worse in America. It’s all so unendingly stupid and evil. The tech industry is being horrible, too. Wishing strength to the people who are much more exposed to the chaos than I am. Reading A Confederacy of Dunces was such a perfect novel. It was pure escapism, over-the-top comedy, and such an unusual artifact, that was sadly only appreciated posthumously. Very earnestly I believe that despite greater access to power and resources, the box labeled “socially acceptable ways to be a man” is much smaller than the box labeled “socially acceptable ways to be a woman.” This article on the distinction between patriarchy and men was an interesting read. With the whole… politics out there, it’s easy to go off the rails with any discussion about men and women and whether either have it easy or hard. The same author wrote this good article about declining male enrollment in college. I think both are worth a read. Whenever I read this kind of article, I’m reminded of how limited and mostly fortunate my own experience is. There’s a big difference, I think, in how vigorously you have to perform your gender in some red state where everyone owns a pickup truck, versus a major city where the roles are a little more fluid. Plus, I’ve been extremely fortunate to have a lot of friends and genuine open conversations about feelings with other men. I wish that was the norm! On Having a Maximum Wealth was right up my alley. I’m reading another one of the new-French-economist books right now, and am still fascinated by the prospect of wealth taxes. My friend David has started a local newsletter for Richmond, Virginia, and written a good piece about public surveillance. Construction Physics is consistently great, and their investigation of why skyscrapers are all glass boxes is no exception. Watching David Lynch was so great. We watched his film Lost Highway a few days after he passed, and it was even better than I had remembered it. Norm Macdonald’s extremely long jokes on late-night talk shows have been getting me through the days. Listening This song by the The Hard Quartet – a supergroup of Emmett Kelly, Stephen Malkmus (Pavement), Matt Sweeney and Jim White. It’s such a loving, tender bit of nonsense, very golden-age Pavement. They also have this nice chill song: I came across this SML album via Hearing Things, which has been highlighting a lot of good music. Small Medium Large by SML It’s a pretty good time for these independent high-quality art websites. Colossal has done the same for the art world and highlights good new art: I really want to make it out to see the Nick Cave (not the musician) art show while it’s in New York.
I was just enjoying Simon Willison’s predictions and, heck, why not. 1: The web becomes adversarial to AI The history of search engines is sort of an arms race between websites and search engines. Back in the early 2000s, juicing your ranking on search engines was pretty easy - you could put a bunch of junk in your meta description tags or put some text with lots of keywords on each page and make that text really tiny and transparent so users didn’t notice it but Google did. I doubt that Perplexity’s userbase is that big but Perplexity users are probably a lot wealthier on average than Google’s, and there’s some edge to be achieved by getting Perplexity to rank your content highly or recommend your website. I’ve already noticed some search results including links to content farms. There are handful of startups that do this already, but the prediction is: the average marketing exec at a consumer brand will put some of their budget to work on fooling AI. That means serving different content to AI scrapers, maybe using some twist on Glaze and other forms of adversarial image processing to make their marketing images more tantalizing to the bots. Websites will be increasingly aware that they’re being consumed by AI, and they will have a vested interest in messing with the way AI ‘perceives’ them. As Simon notes in his predictions, AIs are gullible: and that’s before there are widespread efforts to fool them. There’s probably some way to detect an AI scraper, give it a special payload, and trick it into recommending your brand of razors whenever anyone asks, and once someone figures it out this will be the marketing trend of the decade. 2: Copyright nihilism breeds a return to physical-only media The latest lawsuit about Meta’s use of pirated books, allegedly with Mark Zuckerberg’s explicit permission, if true, will be another reason to lose faith in the American legal system’s intellectual property system entirely. We’ve only seen it used to punish individuals and protect corporations, regardless of the facts and damages, and there’s no reason to believe it will do anything different (POSIWID). The result, besides an uptick in nihilism, could be a rejuvenation of physical-only releases. New albums only released on vinyl. Books only available in paperback format. More private screenings of hip movies. When all digital records are part of the ‘training dataset,’ a niche, hipster subset will be drawn to things that aren’t as easily captured and reproduced. This is parallel, to the state of closed-source models from Anthropic or OpenAI. They’re never distributed or run locally. They exist as bytes on some hard drive and in some massive GPU’s memory in some datacenter, and there aren’t Bittorrents pirating them because they’re kept away from people, not because of the power of copyright law. What can be accessed can be copied, so secrecy and inaccessibility is valuable. 3: American tech companies will pull out of Europe because they want to do acquisitions The incoming political administration will probably bring an end to Lina Khan’s era of the FTC, and era in which the FTC did stuff. We will go back to a ‘hands off’ policy in which big companies will acquire each other pretty often without much government interference. But, even in Khan’s era, the real nail in the coffin for one of the biggest acquisitions - Adobe’s attempt to buy Figma – was regulators from the EU and UK. Those regulators will probably keep doing stuff, so I think it’s likely that the next time some company wants to acquire a close competitor, they just close up shop in the EU, maybe with a long-term plan to return. 4: The tech industry’s ‘DEI backlash’ will run up against reality The reality is that the gap between women and men in terms of college degrees is really big: “Today, 47% of U.S. women ages 25 to 34 have a bachelor’s degree, compared with 37% of men.” And that a great deal of the tech industry’s workforce is made of up highly-skilled people who are on H-1B visas. The synthesis will be that tech workers will be more diverse, in some respects, but by stripping away the bare-bones protections around their presence, companies will keep them in a more vulnerable and exploitable position. But hard right-wingers will have plenty to complain about because these companies will continue to look less white and male, because the labor pool is not that. 5: Local-first will have a breakthrough moment I think that Zero Sync has a good chance at cracking this really hard problem. So does electric and maybe jazz, too. The gap between the dream of local-first apps and the reality has been wide, but I think projects are starting to come to grips with a few hard truths: Full decentralization is not worth it. You need to design for syncing a subset of the data, not the entire dataset. You need an approach to schema evolution and permission checking These systems are getting there. We could see a big, Figma-level application built on Zero this year that will set the standard for future web application architecture. 6: Local, small AI models will be a big deal Embedding models are cool as heck. New text-to-speech and speech-to-text models are dramatically better than what came before. Image segmentation is getting a lot better. There’s a lot of stuff that is coming out of this boom that will be able to scale down to a small model that runs on a phone, browser, or at least on our own web servers without having to call out to OpenAI or Anthropic APIs. It’ll make sense for costs, performance, and security. Candle is a really interesting effort in this area. Mini predictions Substack will re-bundle news. People are tired of subscribing to individual newsletters. Substack will introduce some ~$20/month plan that gives you access to all of the newsletters that participate in this new pricing model. TypeScript gets a zeitwork equivalent and lots of people use it. Same as how prettier brought full code formatting from TypeScript, autoloading is the kind of thing that once you have it, it’s magic. What if you could just write <SomeComponent /> in your React app and didn’t have to import it? I think this would be extremely addictive and catch on fast. Node.js will fend off its competitors. Even though Val Town is built around Deno’s magic, I’ve been very impressed that Node.js is keeping up. They’ve introduced permissions, just like Deno, and native TypeScript support, just like the upstarts. Bun and Deno will keep gaining adherents, but Node.js has a long future ahead of it. Another US city starts seriously considering congestion pricing. For all the chatter and terrible discourse around the plan, it is obviously a good idea and it will work, as it has in every other case, and inspire other cities to do the same. Stripe will IPO. They’re still killing it, but they’re killing it in an established, repeatable way that public markets will like, and will let up the pressure on the many, many people who own their stock.
Happy end-of-2024! It’s been a pretty good year overall. I’m thankful. There’s no way that I’ll be able to remember and carve out the time around New Years to write this, so here’s some end-of-year roundup, ahead of schedule! Running This was my biggest year for running on record: 687 miles as of today. I think the biggest difference with this year was just that nothing stood in the way of my being pretty consistent and putting in the miles: the weather has been mild, I haven’t had any major injuries, and long runs have felt pretty good. I was happy to hit a half-marathon PR (1:36:21), but my performance in 5Ks was far short of the goal of sub-20 – partly because Brooklyn’s wonderful 5K series was run at the peak of summer, with multiple races at over 85°F. I learned the value of good lightweight running gear: Bakline’s singlets and Goodr sunglasses were super helpful in getting me through the summer. Work Val Town raised a seed round and hired a bunch of excellent people. We moved into a new office of our own, which has a great vibe. It’s been good: we’re doing a lot of ground-up work wrangling cgroups and low-level worker scheduling, and a lot of UX-in work, just trying to make it a pleasant tool. Frankly, with every product I’ve worked on, I’ve never had a feeling that it was good enough, and accordingly, for me, Val Town feels like it has a long way to go. It’s probably a good tendency to be sort of unsatisfied and motivated to constantly improve. New York It’s still such a wonderful place to live. Late this year, I’ve been rediscovering my obsession with cycling, and realizing how much I whiffed the opportunity to ride more when I lived in San Francisco. I guess that’s the first time I felt genuinely nostalgic for the West coast. I miss DC a bit too: it’s one of the few cities where my friends have been able to stay in the city proper while raising children, and I miss the accessible, underdog punk scene. But Brooklyn is just a remarkable place to live. My walk score is 100. The degree to which people here are in the city because they want to be, not because they have to, shapes so much of what makes it great. Other ‘metrics’ Relative to my old level obsession about self-quantification, my ‘metrics’ are pretty moderate now. Everything’s just backward-looking: I’m not paying much attention to the numbers as I go, it’s just fun to look at them year-over-year trends. That said, this was a lackluster year for reading: just 18 books so far. I think I just read an above-average number of books that I didn’t enjoy very much. Next year I’m going to return to authors who I already love, and stay away from genres that – the data shows – I don’t like. Whereas this was a banner year for watching movies: not great! Next year, I want to flip these results. Of everything I saw, Kinds of Kindness will probably stick with me the most. Placemark It seems like a decade ago that I released Placemark as open source software, as developing it as a closed-source SaaS application for a few years. But I did that in January. There have been a few great open source contributions since then, but it’s pretty quiet. Which is okay, somewhat expected: there is no hidden crowd of people with extra time on their hands and unending enthusiasm for ‘geospatial software’ waiting to contribute to that kind of project. Placemark is also, even with my obsessive focus on simplicity, a pretty complicated codebase. The learning curve is probably pretty significant. Maps are a challenging problem area: that’s what attracts a lot of people to them, but people who use maps persistently have the feeling that it couldn’t be that complicated, which means that few users convert into contributors. There are a few prominent efforts chasing similar goals as Placemark: Atlas.co is aiming to be an all-in-one editing/analysis platform, Felt a cloud-native GIS platform, and then there are plenty of indiehackers-style projects. I hope these projects take off! Figma plugins I also kept maintaining the Figma plugins I developed under the Placemark name. Potentially a lot of people are using them, but I don’t really know. The problem with filling in water shapes in the plugins is still unsolved: it’s pretty hard and I haven’t had the time or motivation to fix it. The most energy into those plugins this year, unfortunately, was when someone noticed that the dataset I was using - Natural Earth – marked Crimea as part of Russia. Which obviously: I don’t draw the countries in datasets, but it’s a reasonable thing to point out (but to assume that the author is malicious was a real downer, again, like, I don’t draw the countries). This decision from Natural Earth’s maintainer is heavily discussed and they aren’t planning on changing it, so I switched to world-atlas, which doesn’t have that problem. Which was fine, but a reminder of the days when I worked on maps full-time and this kind of unexpected “you’re the baddie” realization came up much more often. Sometimes it was silly: people who complain about label priority in the sense of “why, at zoom level 3, does one country’s name show up and not anothers?” was just silly. The answer, ahem, was that there isn’t enough space for the two labels and one country had a higher population or a geometry that gave their label more distance from the other country’s centroid. But a lot of the territorial disputes are part of people’s long cultural, political, military history and the source of intergenerational strife. Of course that’s serious stuff. Making a tool that shows a globe with labels on it will probably always trigger some sort of moment like that, and it’s a reason to not work on it that much because you’re bound to unintentionally step on something contentious. Other projects I released Obsidian Freeform, and have been using it a bit myself. Obsidian has really stuck for me. My vault is well over 2,000 notes, and I’ve created a daily note for almost every day for the last year. Freeform was a fun project and I have other ideas that are Obsidian plugin-shaped, though I’ve become a little bit let down by the plugin API - the fact that Obsidian-flavored-Markdown is nonstandard and the parser/AST is not accessible to plugins is a pretty big drawback for the kinds of things I want to build. Elsewhere recently I’ve been writing a bit: Recently I’ve written about dependency bloat and a developer analytics tool we built at Val Town, and started writing some supplementary documentation for Observable Plot about parts of its API that I think are unintuitive. On the micro blog, I wrote about not using GitHub Copilot and how brands should make a comeback. This blog got a gentle redesign in May, to show multiple categories of posts on the home page, and then in August I did a mass update to switch all YouTube embeds to lite-youtube-embed to make pages load faster. I’m still running Jekyll, like I have been for the last decade, and it works great. Oh, and I’ve basically stopped using Twitter and am only on Mastodon and Bluesky. Bluesky more than Mastodon recently because it seems like it’s doing a better job at attracting a more diverse community. I’m looking forward to 2025, to cycling a lot more and a new phase of startup-building. See you in the new year.
More in programming
If you manage a team, who are your teammates? If you're a staff software engineer embedded in a product team, who are your teammates? The answer to the question comes down to who your main responsibility lies with. That's not the folks you're managing and leading. Your responsibility lies with your fellow leaders, and they're your teammates. The first team mentality There's a concept in leadership called the first team mentality. If you're a leader, then you're a member of a couple of different teams at the same time. Using myself as an example, I'm a member of the company's leadership team (along with the heads of marketing, sales, product, etc.), and I'm also a member of the engineering department's leadership team (along with the engineering directors and managers and the CTO). I'm also sometimes embedded into a team for a project, and at one point I was running a 3-person platform team day-to-day. So I'm on at least two teams, but often three or more. Which of these is my "first" team, the one which I will prioritize over all the others? For my role, that's ultimately the company leadership. Each department is supposed to work toward the company goals, and so if there's an inter-department conflict you need to do what's best for the company—helping your fellow department heads—rather than what's best for your department. (Ultimately, your job is to get both of these into alignment; more on that later.) This applies across roles. If you're an engineering manager, your teammates are not the people who report to you. Your teammates are the other engineering managers and staff engineers at your level. You all are working together toward department goals, and sometimes the team has to sacrifice to make that happen. Focus on the bigger goals One of the best things about a first team mentality is that it comes with a shift in where your focus is. You have to focus on the broader goals your group is working in service of, instead of focusing on your group's individual work. I don't think you can achieve either without the other. When you zoom out from the team you lead or manage and collaborate with your fellow leaders, you gain context from them. You see what their teams are working on, and you can contextualize your work with theirs. And you also see how your work impacts theirs, both positively and negatively. That broader context gives you a reminder of the bigger, broader goals. It can also show you that those goals are unclear. And if that's the case, then the work you're doing in your individual teams doesn't matter, because no one is going in the same direction! What's more important there is to focus on figuring out what the bigger goals should be. And once those are done, then you can realign each of your groups around them. Conflicts are a lens Sometimes the first team mentality will result in a conflict. There's something your group wants or needs, which will result in a problem for another group. Ultimately, this is your work to resolve, and the conflict is a lens you can use to see misalignment and to improve the greater organization. You have to find a way to make sure that your group is healthy and able to thrive. And you also have to make sure that your group works toward collective success, which means helping all the groups achieve success. Any time you run into a conflict like this, it means that something went wrong in alignment. Either your group was doing something which worked against its own goal, or it was doing something which worked against another group's goal. If the latter, then that means that the goals themselves fundamentally conflicted! So you go and you take that conflict, and you work through it. You work with your first team—and you figure out what the mismatch is, where it came from, and most importantly, what we do to resolve it. Then you take those new goals back to your group. And you do it with humility, since you're going to have to tell them that you made a mistake. Because that alignment is ultimately your job, and you have to own your failures if you expect your team to be able to trust you and trust each other.
We didn’t used to need an explanation for having kids. That was just life. That’s just what you did. But now we do, because now we don’t. So allow me: Having kids means making the most interesting people in the world. Not because toddlers or even teenagers are intellectual oracles — although life through their eyes is often surprising and occasionally even profound — but because your children will become the most interesting people to you. That’s the important part. To you. There are no humans on earth I’m as interested in as my children. Their maturation and growth are the greatest show on the planet. And having a front-seat ticket to this performance is literally the privilege of a lifetime. But giving a review of this incredible show just doesn’t work. I could never convince a stranger that my children are the most interesting people in the world, because they wouldn’t be, to them. So words don’t work. It’s a leap of faith. All I can really say is this: Trust me, bro.
If you give some monkeys a slice of cucumber each, they are all pretty happy. Then you give one monkey a grape, and nobody is happy with their cucumber any more. They might even throw the slices back at the experimenter. He got a god damned grape this is bullshit I don’t want a cucumber anymore! Nobody was in absolute terms worse off, but that doesn’t prevent the monkeys from being upset. And this isn’t unique to monkeys, I see this same behavior on display when I hear about billionaires. It’s not about what I have, they got a grape. The tweet is here. What do you do about this? Of course, you can fire this women, but what percent of people in American society feel the same way? How much of this can you tolerate and still have a functioning society? What’s particularly absurd about the critique in the video is that it hasn’t been thought through very far. If that house and its friends stopped “ordering shit”, the company would stop making money and she wouldn’t have that job. There’s nothing preventing her from quitting today and getting the same outcome for herself. But of course, that isn’t what it’s about, because then somebody else would be delivering the packages. You see, that house got a grape. So how do we get through this? I’ll propose something, but it’s sort of horrible. Bring people to power based on this feeling. Let everyone indulge fully in their resentment. Kill the bourgeois. They got grapes, kill them all! Watch the situation not improve. Realize that this must be because there’s still counterrevolutionaries in the mix, still a few grapefuckers. Some billionaire is trying to hide his billions! Let the purge continue! And still, things are not improving. People are starving. The economy isn’t even tracked anymore. Things are bad. Millions are dead. The demoralization is complete. Starvation and real poverty are more powerful emotions than resentment. It was bad when people were getting grapes, but now there aren’t even cucumbers anymore. In the face of true poverty for all, the resentment fades. Society begins to heal. People are grateful to have food, they are grateful for what they have. Expectations are back in line with market value. You have another way to fix this? Cause this is what seems to happen in history, and it takes a generation. The demoralization is just beginning.
Yesterday, the tj-actions repository, a popular tool used with Github Actions was compromised (for more background read one of these two articles). Watching the infrastructure and security engineering teams at Carta respond, it highlighted to me just how much LLMs can’t meaningfully replace many essential roles of software professionals. However, I’m also reading Jennifer Palkha’s Recoding America, which makes an important point: decision-makers can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. (Or, in this context, remain employed.) I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately, as I’ve ended up having more “2025 is not much fun”-themed career discussions with prior colleagues navigating the current job market. I’ve tried to pull together my points from those conversations here: Many people who first entered senior roles in 2010-2020 are finding current roles a lot less fun. There are a number of reasons for this. First, managers were generally evaluated in that period based on their ability to hire, retain and motivate teams. The current market doesn’t value those skills particularly highly, but instead prioritizes a different set of skills: working in the details, pushing pace, and navigating the technology transition to foundational models / LLMs. This means many members of the current crop of senior leaders are either worse at the skills they currently need to succeed, or are less motivated by those activities. Either way, they’re having less fun. Similarly, the would-be senior leaders from 2010-2020 era who excelled at working in the details, pushing pace and so on, are viewed as stagnate in their careers so are still finding it difficult to move into senior roles. This means that many folks feel like the current market has left them behind. This is, of course, not universal. It is a general experience that many people are having. Many people are not having this experience. The technology transition to Foundational models / LLMs as a core product and development tool is causing many senior leaders’ hard-earned playbooks to be invalidated. Many companies that were stable, durable market leaders are now in tenuous positions because foundational models threaten to erode their advantage. Whether or not their advantage is truly eroded is uncertain, but it is clear that usefully adopting foundational models into a product requires more than simply shoving an OpenAI/Anthropic API call in somewhere. Instead, you have to figure out how to design with progressive validation, with critical data validated via human-in-the-loop techniques before it is used in a critical workflow. It also requires designing for a rapidly improving toolkit: many workflows that were laughably bad in 2023 work surprisingly well with the latest reasoning models. Effective product design requires architecting for both massive improvement, and no improvement at all, of models in 2026-2027. This is equally true of writing software itself. There’s so much noise about how to write software, and much of it’s clearly propaganda–this blog’s opening anecdote regarding the tj-actions repository prove that expertise remains essential–but parts of it aren’t. I spent a few weeks in the evenings working on a new side project via Cursor in January, and I was surprised at how much my workflow changed even through Cursor itself was far from perfect. Even since then, Claude has advanced from 3.5 to 3.7 with extended thinking. Again, initial application development might easily be radically different in 2027, or it might be largely unchanged after the scaffolding step in complex codebases. (I’m also curious to see if context window limitations drive another flight from monolithic architectures.) Sitting out this transition, when we are relearning how to develop software, feels like a high risk proposition. Your well-honed skills in team development are already devalued today relative to three years ago, and now your other skills are at risk of being devalued as well. Valuations and funding are relatively less accessible to non-AI companies than they were three years ago. Certainly elite companies are doing alright, whether or not they have a clear AI angle, but the cutoff for remaining elite has risen. Simultaneously, the public markets are challenged, which means less willingness for both individuals and companies to purchase products, which slows revenue growth, further challenging valuations and funding. The consequence of this if you’re at a private, non-AI company, is that you’re likely to hire less, promote less, see less movement in pay bands, and experience a less predictable path to liquidity. It also means fewer open roles at other companies, so there’s more competition when attempting to trade up into a larger, higher compensated role at another company. The major exception to this is joining an AI company, but generally those companies are in extremely competitive markets and are priced more appropriately for investors managing a basket of investments than for employees trying to deliver a predictable return. If you join one of these companies today, you’re probably joining a bit late to experience a big pop, your equity might go to zero, and you’ll be working extremely hard for the next five to seven years. This is the classic startup contract, but not necessarily the contract that folks have expected over the past decade as maximum compensation has generally come from joining a later-stage company or member of the Magnificent Seven. As companies respond to the reduced valuations and funding, they are pushing their teams harder to find growth with their existing team. In the right environment, this can be motivating, but people may have opted into to a more relaxed experience that has become markedly less relaxed without their consent. If you pull all those things together, you’re essentially in a market where profit and pace are fixed, and you have to figure out how you personally want to optimize between people, prestige and learning. Whereas a few years ago, I think these variables were much more decoupled, that is not what I hear from folks today, even if their jobs were quite cozy a few years ago. Going a bit further, I know folks who are good at their jobs, and have been struggling to find something meaningful for six-plus months. I know folks who are exceptionally strong candidates, who can find reasonably good jobs, but even they are finding that the sorts of jobs they want simply don’t exist right now. I know folks who are strong candidates but with some oddities in their profile, maybe too many short stints, who are now being filtered out because hiring managers need some way to filter through the higher volume of candidates. I can’t give advice on what you should do, but if you’re finding this job market difficult, it’s certainly not personal. My sense is that’s basically the experience that everyone is having when searching for new roles right now. If you are in a role today that’s frustrating you, my advice is to try harder than usual to find a way to make it a rewarding experience, even if it’s not perfect. I also wouldn’t personally try to sit this cycle out unless you’re comfortable with a small risk that reentry is quite difficult: I think it’s more likely that the ecosystem is meaningfully different in five years than that it’s largely unchanged. Altogether, this hasn’t really been the advice that anyone wanted when they chatted with me, but it seems to generally have resonated with them as a realistic appraisal of the current markets. Hopefully there’s something useful for you in here as well.