I find woodworking extremely alluring. I'd love to do woodworking, but that requires space for an environment which I don't have. I like to think that in a parallel universe I build guitars and restore old wooden furniture.
I have only just started out but it feels nice indeed! A hindrance is that I am not very artistically gifted, but as long as I make it mostly for myself, I don't mind too much.
Depending on where you live, there might be workshops nearby where you can sign up to use shared spaces (along with shared tools).
They're also the kind of places where they have lessons where you can sign up, so if you're interested in both classes and a space to work, they're a great fit.
I have this problem. I did three things. First, I joined a makerspace that had a woodshop. This seems like it should cure all your problems but it won't. There's limited storage, unpredictable tool availability, the motivational issues of driving to a new place to work, etc.
Second, I joined another makerspace out of town! Redundancy and the availability of friends in the area to work with helps. Plus, supporting makerspaces feels good and the cost is not much compared to other hobbies.
Finally, there are some very basic, not large tools that can get you through 90% of projects, including very nice looking bookshelves, desks, cabinets, etc:
* Circle saw + track guide for rip cuts
* Saw horses for adhoc tables
* Power drill (+ you'll want one for all kinds of useful things anyway)
* Nice drill bit set
* Pocket hole jig (saves you time and assembly space)
* Drill block (takes the place of a drill press in a pinch)
* Painting blankets to put stain / glue-ups on
All of the above can fit in a small area of a closet, available when motivation strikes. Far and away the biggest storage headache is wood, which you'll have to get creative about, but for restoration or even modification, you won't need much. And for smaller projects you'll probably use most of what you buy on the same day if you plan it out.
Upgrades (which a makerspace would provide anyway):
* If you have a little space (like a desktop), you can get a chop/miter saw which makes repeated precise cuts much easier
* A router + bit set (esp keyhole bit! This makes hanging this much easier)
* Shopvac for dust (+ shopvacs are super useful anyway)
That's really it. You can do almost all the projects you'd want with just those, from the living room, patio, backyard, driveway, garage, or a parking spot out front.
What I get from the makerspace is access to drill presses, router tables, and table saws. Table saws are a game changer and are the best way to level up your precision and cut accuracy, but require so much space that I could never justify it at home (and small portable table saws are not the same).
I'm definitely still learning, but the main lessons are that good wood ($), precise cuts, adding layers from trim / recessed boards, hiding screws, and tons of sanding will make anything look really, really nice.
EDIT: One last thing: You can easily practice woodworking fundamentals without space by making joints, practicing stain matching (try to get veneer plywood to match a stained board), or practicing right-angle, precise cuts.
For instance, I use to:
redirect new reddit site to old.reddit.com
I keep a blog on wordpress.com, but I really dislike their new blog admin interface, but the interface one can still be accessed , so I redirect to there to edit my posts on the old interface
I use some alternative front-ends, like imginn.com, which is alternative front-end to instagram, so I set to redirect links there.
Redirects from translated versions of Google or Microsoft documentation to the English one. The Microsoft ones are okay-ish but I strongly prefer reading the original version. And the Google ones are a patchwork of machine-translated nonsense, "powered by Google Cloud Translation API"
My thoughts exactly. I think this has mostly to do with marketing because pretty much nobody uses Wordpad and most people hate it, while everybody uses Notepad or a replacement (Notepad++ or similar) which usually already has a lot more features, including markdown support. So from their perspective I can understand this decision, even though I don't think that this is where Notepad should be heading. On Windows, I use NP++ and other tools if I need more features, but I specifically use Notepad for when I don't want fancy stuff and slow startup times, often for the sole reason of getting rid of formatting of copy'n'pasted text. Notepad is stupid, but that can be a good thing. If I want something else I use something else.
I like crotcheting (tried it again for the first time since childhood during Covid). My main problem is that, unless you have already mastered it and can do it in your sleep, I have to fully concentrate on it to not fuck things up, which means I can't do something else at the same time, e.g. listen to an audiobook. And because I'm so slow it takes too much time for me to not think that it's a waste of time because I could have done something more meaningful instead. Objectively, I know it is wrong to think so because the whole point of it is to get away from other stuff and let your brain rest for a while, but it just doesn't work for me and creates extra stress, sadly.
> And because I'm so slow it takes too much time for me to not think that it's a waste of time because I could have done something more meaningful instead.
I struggle with this too, especially because knitting is so slow and I'm in the unusual but fortunate position of having my other hobby (writing a couple of books) clearly having had much more impact.
There's a part of my brain when I knit that's like, "You know if you spent this hour working on another book, it would leave a bigger mark in the world."
But I also know that part of that impulse is unhealthy. I wrote those books for a lot reasons, many of which were good. But some of that drive did come from a sense that I'm not enough just being me and I need to be making something of value for as many people as possible to consider myself worthy.
I'm trying to grow out of that mindset and accept myself just as I am. So I consider time spent knitting as sort of exposure therapy for getting used to the idea that I deserve to take time for my selfish joys.
If I may ask, do you suffer from anxiety and depression?
I do. As part of that whole package, I find it exceedingly difficult to focus on more than one thing at a time. As much as I would love to sit and code a bit while watching tv or listening to an audio book, I simply cannot do it. I've tried many times and find it impossible to focus on my project while my brain is more interested in the easy attention economy of the television.
Conversely, my wife is very talented in the fiber arts. She seems to be able to sew, crochet and knit while watching tv without any effort at all, paying attention to both whatever show we have on and what she's doing. Granted, she's been at it for well over a decade so there's some learned adaptation there, but as far back as I can remember she has never had the same problem I do. She also does not suffer from anxiety and depression on the level that I do.
I've been wondering if there's a correlation for awhile now. Interesting that this popped up on HN and pulled me out of lurk mode.
I've never suffered from anxiety nor depression, and yet can't focus on more than one thing at a time. I can't imagine coding while watching tv or listening to an audio book. Nor would I want to!
If I tried doing two things at once, it'd be painful and also I wouldn't be doing either properly. I believe the "multitaskers" aren't that much better, they just learned to context-switch quickly. I'm not the least envious.
I do, but I'm not convinced there is correlation. In front of the computer I can easily multitask and I can just as easily sit for 10 hours straight and code with focus. Outside the digital realm I find it harder to multitask - if I talk to someone on the phone and try to do something at the same time I immediately lose focus on the conversation, I drift away and no longer know what the other person is talking about. I've been wondering if the difference is that there is external input which I can't anticipate - if I do multiple things on the the computer by myself all state exists in my head and it's just a matter of random read access. On the other hand, I also find it hard to cook and go back to the computer for "just one second", every other time I immediately forget that there is food on the stove. I'd say that my attention span has suffered since Covid and I find it generally harder to keep focus, for example when watching TV, but if the focus is there I can still hold it for a very long time, e.g. when programming.
I sort of wonder if it is just a matter of multitasking imposing a cost, maybe one that you can afford in the cases where you are really good at the thing?
Like I’m pretty good at programming, bad at writing, and ok at following the plot of a TV show (that’s hardly a skill I’m proud of, haha). But, I can code fine with a TV on in the background (I will be decent at programming and forget the plot of the TV show/miss plot beats). Or I can slow my writing even further, to an absolute crawl, while simultaneously missing TV plot points. Multitasking!
I also don't multitask well, but I think it's a little more complex than just not doing more than one thing at a time. Different tasks seem to occupy different brain regions, and it's really that I can't allocate one region to multiple things.
I can listen to music while I program, but it can't be anything with lyrics because programming requires too much of my language center.
Knitting doesn't touch my language center, so I can listen to music with lyrics or an audiobook. But it's too visual for me to watch anything else while I do it.
> As much as I would love to sit and code a bit while watching tv or listening to an audio book, I simply cannot do it
> She seems to be able to sew, crochet and knit while watching tv without any effort at all, paying attention to both whatever show we have on and what she's doing
Multitasking is just a "personality trait".. and predominantly women are more able to multitask than men. You should simply ask around and see the correlations. Some of the happiest people I know can't multitask at all
I don't want this to sound derogatory but my experience is that simpler minds are generally happier in life, and I'd guess that this often (not always) comes with an inability to multitask, so I believe you are right. I had a friend in school (great dude, very grounded and happy person) who couldn't eat ice cream and walk at the same time (I swear I'm not making this up).
I've found the exact opposite. More intelligent people can't multitask. But they generally can think about things more deeply. People that can multitask literally are constantly thinking about several things at the same time.
Consider, though, one of the unique aspects of crochet or knitting -- you can fuck things up and it's not a big deal. Unlike woodworking or sewing, where once something is cut it cannot be uncut, with these crafts if you zone out while watching Wheel of Fortune and do a few rows wrong, you can always just ... undo it and try again. Nothing is lost but your time, and if you are doing it to relax while watching TV, you haven't really lost anything at all.
This was probably my issue as well. I grew up seeing my grandma crochet. She’d do it while watching TV (though I’m not sure if she was actually watching or just in proximity to others watching), and she was quick. I have a couple afghans she made. She probably made a couple dozen.
The learning curve was higher than I expected, especially without someone to be there showing me stuff. I just tried watching some YouTube videos. I got frustrated and quit rather quickly.
I’ve heard knitting is easier, but I like the idea of crochet better.
Both knitting and crochet are very difficult and frustrating at first. Harder, I think, than your first time picking up a guitar.
The initial hump is steep but fairly small. It took me about four or five tries before I could make stitches. Once I got over that initial challenge, it got a lot smoother. Since then, there have been continuous incremental challenges, but all fairly small.
I haven't gotten over the hump with crochet. I'm left-handed but knit right-handed because mirroring everything is very hard. The entire knitting world presumes right-handed knitting. However, I knit Continental style which uses both hands and engages the left hand a lot, so I don't find that it feels very "wrong".
However, with crochet, I don't think I could ever hold the hook with my right hand. But also mirroring everything while trying to learn is not easy.
My mom also knits while watching TV, and she is super fast. I think one secret ingredient is that she doesn't care about making mistakes. Tinier mistakes she just ignores (even if they are visible in the end [I don't like that, so that's something I try to avoid, which adds pressure and slows me down]) and she doesn't mind backtracking and re-doing several rows if she really fucks up.
My grandma seemingly didn’t ignore or tolerate mistakes. That’s why she ended up stopping. People tried to get her to crochet or knit toward the end of her life and if she made a mistake, she’d start ripping it all apart. When the mistakes became too frequent, that was it. Maybe that’s where I get it from, lol.
> I'm so slow it takes too much time for me to not think that it's a waste of time because I could have done something more meaningful instead.
That's the funny thing about the idea of meaningful things. It is solely determined by what you think is meaningful. Personally, just sitting and making something is an extremely meaningful activity to me.
Could you try crocheting something for a purpose? Say, make small stuffed toys to donate to a local charity?
That way, the task becomes "meaningful" and thus worthy of the additional time and focus that it demands, without becoming a pressing obligation on you to cause additional stress...
I did have a purpose and it didn't help much in this regard, it only helped with keeping up the friendly pressure to actually finish them. But generally, your advice is good nonetheless.
I absolutely did it for fun and to learn something new, it just didn't feel like as much fun as I had anticipated to me personally. I want it to be fun and relaxing, there is some fun in it but it's not relaxing.
Until you're more experienced, listen to music or something else where it's okay if you take your focus off of it to focus on counting your stitches. Yes, it won't be "productive," but your crocheting is already productive.
Absolutely! The difference is that with other things the learning curve can be part of the fun while you are in the process of figuring things out. With crotcheting, it only really takes a couple of minutes to get going, but doing it fast and consistently takes time, but you aren't really learning anything new other than becoming faster, so the emotional return isn't as big compared to, let's say, learning a new language or playing an instrument. It's just very mechanical by nature; which is a good thing, but for me personally, it takes away a bit of the joy.
I have only skimmed the text but regarding GUIs specifically the list in the end is spot on.
With that being said, I firmly believe that all software (given that one is not already deeply familiar with the domain) is/can/should be written three times to end up with a good product:
1. Minimal prototype. You throw something together fast to see it can be done, taking shortcuts and leaving out features which you know you will want later(tm).
2. First naive real implementation. You build upon the prototype, oftentimes thinking that there is actually not that much missing to turn it into something useful. You make bad design decisions and cut corners because you haven't had a chance to fully grasp all the underlying intricacies of the domain and the more time you spend on it the more frustrating it becomes because you start seeing all the wrong turns you took.
3. Once you arrive at a point where you know exactly what you want, you throw it all away and rewrite the whole thing in an elegant way, also focusing on performance.
(1) and (3) are usually fun wereas (2) fast becomes a dread. The main problem is that in a work context you almost never are allowed to transition from (2) to (3) because for an outsider (2) seems good enough and nobody wants to pay for (3).
"Plan to throw one away. You will anyhow."- Fred Brooks, _Mythical Man Month_
A software engineering book written decades before I was born- my college assigned us the 25th Anniversary Edition- and yet I re-read it every few years and find some new way to apply its lessons to my current problems.
Personally, I’ve never found this lean methodology to work for me. I have a bit of a mantra that I’ve found works really well for me: “Put everything on the screen”.
Every feature every variant ever possible configuration and all future potential states. Don’t care about how it looks or how it feels just put it all there. Build out as much of it as possible, as fast as possible, knowing it will be thrown away.
Then, whittle away. Combine, drop, group, reorganize, hide, delete, add. About halfway through this step it becomes clear what I really should have been striving for the whole time—and invariably, it’s a mile away from what I started out to build.
One I have that, then I think step three stays about the same.
This isn’t really a critique of lean development, but after a decade of trying to do things leanly, I’ve just accepted that it’s not how my brain works
Hard agree. (2) is all about building out the test suite; once you have this (3) becomes a cake walk.
I've worked in a lot of places where end to end testing is performed manually by a SIT team who absolutely do not like to re-run a test once it's been passed. These people hate the idea of (3) and will overestimate the costs to the PM in order to avoid having to do it.
I agree completely with the idea of building something 3 times. As I get older, I tend to compress things more into 2 iterations, but that just because I like to think I’m getting better at coding, so step two is less pressing.
I think of the three iterations in these terms:
1) You don’t know what you’re doing. So this iteration is all about figuring out the problem space.
2) You know that you’re doing, but you don’t know how to do it. This iteration is about figuring out the way to engineer/design the program.
3) You’ve figured out both what you’re doing and how to do it. So now, just build it.
i would add that the reason no product manager wants to pay for #3 is because historical attempts to do so have overwhelmingly resulted in cost/schedule overruns; did-not-finish outcomes are common. Let he who believes otherwise demonstrate so with his own money, this is called a startup and note that virtually all startups fail i.e. run out of some critical resource without finishing! So what is a wisened product manager to do? No easy answers here - simply look to the industry to see what the average outcome is. And it is not for lack of trying. in my opinion software delivery is not a solved problem. but it is really hard to make money as a software delivery expert by going around and saying that you don’t know how to deliver software.
I hear what you're saying but my experience is that dwelling in #2 without seeing the bigger picture does very often just as much result in cost/schedule overruns, because shoving certain features or trying to improve certain aspects just collides with the status quo and sometimes cannot be easily accomplished if things are built "wrong" to begin with (wrong often just meaning that they were based on then-relevant prerequisites/assumption which are no longer relevant). Also, the cost of maintenance is often just not taken into account, which means that in the end you have to spend way too much time to shoehorn a half-baked solution into the status quo which has the appearance of delivering what was requested (but doesn't always, because you had to compromise, leaving everybody unhappy) while taking way too much time and at the same time just piling more bloated poo on top of what's already there, making maintenance in the long run even harder. I can't count how many times I've been in a situation where implementing something shouldn't have taken more than 30 minutes but because the codebase was in a not-so-good(tm) state took several days instead. This piles up exponentially, resulting in frustrated developers, a worse product and cost/schedule overruns. In a perfect world, code should improve over time, not deteriorate.
from the PM perspective, it makes little sense to transform from 2 to 3.
Those devs had spent weeks/months for this app, now they want to throw it all away ?, that means throwing money through windows. Also, the risk that the new app may not work like before, or missing deadline, etc. A safe bet would be reiterating (2)
I explained in another comment why it isn't throwing money out of the window. In my experience, it often costs a lot more money in the long run to not do it. The underlying problem is that most companies don't really think mid- or long-term and are happy with chasing fast money and eventually throwing it all away anyway because the product isn't competitive anymore and/or maintenance becomes too expensive. These are problems which definitely can be mitigated, but it requires a good team.
4. Now you arrive at a point where you really know exactly what you want, you throw it all away and rewrite the whole thing in a better more elegant and performant way.
I do believe her when she says that this has great sentimental value for her as well (although I'm equally certain that's not the whole truth), since the business value, as you said, isn't as huge anymore as it used to be before her re-recordings. But she bought back the rights to everything, including artwork, music videos etc., so she got back a lot more than what she possibly could "work around" by just re-recording the music. The re-recordings are really, really good (in a reverse-engineering sense concerning the production), and to a casual listener or untrained ear they might sound identical (apart from the stuff that's intentionally different), but they aren't and to me they sound just off. Swifties probably prefer the new versions for the reason you explained, but I like the originals more since every nuance is engrained in my brain and to me the tiny differences are throwing me off when listening to the new versions.
But also she made an estimated 2,000m from her recent tour, so this is equivalent to me buying a childhood video game from the bargain bin at the local game shop because I liked it as a kid.
Her PR game is on point though. Saying she bought it for ‘emotional reasons’ is a fairly standard explanation from her PR spin. It’s not impossible that she genuinely has emotional attachment to it, but I wouldn’t assume that’s anything more than an afterthought to the real reason she bought it.
I have the greatest respect for her. She is probably one of the most underrated business people of all time, while also being the Marilyn Monroe of the 21st century and being an uncompromising exemplary role model to women.
‘Business women’ sounds condescending or as if she cannot compete with men. She can completely dominate most men’s business capabilities, and has a personal army of fans that many billionaires lack, but is fairly powerful in its own right..
