I've taken mental health leave (not due to a PIP) and my productivity before and after was significantly different. It was great for my employer that I took it. I'm quite sure I would've eventually ended up with a PIP if I hadn't taken it sooner myself, and the best remedy on a PIP would have been to take mental health leave. Not as a strategy as such, but literally because it would have been the best solution (and I think the only one).
Yes, exactly. Taking mental health leave should be seen as a positive step: an opportunity to overcome whatever difficulties you've been facing, leading to - amongst many other benefits - better performance at work.
Mental health problems are tricky; they tend to creep up on us gradually, and often some form of external trigger is needed in order to prompt us to seek help. So it shouldn't be at all surprising that an employee in receipt of a PIP might take mental health leave as part of a genuine effort to improve their situation.
gp's cynical "counterfactual" suggests that they view PIPs as being purely a sham, intended to always result in dismissal rather than improved performance. Now, that might occasionally be true - but we should be blaming the abusive employer (who is likely acting outside the law) in that situation, not the employee.
Remember what? That people have different preferences, workflows and methods of staying productive?
Someone voiced that they liked a certain tool for a certain feature and suddenly we are judging them for it? I like that people share their thoughts and opinions.
Central to it being that you consider it unjust. The other option is to take into consideration the perspective of the maintainers, find their feedback to be just and then decide whether you want to contribute in the manner that they expect or you're not ready to do that kind of work.
You don't have to stop loving a project just because you're not ready to put in the work that the maintainers expect you to put in.
When I open a PR without discussing it at all beforehand with anyone, I expect the default to be that it gets rejected. It's fine by me, because it's simply easier for me to open a PR and have it be rejected than to find the people I need to talk to and then get them all onboard. I accounted for that risk when I chose the path I took.
> When I open a PR without discussing it at all beforehand with anyone, I expect the default to be that it gets rejected.
TNG S2E8, "A Matter Of Honor" is about this topic. The submitter introduced risk on the maintainers (the risk being here largely eating up the maintainers time needlessly) by working in isolation and only presenting the finished work without any feedback or awareness from the rest of the participants.
Within the past 2 months, as I've started to use AI more, I've had this trajectory:
1. only using AI for small things, very impressed by it
2. giving AI bigger tasks and figuring out how to use it well for those bigger tasks
3. full-agentic mode where AI just does its thing and I review the code at the end
4. realising that I still need to think through all the code and that AI is not the shortcut I was hoping it to be (e.g. where I can give it a high-level plan and be reasonably satisfied with the final code)
5. going back to giving AI small tasks
I've found AI is very useful for research, proof-of-concepts and throwaway code of "this works, but is completely unacceptable in production". It's work I tend to do anyway before I start tackling the final solution.
Big-picture coding is in my hands, but AI is good at filling in the logic for functions and helping out with other small things.
You can get comfortable with it in 5-10min and after that you will slowly discover that it does absolutely everything you could wish for.
Today I'd honestly suggest to skip learning about git altogether (besides the basics, like branching, staging etc) and just start using lazygit immediately.
I've seen people claim that having a clean git commit history is not worth the time, it takes too long to have it nice etc, opting to just stuff their refactor, renaming and new feature changes into one commit. With lazygit I spend a few extra minutes a day to make it nice and I've gotten compliments for it from others when they review my PRs, because it makes the review much easier.
It feels validating that other people have a similar experience. I simply can't take in that much information. It eventually starts making me feel terrible.
The big issue is that I'm not very good at moderating my intake. I'm a crack addict for information and one small dose will turn into a bender.
My grandparents had a hunting dog. She did not care about "play-time" at all. On the other hand, she got excited when she heard "forest" or "rabbit". Had to be careful with those words.
I think when she wasn't in the forest, she was just waiting to go there again. Instead of ball, it was forest.
well, mine are not hunting dogs. But when we go for a daily walks, they immediately start tracking "whatever" walked there before (living at the city border, surrounded by fields, we have a lot of animals strolling through streets)
