> I won’t want to be a “senior dev” because I have so much more to add than that.
There are many ways to take this but it sounds like they want to do more managerial stuff or client oriented stuff and not dev work. If that's not the case then I don't see the problem with senior developer or tech lead titles.
Let's have a substantive debate: Why are so many of us so quick to dismiss "first world problems"? I promise my mind is open. I want to be persuaded.
This isn't just a one-off HN comment. This sentiment is fairly prevalent.
There are now over 7.5 billion people on the planet. To dismiss first world problems is to dismiss the concerns of N millions of people. How large does N need to be before these concerns are worth considering?
To phrase that more sharply, under what ethical and moral framework is it ok to dismiss the concerns of N millions of people? If it's a reasonable framework, and it's logically consistent, I'd like to educate myself on it.
From another angle, almost none of us are in a position to solve non-first world problems. Our voices are all we have. If we admit (at least to ourselves) that all we're doing here is killing time in hopefully-productive ways -- ways that often fall short of that goal -- then why do we admonish people for spending it talking about problems we face in our own lives? Especially when we also spend so much time talking about non-first world problems?
I don't mean to pick on your comment, but this is an attitude I've seen countless times, yet it's never accompanied by a coherent justification.
I'm willing to humor this and assume it's not virtue signaling. There must be a reason. And if it's a good reason, then I should join your ranks.
If there's no justification, then I'm hoping this subthread can serve as a canonical rebuttal to this attitude when it pops up in the future. But my main motivation is to learn something.
EDIT: Unfortunately, this article was flagged, so it's unlikely this subthread will go anywhere. I'll leave this as an open question and ask it again some other time.
I think you're taking "first-world problems" more literally than anyone means it. Most of the time people say it, they mean, "not a real problem" and "your life is great, despite this 'problem' you're describing."
For example, my friends will jokingly say "first-world problem" whenever someone complains about having to drink tap water instead of bottled/filtered water.
There's a gazillion dollar industry to support the resolution of first-world problems. It's called ... industry. I think most of us can be forgiven for rolling our eyes at most of those problems personally.
I try hard to stay open-minded about the many strange turns the human mind can take in its conception of the world and how it might get there. And still I find the title more than a tad melodramatic. His is not a problem that couldn't be fixed by a brief excursion into any of hundreds depressed towns in America - let alone developing nations, where jobs are scarce that pay even remotely as well as what the author is evidently qualified for. A little perspective rarely hurts.
I can't speak for the people who flagged the article (I upvoted the it), but to me it seemed you jumped between definitions without giving much of an explanation why would they be valid or sound respectable on a LinkedIn profile.
I am pretty interested in making a better job selling myself. When I go reading articles like yours, what I look for specifically is the rationale of why people use this or that expression.
Have in mind this is an intuitive impression and I am not gonna break your article on small pieces and discuss all of them. I am only sharing a quick emotional response on how I felt after reading your article.
I like this idea bc art implies an intrinsic interest in the work. You're not just building things for the solution, you get joy and take pride in the work itself.
Also, one small typo: it's principles not principals in that context.
