that introductory experience can be the start of a compulsive cycle that quickly leads to addiction.
Probably better sources, but the boogeyman scare tactics taught to children to keep them from experimenting with drugs is too simplistic and flawed - but hey no one is going to explain to kids how brain chemistry works because abstinence is ... easier.
I would like to spend all day doing fun, personal projects. But I've tried having all day to spend on fun personal projects, and it turns out spend the time "goofing off". (Not "enjoying life" goofing off, but "dopamine cycle on Facebook" goofing off.)
I like work because it has me doing stuff that's similar to what I want to do in my free time, but provides the necessary incentives to actually do it each day.
My job isn't perfect, but it has me doing productive, rewarding, mostly-interesting stuff with a bunch of smart people whom I like and can learn from.
It's worse than my dream life for my dream self, but it's better than my dream life for my actual self. I may not be behind, but I still like to feel like I'm moving forward, and work does that for me.
On the other hand, I did quite enjoy my ~1 month of working four-hour days a few years back, so there's probably a better balance than I have right now.
I think everyone's incentive is to work as little as possible (work is straining). But a culture of shame has everyone instead claiming that's not true (and lost for what is)
Exercising is straining, but I'm planning on doing a 60 mile bike ride tomorrow, purely for the enjoyment of it.
Meaningful work and a sense of accomplishment doesn't seem like it's caused by a culture of shame. I can get that from a hobby (painting, writing, programming, carpentry), or I can get it from a job (painting, writing, programming, carpentry). In either case, it seems normal beyond the boundaries of culture to derive satisfaction from this.
It might be a lot harder to derive satisfaction from hobbies with no "productive" output (my long bike ride, hiking in the woods) due to a culture insisting on productivity, but I don't think it's true that the productive ones would be valued less than non-productive ones if not for enculturation.
Just handing someone an expanded version of "implement good error handling" is not likely to result in a good product. Every project has nuance and subtle trade-offs -- the code review is an opportunity to teach juniors how to map abstract design principles onto concrete implementations without falling back to "cookbook / cargo cult" programming.
I want them to take ownership of their own code, and advance down the path of craftsmanship because I believe this results in long-term value -- both to them personally and to the project at hand.
This worker is the executive. He was in charge of the entire development of the project, and was a key decision maker in the later coverups.
They're calling him an engineer out of respect for his professional qualifications as such things are immensely important in Germany. Because he was an engineer, he has a duty to not act unethically within his professional capacity, and is shamed more than a mere MBA-style executive would be.
From having read the article I know that exactly that situation is likely the case. This guys some kind of executive engineer and several other executives were charged and just haven't gone all the way through processing yet.
Obeying the traffic laws is your responsibility, not the company's.
Otherwise the next time the CEO asks you to destroy the competition you'll say that he didn't specifically told you to not actually take that literally so it isn't your fault that you shot a guy in the head.
If the customer is happy and all the pizzas get delivered on time the Pizza Hut execs will get fat bonuses too.
However, no matter how unrealistic the delivery estimates are, the execs are not responsible if I run red lights or speed to meet those requirements. There is obviously no legal liability on the CEO unless he explicitly instructed or encouraged me to do so.
