fractal77

I think things are about to change to a certain extent. I have an interview tomorrow which I am excited about - working for a Cooperative that works on energy-saving insulation type stuff. A positive cause and they have said that they're open to a 3 or 4 days a week part-time contract.

I also have another couple of companies that are interested in me, one which is particularly interesting is a 100% WFH biotech company where I would be writing test frameworks for their bioinformatics/genonmics analysis software. It would be working on a product used by doctors in hospitals for people with genetic conditions so that has a socially beneficial element to it, and it would be 100% WFH. I'm not sure how stressful it would be, it's a Cambridge company so I guess it may well be very stressful. From the Glassdoor reviews it seems to pay well though, although that is no longer a motivating factor for me.

The other role would be a mobile tester working on consumer financial comparison sites, which would be socially beneficial in the sense that it is saving normal people money, or at least that is the general intention. So that is quite interesting I guess, but I'm not hugely enthusastic.

I have been putting the absolute minimum effort into my current job, I'm ashamed to say that I have actually been forced to lie about completing some work when it hasn't been fully completed - I just can't stand working there anymore.

I have to figure out whether it is the job role I'm currently working as, which is a QA Engineer/Tester, or whether it is software engineering in general that I'm sick of. I really don't relish the idea of programming at all anymore, so I think it is the later.

This puts me in a difficult position because my entire work life has been pretty much focused on becoming a software engineer - I've worked for 15 years in this area. I have been thinking about the idea of working as a computing tutor for kids studying formal qualifications in computing and computer science at school.

However after getting some advice from some other tutors, my subject matter experience really wouldn't amount for much at all - a lot of it seems to be about psychology and motivating the kids to learn rather than just imparting information in the clearest possible way. It would be an interesting new challenge - but would I be very good at it? I've never been particularly good at dealing with people, and although I am better at one on one, it is a whole different set of skills than I've used before.

I do like the theory aspects of computer science and would like to study it further. However I've never been a particularly amazing student, and if I were to do a masters in computing, I think I would really struggle with the workload - not the content - but the sheer number of essays you have to write, and labs you have to attend in such a short space of time. My freind E is taking a masters in Data Science at the moment, and she is saying its one of the most intense and difficult things she has ever done.

I guess nothing is perfect, and I just have to pick the 'least worst' option, but it would really be nice if I could find something that I am genuinely interested in and could maintain my interest for the long term. I would honestly love to have a career that I am passionate about and motivated and engaged with. Pretty much everything else in my life is fine right now - I own a nice house in a large city, my relationship with my wife is good - I have a lot of fun hobbies and loads of toys etc, my relationship with my parents is good, I have friends, I have lost some weight recently and the mental health medication I'm on seems to be more effective than anything else I've been on, with the minimum amount of side effects.

It is really not the ideal time to switch careers in COVID-19 times, but I think it's likely that I will have to. However I still have no concrete idea of what I want to switch to, let alone how to do it.

Just finished Albert Camus - The Stranger. Fucking hell. What a bleak book. From what I've read so far, personally I think that his Absurdist philosophy is completely the opposite of mine. I don't believe in predeterminism.

The main character of the book does not feel, he is not alive to me. I don't believe there is any benefit of accepting that there is no meaning or purpose to life, even if it might be true - even if is an illusion, the illusion of free will is a positive and life-affirming thing.

From the - admittedly, one - book I have read of his so far, I'm not sure how he can be a humanist if he believes in predeterminism and borrows so much from nihlism. How can he see the good in people if they have no real freedom of will and have no influence on life whatsoever? They are not good or bad, they are just empty vessels like the character in The Stranger.

I have been getting back into computer gaming a bit lately. It is a more enjoyable (and possibly mentally healthier) way of spending time than staring at social media all the time, and my weekly DJ show scratches my musically expressive itch, so I don't have the drive as much to create new music. And when I do, it inevitably sounds shit to my ears compared to the tracks that I have been selecting for my DJ set, so I get discouraged.

(When you are going through hundreds of tracks as a DJ, you become very used to disregarding tracks that don't meet incredibly high quality expectations. However as a average creator, it is unlikely that you will create many tracks - at least in a short amount of time - that matches those expectations.)

Anyway, back to gaming.

I have not posted about gaming on here before, but I have a ridiculous amount of games on the various online game launchers like Steam and GOG. I am a game collector. I have discovered GOG Galaxy 2 which is a godsend as it allows me to join up all the propriatry launchers such as Epic's launcher, and Microsoft Gaming Pass, and so on. The result is that all my online game purchases are available in one place. I have over 1500 games from when I started buying online games back in 2003 or so with the launch of Half Life 2 and Valve's Steam. This is not including the boxes of console games and retro consoles that I have in storage at the house, or any DLCs or expansions.

I have been playing computer gaming for 34 years, so it's been a life-long hobby for me (at least so far). I used to be absolutely amazing at 3D shooters like Quake and DOOM, but I am not very good at reaction-based games anymore due to a combination of lack of exercise and my medication over the years affecting my reflexes. I also hate dying in games. I am SO done with it. The games I enjoy the most have minimal consquences for dying and often don't present character death as necessary at all. I don't enjoy the challenge of restarting again and again. Ironically I have all the Dark Souls games but got bored of dying so never finished them. I realise they are good games, they're just not for me.

'Why would you buy 4 Dark Souls games when you don't even like dying?' - I hear you ask. Well, I got most of them through Humblebundle.com monthly bundles or heavily discounted sales, so I didn't really specifically seek them out. Having said that, there are some games which I have bought which I have no real intention of playing, I just bought them because I like what the developer is doing with the game, and I want to support that developer. I really love games and the games industry. I am not the kind of gamer who sits there writing shitty reviews for games just because I don't personally gel with them. I *HATE* that self-entitled millenial 'I'm a clever armchair critic' attitude. Having worked in the games industry on an AAA title (briefly), and having slaved away at other creative persuits, I know how much blood, sweat and tears goes into making even the *worst* game in the world - and I think people should be encouraged to try and create art and enjoyment instead of wasting their lives writing souless financial software (to pick a random example). There is so much sacrifice in all aspects of creating art.

There are a lot of games, too, that I bought thinking I would enjoy them, but something wasn't quite right - I didn't click with them as much as I thought I would - and I put them to one side. Unlike the legions of self-entitled nerds that clog up the Steam review pages though, I don't think that that is necessarily the fault of the developers. Either the game was just not for me, maybe I am too picky in what I like or dislike, or I am not good enough at the game type and don't want to put the time and effort into getting good at the game type (like I remember I definitely used to). Or perhaps part of it is because I have so many other games, I am spoiled for choice.

It's not a bad game, it's just not right for me.

Some games I'm really excited about and buy because I think I'll really like them, and I'm actually SCARED to play them because I don't want to discover I don't love them. I have also not fully completed games I've really loved (for example I didn't finish The Witcher 3 DLCs) because I just don't want to be dissapointed at the end. This may seem a bit strange behaviour if you're not a gamer, but I have heard several other people mention this too who have been playing games for years and years.

I think part of this problem is media saturation. In the 90s, I could only afford a couple of PC games per year, and so I spent ages researching and researching the best possible game to buy, and then it was such an investment buying it that you felt oblidged to play it as much as possible. Also, just what else were you going to do? There was no internet at the time, so the main options in growing up in a sleepy country town (outside of having a social life, which I really didn't back then) were reading books (also a similar scarcity and shopping experience) or listening to the radio.

Nowadays everyone has access to far more quality media via the internet created daily (often for free) than they could possibly consume in a lifetime. It changed everything and I don't think anyone who hasn't been an early millenial and grown up in a pre-internet and then post-internet world, really can appreciate that. It extends to all forms of media - writing, art, audio and music and computer games.

That is why I think there is an increasingly valuable role for curators such as DJs or journalists, to go through what is available and recommend the best. However I really don't think they should go about doing this by putting down the creators that didn't make it onto their recommendations.

"Shout loudly about what you like and keep quiet about what you don't like", is my preferred advice for critics.

Everyone I know seems to quote the Stoics as the ancient Greek philosophy that we should all pay attention to. There is a lot of proven psychological benefit from persuing the stoic philosophy; it teaches you not to complain about things you can't change, and builds emotional resiliance. Modern Cognitive Behavoioural Therapy (CBT) techniques - which is still the foremost talking therapy regularly perscribed in the UK, and the one with the most researched evidence behind it - is inspired by stoic teachings.

But what about the epicurean life? Initially when thinking about epicurean philosophy, I, like so many others, falsely equated it with hedonism. Hedonism is something I persued - to an extent - in my irresponsible 20s, but it is not a sustainable lifestyle and is not something I would want to follow now, even if it were possible to live a long and healthy life as a hedonist.

However the more I read about Epicurus and what he wrote, the more I come to understand that picture is NOT what epicureanism is about. It isn't some shallow glutenous pleasure-worshiping philosophy - although it has been falsely portrayed as that by so many people throughout history. The reason I think for this misconception is that epicureanism is fundementally about living outside modern day society's expectations - e.g. the rat race - the constant grind.

Epicurean living can be compared to the modern day thinking about minimalism in as much that it is about bringing down your material needs to a level where you can service them with a minimum amount of effort, and therefore stress. When you need less material things, you have the oppertunity to work less hard to be happy, and spend more of your spare time in persuit of the 'simple pleasures' - such as reading, thinking or just going for a walk in nature. In my view it is more similar to the bohemian intellectual lifestyle as portrayed by some of the most famous artists and poets of the 18th century and beyond.

One thing that Epicurus defined as essential for good living is friendship. The 'hygge' dinners, eating together with friends and discussing whatever comes to mind. I have to admit that I struggle with that part - making and maintaining close friendships. However the psychological necessity of friendship and connectedness with other people is confirmed by modern day social psychology research into what makes us happy.

So, although according to Epicurus you may not need material wealth to be happy, there are still challenges to living the epicurean ideal which are not necessarily financial. The more I read about Stoic philosophy the more it seemed like rather protestant Christian view - a frustration of your happiness in exchange for dedication to responsibility and socitial purpose. The idea that there will be a reward 'on your death bed' when you ask yourself - have I lived a purposeful life? As an athiest I believe that the time to take your reward is now, not in some delayed afterlife or memorial service.

I don't think that Stoicism is for me, but I think epicurianism could be, if I am able to cut back on my spending, it would allow me to take a potentially less stressful job or career, or at least a more enjoyable job, and spend more of my life free from worry - the sole definition of the the highest ideal in epicureanism - the word ataraxia.

I know that in my technology company, favour is very much focused on the 20 year olds - only a small elite percentage of graduate applicants are hired, they get a lot of training, they are cheaply paid, they are worked very hard, and they are utterly ignorant of their worth and how to negotiate payrises. They get the most freedom to change positions and all the perks such as pool table, arcade machines, unhealthy food and snacks, late night drinking sessions, are targetted towards them to make them treat work as home and never want to leave.

But it's not just technology. So many of my real life friends are also in awkward career situations although in different jobs. I don't know a single person that really likes their work at the moment. So many people are considering leaving.

The happiest seem to be the self-employed contractors who have enough demand for their services that they can hop between jobs when they get boring, and have so much income that they can afford to take some time off in a year and focus on their own projects and put themselves on training courses.

I have read a lot of books that emphasise that you should look to be self-employed as you get older. My parents would very much advise me not to be self-employed. They never were, and it goes against the stability that they've always worked for. And self-employment can be pretty harsh if you have to take a lot of sick days, which I've been known to. There are no sick days when you're working as a contractor - it is all money you just lose out on. There is also a lot of risk and stress - what happens when you can't pay the bills because your client is slow to pay your invoice?

But the only real alternative when you get older seems to be to go into management, which I know I would really hate. I have a comparatively low living cost because of where I live - with SO's income we could get by on £2500 a month. I know some software development contractors who earn £500 per day. But I am not as good as them, and my focus has changed over the years from software development to test engineering, which is less well paid, and is often outsourced.

I definitely need to find a niche where older people are hired and respected outside of management, and there is not a lot of ageism. Nowadays most poeple I work with are a lot younger than me, and that is not good, I don't fit in with the young folks socially, and they are ultracompetitive and pour their entire lives into work - which I can't do, and wouldn't want to do even if I could. I'd love to work for a company where most people are the same age as me or older.

Some of my friends in teaching and the NHS seem to have jobs where if you know and understand your job role, it doesn't really change until you get promoted, and you can stay at that level until you retire if you wanted to. I'm not saying they don't have stressful jobs, but their jobs don't change significently. Technology is not like that. You can't just rely on your past experience, you have to keep learning the next big thing. Your entire job role changes every 5 years or so in some cases. At the same time, people hiring you for new jobs will look at your CV and expect that you know everything just because you have 10 years of experience, and will expect you to deliver from the start, and have no ramp-up time which would be allowed of younger folks, even though you often have to do the same amount of learning.

Not sure what my solution will be, but I thought I would just describe the problem.

As said before, I produce electronic music as a hobby. The approach I take is different from most established artists you are probably used to hearing, in that I use physical synthesizers a bit like this:



Making music with modular synthesizers instead of in the computer doesn't really appear to make the music 'better' in general than results you can get if you produce music fully 'in the box' or on the computer. In fact I would say it's a lot more difficult to make music without a computer than in it, especially the monsterous machine that I have created.

However the process of making that music is a lot more fun.

I suppose you could say I make music for myself. It sounds awfully introverted to say that, but although I do enjoy other people listening and appreciating what I make, when I spend 6-8 hours working on a piece of music it has got to a) sound interesting to me and have achieved this while b) being fun to make.

This differs from a lot of artists with aspirations to record an album etc, who concentrate on the end result and are prepared to do anything to get to that end result, including making tracks purely of samples ripped off from other peoples records. It's easier to make tracks sound good with samples, and listeners really don't care as long as it sounds good, but for me, it isn't what I want to be doing.

I want to create something original (and often experimental) with a synthesizer that I have made and whether it sounds good to everyone else is almost besides the point.

Instead of inundating everyone on my Facebook with every little update, I thought I would try and keep a journal at Dreamwidth, as it was recommended by a friend.

Some random facts about me:

* I live in Manchester, UK, in a house quite near the city center.
* I work in Technology, that's 'IT' if you like calling it that.
* I like music, both making, listening to it, and going to live gigs. I have quite a lot of electronic music-making equipment and a small home studio.
* My girlfriend is from Berlin, she has a flat there and is in the process of moving over to Manchester.
* I'm left-wing politically.
* I used to work for the BBC.
* That baby in the pic is me!
* My favourite drink is cider.

I will try to keep this journal updated here as 'things of note' happen in my life.