It's not the fault of social scientists, really, that their error bars are huge
The next generation of social scientists will have significantly smaller error bars due to the feminising synthetic hormones in the environment...
the thing that should stand out the most is the part mentioning how someone uses cow milk to heat his house.
That is funny, but if you've ever been around a dairy farm, it makes a lot of sense.
To me, that just goes to highlight the vast amount of low-grade heat that is available, effectively for free, and the absurdity of burning virgin fuel to produce low-grade heat suitable for house heating.
Warm air is a waste product of almost every process in the home (to say nothing of industry, or the warm air available free from a very crude solar-thermal collector), yet we choose to consume fuel to produce special warm air to heat our homes. Insanity.
How secure is your job, employer and industry? How transferable are your skills?
I'm 5 years your junior (in a different industry, on a different continent), and I made a considered jump out of tech a few years ago. I regret doing so. I found myself in a specialised technical niche of a declining industry. I made a push to get into a project management role, where, if nothing else, I could get a few more generalist skills to write on a resume. Now I'm in a dull administrative role which I don't enjoy at all.
I've come to acknowledge that I get job satisfaction from solving problems. Now if I do my job properly, I don't see problems... and if I do, they're long-term problems that can't just be sat down and worked through. To run projects in a resource-constrained organisation, I need to be shameless in pushing people to do my work ahead of the other work they've been given... and that doesn't come easy to me.
The reasons for making the shift are still there - I could still be the tech guy with no transferable skills. Now I have some of the skills I would need to bluff my way into a comparable job elsewhere... but no interest in doing a comparable job elsewhere.
I don't have a good answer. Just don't burn any bridges unless you're pretty sure you're doing the right thing.
I would want to see evidence one way or the other before I decided whether the 11th time is the same or is different.
Ten times, you're late to work because of traffic.
On the eleventh day your car doesn't start.
"Oh crap", you say, "I'm going to be late for work".
Then you look at the historical records, which prove that all late-for-work events are caused by traffic.
"Phew, that was close" you say. "I won't be late for work after all".
And you go back to bed and get a few more hours sleep, safe in the knowledge that you won't be late for work because you can't even _get_ out into the traffic to get stuck.
If all else fails, lower your standards.
