I think this is where people who don't have families miss the point (and I realise I'm going out on a limb and assuming you don't). There comes a point where it's no longer about enjoying programming, it's about having other things in your life that are more important. Things like a wife, kids. To the point where you don't even have the time (or energy) to think about doing coding in your free time.

If you're lucky enough to have a wife who is happy for you to spend several evenings per week coding, rather than, say, talking to her. Or spending time with the kids. Or doing housework or the gardening. Or just chillin watching a movie together, then more power to you, hope it works out for you. And if your wife would rather that you leave work at work and do some of this other stuff, then you have a choice - keep your wife, or keep coding.

I find it frustrating when people suggest that I don't enjoy/can't be very good at software development just because I have a wife and kids. Or because I have other interests.

Yes, of course. But if 20-20 were truly "normal" then one would expect my corrected vision to be 20-20. The fact that it is two or three levels better (and believe me, that makes a big difference for distance vision) again suggests that 20-20 isn't "normal". Again, 20-20 is the minimum below which you consider corrective vision.

According to wikipedia average visual acuity of healthy eyes is 20/16 to 20/12

Thing is, 20-20 vision isn't that good. Have you ever actually taken a good look at the chart that determines what 20-20 vision is?

It's normally 3rd or 4th from the bottom of the chart. I am shortsighted, and with my glasses on I could still read the bottom line on my most recent eye test, a few months back.

Calling 20-20 vision "normal" in this discussion is misleading at best, dishonest at worst. Especially since the author quotes Wikipedia, which says, and I quote: The significance of the 20/20 standard can best be thought of as the lower limit of normal or as a screening cutoff. When used as a screening test subjects that reach this level need no further investigation, even though the average visual acuity of healthy eyes is 20/16 to 20/12.

So there you have it, 20/20 isn't "normal", it's the bottom end of what is generally considered to be "normal" and below which one considers corrective vision (my words there).

True "normal" vision is more like 20/16 or 20/12, which gives a resolution of more like 0.8 to 0.6 arcmin - closer to the figures in the original article than in this one, making the original article more truthful than this one, and validating (to me at least) the accusation that Jobs' claim is hyperbole.

Fascinating idea.

Although the "can't own for less than a day" idea strikes me as a bit simplistic and a bandaid to the symptom rather than addressing the problem.

Try this for an idea. Instead of continuous trading from 10am (say) to 4pm (say), have a day-long bookbuild from 10am to 3:59pm. At 4pm all crossed orders are executed according to a published and well known algorithm that, for instance, maximises executed volume. No continuous trading. No day trading (of the type you describe and wish to outlaw with your minimum hold time of 1 day rule).

To avoid gaming the system you could add a random offset to the end of the bookbuild, but the end result is the same, if not better, than your proposal. No intraday volatility, no day trading, no flash trading, nobody gets the jump on anyone else because they have faster computers, no mad panics.

Just an idle thought.

You seem to imply he can't be both.

Don't know about others, but I don't ask for time off. I tell them that I'm taking time off.

I've never had it refused (without *good* reason), and if they did refuse once, they wouldn't get a chance to refuse again.