There's a huge difference between:
- Don't use this, it's harmful to you, and
- Don't use this, it won't make things actively better.
Study after study has shown that it is extremely, almost absurdly difficult to lose weight and keep it that way in the long term.
If "not actively causing long term weight loss" is the only criteria for advising against something, then we should be advising against a heck of a lot more things that are perfectly fine.
It's phrasing like this that causes people to go on crusades against random foods, rather than actually using moderation in all things.
In one case, the same person did the same thing to us twice in a row - interviewed, got an offer, then got "counter offered" from their existing company the next day. Pretty confident that they're just interviewing as a negotiating tactic.
But honestly, in general, if someone interviews around then decides to stay at their existing company for more money, they're probably not the folks I'd be likely to hire regardless. They're not looking for new learning opportunities, or new ways to grow, they're maximizing for some other value structure. And best of luck to them with that, I'm sure they'll find plenty of companies where those values are the expectation and norm.
You're "playing the game", but I build teams out of folks who aren't game players. :)
Small counter-opinion here; if I interview a candidate, offer them a role, and find out that they have been using our time only to get a better deal from their current employer, then I will most likely choose not to interview them again in the future.
If you have engaged with me in bad faith (pretending to want a job with us when you actually don't) then I would be very uncomfortable endorsing you to join one of my teams in the future.
By all means, interview around. And if you get a better offer and accept it, then I will cheerfully congratulate you and wish you the very best of luck! But if you're operating in an area where the pool of potential employers is small, make sure you don't burn too many relationships in the process.
This class of users is also some of the most easily scammed.
These folks, who need "less security", are the exact same who will tell a stranger their password over the phone simply because they said they worked for Google. Scammers can use data from an email account to write convincing fake communications that lead to folks losing their life savings.
Teaching folks that their data isn't important enough to turn on security, is teaching them to fall into scammer's traps.
I'm highly dubious of any research that equates "went to a top tier university" with "is highly intelligent" as its only metric. Especially one that also says "but outside America that's not true".
Could it be that people who come from backgrounds that value attending a top tier school as a status symbol also come from backgrounds that (can afford to?) pursue a biollionare-making career? And that in countries where the billionaire class do not value top tier schools so highly, fewer billionaires went to top tier schools.
Keep in mind that this book was published 7 years ago, using data from 13 years ago. That does not mean that it is untrue, just that the statistics may no longer be as relevant or timely. (A bit more recent, from the same author: https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/1559195349092376577 )
Something that you might want to consider, but which hasn't really shown up in the comments, is... Do you actually _want_ to do the finishing?
Are you taking on these projects because you want the end result to exist, or because you just really enjoy the initial phase of learning and discovering and mapping and planning? If you are getting joy/mental stimulation/a creative outlet from this, then perhaps it is serving its purpose already.
Sometimes, doing something you love, even if you leave it incomplete or do it poorly, is exactly what you need to refresh you. Maybe your hobby isn't building software. Maybe your hobby is just... Dreaming up new projects, and learning about new technology. And if this is your hobby, and not your job, maybe you don't actually need to finish projects at all. Leave the finishing to your day job.
There are still professional, high quality hand knitters in the world.
Of course, having people hand knit garments used to be the only way to get a knitted garment at all.
Then we invented industrial knitting machines, and those hand knitters found their roles had changed. Instead of knitting a whole garment, they would be closing up the toe on the socks, or doing finishing work on a sweater. Of course, companies didn't need anywhere near as many knitters under this system, so a huge proportion of them lost their jobs.
Then the knitting machines got better. They could close the toes on the socks themselves, could do most of the finishing work automatically. Some of the remaining knitters became industrial knitting support workers, but most of the actual knitting jobs dried up.
But there are still professional, commercial hand knitters, even today! They test hand knitting patterns for the hobby market. Make the samples up for photographing, and make sure that all the sizes come out right.
They number... Dozens? Maybe? And most of them treat it as a side gig, despite being the absolute pinnacle of hand knitting talent, since it pays terribly.
A job doesn't have to have been totally replaced to be effectively replaced. As we find ways to hand over larger and larger pieces of the work to an automated system, the number of real roles in that field diminishes, until it eventually becomes infeasible as a career choice.
This is what a lot these digital content creation jobs are heading. Gradual obsolescence.
Study after study has shown that it is extremely, almost absurdly difficult to lose weight and keep it that way in the long term.
If "not actively causing long term weight loss" is the only criteria for advising against something, then we should be advising against a heck of a lot more things that are perfectly fine.
It's phrasing like this that causes people to go on crusades against random foods, rather than actually using moderation in all things.