I'm a bit disheartened not to see the word "commons" appear once in the discussion (although admittedly, it can be used interchangeably with "public" most of the time).
I'm not familiar enough with the history of the free software movement to participate in the debate as framed by the article (edit: OP's), but I thought the author had a narrow focus on individual freedoms. I always thought of the GPL and related licenses as a useful means of building and safeguarding a type of commons.
On the question of MDs, here (in Europe, YMMV) we have doctors who have either have their own practice, and therefore work as little or as much as they want, or are part of hospital staff which is under its own separate legal regimen for work time (with more work hours than the average person, usually). In either case, I think they are not likely to be affected directly by changes to the "typical" work week.
You're getting a lot of good advice here, like others I also recommend reaching out to a therapist!
Sorry if it's a bit of an odd recommendation, but in the next few hours/days, while you wait for your appointment or any other changes you're making, I can recommend reading through "Feeling Good" by David D. Burns MD. It's a book on cognitive behavioural therapy and it helped me tremendously to cope with, and eventually recover from severe depression. I recommend it because it offered some immediate short-term relief just from reading through it once. There are copies lying around on archive.org.
I think that folks who live in a healthcare-wealthy region or are healthcare-wealthy themselves don't understand that a sizable chunk of Americans have neither mental healthcare nor the resources to fund prolonged therapy out of pocket.
And free practical, usable, community mental health does exist - but - again, mostly in healthcare-wealthy regions. In most US counties, residents tend to lack access to reliable public mental healthcare.
> I believe that the world is primarily run by academia and journalists
I think that world would look something like this:
We take immediate and severe measures to curb global warming, don't spend the last decade imposing austerity measures on the European populace, de-escalate the war on drugs, develop a deep understanding of the cultural intricacies of countries we consider invading, avoid publishing clickbait inflammatory anecdotes in our newspapers in consideration for the long term public interest, not the benefit of the shareholders, and drive policy by the nuanced understanding of scientific study, not emotion, intuition, or anecdote.
How does the contrast between the last 40 years of ruthless neoliberalism vs. the very leftist academia and democratic-liberal leaning MSM, fit in your belief that academia and the press are somehow running the show?
I'm not familiar enough with the history of the free software movement to participate in the debate as framed by the article (edit: OP's), but I thought the author had a narrow focus on individual freedoms. I always thought of the GPL and related licenses as a useful means of building and safeguarding a type of commons.