I don't know who this kind of cynic vs. idealist vs. optimist thinking works on/for, but it doesn't seem to give me any kind of conceptual edge.
Instead of trying to frame things in terms of a mood or a feeling, it's better to try to understand things in terms of what is likely and unlikely to happen.
Large corporations are just groups of people with conflicting incentives, and that means they are basically incapable of performing certain kinds of tasks.
It also means that when the incentives do align, some tasks are very likely to be completed, even with other corporations or governments working in opposition.
Some of those tasks might be things you care about, like making a product of a certain quality, or furthering some other goal you have.
In all those cases, it is best to to first think about what is most likely to happen and what is unlikely to happen.
You have to think of the organization as just another phenomenon that you could exploit if you properly understood it.
Unfortunately, how to manipulate complex systems of humans is an open problem, and if anyone had effective, repeatable solutions, then investors would demand that they be implemented.
As it is, most corporations don't act in the interest of the investors a significant amount of the time, even though they are supposed to.
The only thing we can reliably bet on is: all organizations tend towards dysfunctional bureaucracies, the longer they live, and the bigger they get.
I believe the terminology is off. The author seems to confuse cynicism with realism.
Cynicism is specific trait and has only negative connotations. It cannot be “good” for a social structure by definition.
Realism is neutral. But we often assume that realism implies cynicism which is not true.
Parrhesia (tact) is the only worthwhile, long term goal in terms of attitude. And that doesn’t include cynicism. It’s about being honest without feeling like betraying yourself.
“Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." - (supposedly) Isaac Newton
> “Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." - (supposedly) Isaac Newton
Never heard of this quote, but I could certainly use a large dose of tact as defined above! The quote seems to be due to an advertising executive though, Howard W. Newton, not Isaac Newton [1].
I can relate, thanks for sharing. Indeed, that doesn't sound like something that Isaac Newton[^1] would say :-)
[^1]: My idea of Isaac Newton comes from Stephenson's novel. But I trust that Mr Stephenson's research because it aligns with Newton's other quotes (i.e. "standing in the shoulder of giants" is nice but he's calling another man a moron, eloquently) and the his relationship with Leibniz wasn't the one I would expect.
I don't really agree. The dictionary definition of cynical is "believing the worst of human nature and motives; having a sneering disbelief in e.g. selflessness of others".
That's certainly very extreme, but a tempered, measured belief in the negative aspects of human nature is necessary, I think.
You might say, "that's just realism", but I think they are just separate axes: some amount of cynicism (and idealism) is necessary in order to be realistic. Possibly different amounts in different contexts, depending on the other people involved.
Humans are unavoidable optimists and (sadly) the only sustainable approach is to assume the worst of everyone.
Then when they eventually outdo even your worst expectations, you will be less disappointed by the gap between your original impression and the fresh dose of reality. I've adopted a motto that I could finally put words on about a decade ago. "You are not cynical enough."
Thats how Finland made it to one of the "happiest" countries. People just not expecting anything from anyone, so if by chance something is even slightly above the bare minimum, its been good.
But, imagine the case where I do not think serving the social structure is good. And I make what sound like cynical jokes about serving the social structure. For those that believe in serving the social structure, that cynicism only had negative connotations. But for those who don't believe all that, the bitter joke might accurately reflect their understanding according to reality.
Let me narrow the scope a bit. I believe that distrust in others is a flaw in human psychology. But it's old and has been stated by the likes of Plato and Dostoyevsky (e.g. "If God did not exist, everything would be acceptable") and countless others that I look up to.
IMO that is a "series-B" type of argument. We know empirically that great things come out of putting trust on the hands of "unlikely candidates". So even if God doesn't exist, ppl are still capable of "good" just because they chose to do so, given the chance.
At the same time, it would be unwise to blindly trust ppl when there are warnings all around. So why not take a tempered approach? Trust a little, then trust a little more. The "applied answer" (e.g. social policies) falls within a spectrum that might change based on circumstance, there's no absolute representation as if we're picking a point in a Y/X axis, only optimal answers (like NP-complete problems).
I wouldn't call the tempered approach "cynical", I would call that "wise".
> Instead of trying to frame things in terms of a mood or a feeling, it's better to try to understand things in terms of what is likely and unlikely to happen.
Emotions are influencing your thinking, whether you realize it or not. It's better to include them in your model of reality.
It's like modeling the lens you use in your camera. If you do that - you can correct for at least some distortions.
> To the extent they have any control, they try to make their employees happy so they’ll work for less money and not leave.
I think this is definitely overly charitable to corporations. Meta and Amazon both had pretty explicit policies that a modest level of employee churn was desirable, particularly when it involved folks leaving large quantities of unvested stock on the table.
> It’s a cynical way to view the C-staff of a company. I think it’s also inaccurate: from my limited experience, the people who run large tech companies really do want to deliver good software to users.
I strongly disagree with this statement. What C-staff cares about is share-holder value. What middle management care about is empire building and promotions.
> for instance, to make it possible for GitHub’s 150M users to use LaTeX in markdown - you need to coordinate with many other people at the company, which means you need to be involved in politics.
You presented your point in a misleading way. I would classify this as collaboration/communication rather than politics.
Politics is when you need to tick off a useless boxes for your promo, when you try to to take credits for work you haven't helped with, when you throw your colleague under the bus, when you get undeserved performance rating because the manager thinks you are his good boy. There's a lot more, I didn't read any of your previous blogs, but all of these things are what engineers dread when we refer to politics.
This feels a bit like semantics. To get something big done you have to build consensus (e.g. on what to build and what resources to dedicate to it) and align incentives. Oftentimes these things require building relationships and trust first. I would consider all of these things to be a part of politics, but your definition seems to only include the bad stuff.
It's always worth being skeptical when someone appeals with the term "good". I'm sure there are people who run large tech companies who want to deliver "good software", but it's such a meaninglessly vague designation that it being true doesn't matter. I can't speak to the motivations of C-suites I've never met, but I can say for sure that my idea of "good software" is very different to theirs.
Politics is accruing and deploying political capital within an organisation - or less abstractly, building relationships and using them.
What you’re describing is a particular form of manipulative and divisive politics which is performed by insecure, desperate or selfish people.
Many engineers are not good at building relationships (the job of coding isn’t optimal for it after all), so painting the people who are good at is as narcissistic may be comforting but isn’t correct.
> You presented your point in a misleading way. I would classify this as collaboration/communication rather than politics.
Collaboration and communication are key parts of politics, though.
At its core, politics is simply the dynamics within a group of people. Since we innately organize into hierarchies, and power/wealth/fame are appealing to many, this inevitably leads to mind games, tension, and conflict.
But in order to accomplish anything within an organization, a certain level of politics must be involved. It's fine to find this abhorring and to try to avoid it, but that's just the reality of our society. People who play this game the best have the largest impact and are rewarded; those who don't usually have less impact and are often overlooked.
Its baffling to see US engineers repeatedly being shat on by the company, and yet still retain belief in the chain of command.
But, to be a good cynic, you need a rich information network to draw on to see what the wider business is doing and thinking. You must understand the motivations of the business, so that you can be correctly cynical.
I was paid exceptionally well when I was at a FAANG, but that didn't extend to me blindly following my leadership team into the same obvious bear trap every 6 months.
I'd argue that expressing one's contempt openly is probably a sign of optimism more than anything - it shows you believe that your words might actually affect the direction of the organization rather than just getting you fired for disagreeing with your pointy-haired boss.
> But they are the best paid and everyone wants to move to the US.
Not really, I prefer less pay but way more affordable cost of living over a dying country rapidly moving into fascism. What's your money worth compared to a life worth living without tyrannical maniacs ruling over your every move. Fuck the USA.
Just wanted to pop in and say that I think Sean is absolutely right here. I've tried the ultra-cynical view at workplaces, and would have had better results with some "idealism", which he rightly notes in his form is just a more effectively action atop a base of clear-eyed cynicism.
However, I think we've got some tactical disagreements on how to actually make society a better place. Namely, I think Sean is right if you have to remain an employee, but many people just don't have to do that, so it feels a bit like a great guide on how to win soccer while hopping on one leg. Just use two legs!
My own experience, especially over the last year, has been telling me that being positioned as an employee at most companies means you're largely irrelevant, i.e, you should adopt new positioning (e.g, become a third-party consultant like me) or find a place that's already running nearly perfectly. I can't imagine going back to a full-time job unless I was given a CTO/CEO or board role, where I could again operate with some autonomy... and I suspect at many of the worst places, even these roles can't do much.
Also Sean, if you're reading this, we'll get coffee together before March or die trying.
> I've tried the ultra-cynical view at workplaces, and would have had better results with some "idealism", which he rightly notes in his form is just a more effectively action atop a base of clear-eyed cynicism.
Cynics feel smart but optimists win.
You have to be at least a little optimistic, sometimes even naive, to achieve unlikely outcomes. Otherwise you’ll never put in enough oomph to get lucky.
That's not been my experience. Optimists also tend to assume the best motivations behind the actions of others, and that will nearly always bite you in the ass in any sizeable organization.
I've been the ultra-cynic before, and agree that doesn't work either. People don't like working with you, and don't trust you.
I think we need to be realistic on order to be successful, and neither ultra-cynicism nor optimism fits the bill.
I would suggest that a healthy, reasonable amount of cynicism is a part of being realistic about how the world works.
Blind optimism is silly. But time and again we’ve shown that tit-for-tat is the best strategy in repeated games.
Start optimistic. Stop if it doesn’t work. In the long-term you don’t need to win every iteration, just enough for a positive expected value. And make sure you don’t get wiped out in any single iteration.
The weeks are short but the decades are long and the industry is smaller than you’d think :)
>I've been the ultra-cynic before, and agree that doesn't work either. People don't like working with you, and don't trust you.
Is the issue being that one isn't being cynical enough? If you are very cynical about how things will turn out, and share that with others who don't appreciate it (even if you are right), then you are being optimistic in thinking it will change things. Controlling one's displays to others to appear as whatever gets one their best outcome is being even more cynical, to the point of abandoning any attempts at open honest relationships, but it likely works the best if one can pull it off.
Though that might be a very big if, and getting caught faking this likely is worse. Then again, is forcing oneself to adopt optimism just an attempt to do this indirectly, a sort of 'fool yourself so you can better fool others' approach when more direct manipulation doesn't work, given that drive for the optimism is to get better outcomes?
Is that really how most people would define optimism these days? I know that's what it meant in Voltaire's time, but something tells me that if you asked modern optimist whether they thought we lived in the best of all possible worlds, a majority of them would either say no or that they don't know.
Are you certain about which way the arrow of causality points there? Your friend might have more reason to be optimistic because he is financially secure.
It's pretty obvious how an insufficiently cynical person could end up badly off - they could send all that money to that deposed prince in Nigeria, or whatever.
But the right optimism in the right situation can really pay off. Imagine you're pitching your non-technical carmaker CEO on a proposal to make a new pickup truck, and the CEO asks if you can make the entire thing with 0.1mm accuracy.
If you say "Yes sir, in fact many parts will be even more accurate than that" your project gets funded.
If you say "No, thermal expansion alone makes that impossible, it's also unnecessary" you're gambling on him respecting your straight-talking and technical chops.
Cynical take - if you know you're lying, that's not optimism, that's cynical manipulation.
A lot of people missing that cynicism isn't the same as sneering grumpiness.
You can be perfectly pleasant and charming while being utterly cynical about how you approach professional relationships.
This is a problem with at least two axes. The cynicism part relies on accurately calibrating the distance between official narratives and reality.
If you're a pessimist, you overshoot. An optimist undershoots. A realist gets it more or less right.
But if the distance is huge, that automatically makes the realist a cynic, because the reality is a lie, and in most orgs failing to take false narratives at face value is considered dissidence.
The strategic part depends on how you handle that. You can be sneering and negative, you can play the game with a fake smile and an eye for opportunity, or you can aim for neutrality and a certain amount of distance.
Sneering negativity is usually the least effective option, even when it's the most honest.
A realist in a functional organisation won't be cynical at all.
> Cynical take - if you know you're lying, that's not optimism, that's cynical manipulation.
Cynicaler take: That's how some companies fill their management with people who don't know when they're lying.
A person who knows how much 5m of steel expands with a 30°C temperature swing has to say "No" to the boss. A person who doesn't know that, but does know the production line uses a $250,000 Leica laser tracker thingummy that's real accurate can say "Yes Sir" and find themselves in charge of a funded project.
That's all fake. LinkedIn is for sales and recruiting. If you see something there - a post, anything - it's meant to sell something. It's all as fake as the contents of an ad break.
It's important to note that many of those people aren't winning. What you're witnessing is the marketing equivalent of what random government software engineers produce. A good number of the people on HN would be trivially outearning those nerds
I'd have to know what your work is worth; however, the past half a decade has brought enormous inflation that people still haven't factored into their expectations. Wait until commodities prices rise soon and then we'll see a shift in workplace attitudes towards salaries. The 401k ponzi scheme has to end sometime.
You won’t have happy kids and a good family life, if you don’t think it’s possible. Same as you won’t make a cool open-source library, if you aren’t optimistic (or naive) enough to go work on that.
And if you keep saying everything is impossible a huge drag extremely worthless and why even bother trying, you won’t get the fun projects at work.
100% agree. Cynics can be always be right about the past, but optimists are often right about the future, because they are the ones actually building it.
We know that C-level doesn't understand the tech they are evangelizing at all, and we know that at some point, they end up approving a lot of new middle management hires that are just as power hungry as they are, so the feedback loop from the shop to the top is sealed off. These two catastrophes seal the fate of any company.
If your company is still not infected with these, you can still call plausible deniability or oversight or whatever excuse for them, and true, they are human. But if I look into their eyes and see nothing but desire for power, that's a toxic company and no amount of "healthy cynicism" will help me with that.
The sole reason I am hired for my position as an engineer is that I am expected to make the life of my hiring manager easier. Not to save the world, not to do "the right thing" (whatever this means), but help my manager. During the interview, I had a chance to a get a rough idea what I am going to be responsible for.
If the organization or the mission changes to the extent that it is no longer consistent with my values, I start pinging my former colleagues working elsewhere.
Exactly, and this is what the deal has always been when you are an employee in a for-profit corporation. You do what the company asks you to do, and they pay you for your time. This is not "late-stage" anything it's the way it's always been.
If you want to save the world, join the Peace Corps or at least a non-profit.
Tldr: Yes my lord, I'll build the concentration camps as you desired, as its not my business to question thy authority. As long as I get paid, I wont question the effects my work has.
What an ignorant way of working. Guess that's who they hire to build the software spying on Amazon drivers so they have to piss into bottles to make deliveries on time.
This is a consequence of late-stage technology. When few people could make it work at all, the people who could were left alone to make it work. Once it was a routine job, management and political priorities began to control.
This has happened with other technologies as they matured. Bridges. Electrical power. Radio.
(The story of Roebling, the Tweed Ring, and the Brooklyn Bridge is worth knowing. Tweed tried to steal too early in the history of the technology, and it backfired on him big-time.)
This happened to software a while back.
Semiconductors had it less because keeping up with Moore's Law dominated the politics.
Learn more about the history of technology and this pattern reappears.
The author seems like a nice guy, but perhaps a bit naive regarding the efforts big tech companies go to to crush employees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...). They appear to be a staff level engineer at a big tech company - I don't know how much money they make, but I suspect it's an ungodly amount.
The organisation he works for is implicated in surveillance, monopoly exploitation, and current military action involving particularly unpopular wars. No one forced him into this role - he could have made less money elsewhere but decided not to. He has decided to be a cog in a larger, poorly functioning machine, and is handsomely rewarded for it. This sacrifice is, for many, a worthwhile trade.
If you don't want to engage with the moral ramifications of your profession, you are generally socially allowed to do so, provided the profession is above board. Unfortunately, you cannot then write a post trying to defend your position, saying that what I do is good, actually, meanwhile cashing your high 6-7 figure check. This is incoherent.
It is financially profitable to be a political actor within a decaying monopolist apparatus, but I don't need to accept that it's also a pathway to a well-lived life.
I couldn’t agree more. I also work in tech but I’m incredibly cynical which makes it difficult to see the authors post as anything but a combination of self promotion / self soothing.
The dude works for GitHub. I don’t doubt there is some rotten code on there, but what you’re saying seems like a stretch and exactly what he’s describing.
Microsoft is currently a target of BDS, which calls it "perhaps the most complicit tech company in Israel’s illegal apartheid regime and ongoing genocide against 2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza." This isn't about some hobbyist's wonky code. https://bdsmovement.net/microsoft
It seems a bit too much to assert that every developer should be fully responsible for every moral slight their company commits. It is entirely possible to make a positive impact on the world from a large organization - in fact for some people it may be the most direct way that they can make such an impact.
Saying that he is morally bankrupt is like saying that you are morally bankrupt for continuing to live in the US because the current administration is a dumpster fire. It is financially profitable to live in the US; you basically cash in a 6 figure check (perhaps translate the metaphor by taking the monetary value that a significantly increased quality of life is worth to you) by living here rather than some other, lesser developed country with more morally aligned politics. Why not leave? I submit that the calculus that goes through your head to justify staying is roughly equivalent to the one that goes through his when he thinks about continuing to work at big tech. I also don’t think that either of you are wrong for having some justification.
I don't think he's morally bankrupt. I am disagreeing with his attempt to handwave away a moral analysis of these organizations as 'cynicism'. I think these analyses are really important.
I don't live in the US. But if I did, and I was capable enough to be a successful software engineer, I would try to work for an organisation that was not implicated in abhorrent behaviour. If I was to work for one, I would not attempt to dismiss criticisms of it as cynicism.
I feel you missed the gist of my argument, which is that anyone who lives in the US in 2025 does a similar sort of "morality calculus" as someone who works for Big Tech. To be honest, I think living in the US is worse.
I think there are reasonable things to expect from someone's morality calculus. Leaving the country you were born in for moral reasons is a complex and life changing undertaking and beyond reasonable expectation for anyone not extremely politically motivated, let alone resourced enough to do so. Not working for a company whose moral values you disagree with (when you have an extremely lucrative skillset) is a smaller and more reasonable ask.
I'm also not really asking that people leave these roles - everyone has their own path to take. Just that they don't make posts dismissing criticism of these structures as silly cynicism. Or else they will have to contend with me writing a comment disgreeing with them.
Big tech companies are large. It's very possible to be working on things that are generally great for society while others in the company are not. Fighting from the inside for the behavior you want to see gives you an outsized influence on the outcomes you want to see.
> Fighting from the inside for the behavior you want to see gives you an outsized influence on the outcomes you want to see
A lot of people say this, while collecting 6-7 figure cheques. I've not seen that much evidence that it is correct - certainly, I might as well have been pissing into the wind, for all the effect my influence had on the direction of various FAANG
The cynicism the post is talking about is the argument that your chain of command doesn't want to make good software but you do, not anything related to the use of said software.
oh that's a pretty nice summary of the points in the article, and while it seems to have sprung a nice discussion about interesting topics, the whole thread seems to have not understood the author as clearly
Were individual Germans responsible for the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime? If they weren't there because they were resisting, then I say yes. And if we go on living our lives without resisting the current government -- especially if you work at Google, with your leader bowing down to Trump and doing his bidding -- then, yes, you are morally culpable. Most people are shitty, so it's not surprising so many are still going along with it. The engines of commerce are still going. The ports are not blockaded and the government buildings are not being burned. We aren't marching on Washington and liberating the buildings. We are culpable.
Democratic voters are culpable; their politicians are all about keeping the system going but tweaking it. No, the system is bad. A system that results in trump being elected a second time is prima facie evil and must be torn down. If you have power and aren't working to treat down this system, you are culpable.
it's definitely not and would be absurd to suggest otherwise, but isn't it also a very common way of illustrating the dilution of responsibilities among a very large group of people?
The actions of Microsoft leadership are not the same as the Nazi regime, but are similar to the industrialists that supported Adolf Hitler's rise. I ain't Godwinning this thread, we're well along the rise of the American Reich.
I chose to spend most of my career at a company that did stuff I found morally acceptable (inspiring, even). I made probably half what I could have made at places that were more dodgy.
I have found that mentioning that, elicits scorn and derision from many in tech.
Eh. Whatevs. I'm OK with it (but it appears a lot of others aren't, which mystifies me).
I believe what you are running up against is a tendency to externalize shame as anger.
Part of the tradeoff the parent comment references is a lack of thinking about the moral ramifications. Thus, when you mention your position which is grounded in that tradeoff's opposite, the reaction is not surprising. They are largely incompatible. Because your position hinges on a moral component, you are thus passing a moral judgement on others. This is often met with scorn, most especially because people have an aversion to shame, and it doesn't help if it's on the behalf of someone essentially randomly declaring they are morally better than you anytime the topic of their employment comes up.
So really, I'm not sure why you would be surprised, though I sympathize with your general sentiments, in a way you should know better. Surely you are aware of the aversion to shame writ large. That seems a logical predicate of your own conceptualization of your position.
Maybe because I'm not especially interested in passing moral judgment on others, for working at a company that isn't a "moral high ground" company, but isn't exactly NSO or Palantir (I used to work for a defense contractor). I feel profoundly lucky to have found a company that made me feel good about what I did. It was worth the low salary (and other annoyances). I understand that I'm fortunate, and I'm grateful (not snotty).
I find that people take the mere existence of others that have different morals to be a personal attack.
I know that it happens, but I'm not really sure why. It's not like I'm thinking about comparing to others, when I say that I worked for a company that inspired me. I was simply sharing what I did, and why.
I read comments about people that are excited about what they do, and even how much they make, all the time (I spend a lot of time on HN), and never feel as if they are somehow attacking me. They are enthusiastic, and maybe even proud of what they do, and want to show off. I often enjoy that.
To be candid, this is a common refrain that simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
>
I'm not especially interested in passing moral judgment on others
Earlier:
>
I chose to spend most of my career at a company that did stuff I found morally acceptable (inspiring, even). I made probably half what I could have made at places that were more dodgy.
Put more succinctly:
"I work somewhere that is morally acceptable. I could have made double or more if I had worked at a 'more dodgy', less morally acceptable place. Like where you work. No judgement though."
Honestly, I would have more respect for your sentiments if you would just stick to the logical conclusion of your position. Perhaps the scorn you meet is simply a reaction to this inability to simply follow the logical course of your own viewpoint. It has nothing to do with the mere existence of your morals it has to do with the fact that they are incompatible.
You want to have it both ways - you want to make a moral judgement and yet not make a moral judgement. Or you want to bound your moral judgement simply to yourself as if it is at all logical to not extrapolate it to others. If others can work for wherever they please, then what do you even mean by "morally acceptable" or "dodgy"? Simply places you prefer? That's not what morally acceptable means.
For someone who speaks of moral judgements, you don't seem to grasp their implications. I would suggest reflecting on this if you actually care about the reactions you elicit in others. This brief back and forth with you is certainly suggestive of a picture far different from the one you originally painted.
Genuinely interested: if you ask someone where they work, and they answer that they work in [place some TooBigTech here], do you consider that they judge you because you are not working for a TooBigTech? "I work for a TooBigTech so I'm probably better and richer than you. No judgement though"?
To me it's like with vegetarians. If someone tells you out of the blue "I am a vegetarian because I find it completely irresponsible to not be vegetarian. No judgement though", it's not the same as someone saying "I would like to inform you that I am a vegetarian, given that we are going to eat something and it is relevant for you to know it right now". Yet that latter situation will regularly offend non-vegetarians just the same.
I personally think this is an uncharitable reading, you can have a different internal benchmark or standard you want for yourself vs others
From a purely consistency perspective I don't think you're incorrect, but humans aren't purely consistent
We are able to accept that our personal preferences aren't the same as others and still like, respect or love them anyway
I read the GP as stating:
- he wanted to work for a place that made him happy
- he voiced that pleasure to others, "I'm glad I work at a place I find inspiring"
- they took that as an implicit attack on them
There are at least two parties to a conversation, each of them gets their own opportunity to interpret what occurs
It sounds like in this instance they interpreted his position much more negatively than he intended
Now to answer why is in my opinion is much more complicated and I honestly wouldn't hazard a guess without either being there or knowing both parties very well
Just FYI. You're right, and I probably could have phrased it better, but I wasn't talking about this post.
Most posts are "I worked at a company that did stuff I really liked, and was honored to work with some really inspiring people."
That's usually enough to cause people to assume that I'm insulting them.
I do my best to not be offensive, but some folks live in a world, where everything is a personal slight, and there's really nothing I can do about that.
Your comment really resonates with me, I’m in a similar position though much more junior. My colleagues in tech can’t fathom that I actively choose to stay where I am and make 50% of their salary.
I’ve found talking about ethics and moral responsibility with people working in big tech is futile and frustrating. Almost everyone takes it as a personal attack though I never hold anyone else to my moral standards.
Is that surprising? Big tech selects for people with few ties to a real life community (because they're willing to move to the Bay Area/NY/Seattle/etc.), no particular moral objections to the work, and enough brainpower to rationalise anything.
Also, religion and philosophy are alike in that some people have a rich inner life that they are not willing to share with most of the world. Your acquaintance who works for a defence contractor is not going to explain why he believes propping up the Pax Americana (or helping ICE deport migrants, or working for a social media company, or any other example of something you don't like) is morally right unless he feels safe in doing so.
I think the heart of the problem is that we’ve somehow conflated the highest paying Eng jobs with being the most prestigious.
People feel like if they want to climb the prestige ladder, they need some way of justifying the business practices of the megacorps.
In contrast, I feel like it’s well established that gigs in big law or finance or medicine have found a way to decorrelate pay from social status. You can make a choice between chasing money OR prestige.
For what it's worth, I personally have a lot of respect for people who do this (or at the very least, people who forego higher salaries to avoid working for companies they find morally objectionable).
I spent 25 years in Silicon Valley, 100% of it working on making OSS happen, and 90% of it for a non-profit, while my peers from the early days almost all moved on to Big Tech by 2005-2010, most for 2x+ what I was making and a few for outrageously more than that. But I couldn't do it. The lure was attractive and I spent uncountable hours over about a decade debating whether to bite, but in the end I knew I couldn't feel good about myself if I was working for the absolute worst companies in the world.
I will leave this world with no meaningful legacy, but that's preferable to exiting knowing that I'd directly helped Big Tech get bigger and even more evil.
If I'd had kids, maybe my calculus would have been different. Maybe I'd have been motivated enough for their futures to sacrifice my conscience for them, but I did not, and so all I had to consider was whether or not I'd be able to live with myself, and the answer for me was no.
There have always been enough decent, even well paying jobs in software outside of the Big Tech companies, even in Silicon Valley, and so paying my bills and saving for a good retirement didn't require the soul sacrifice.
I don't begrudge anyone who bit that lure but I am entirely content to have said no myself.
If you write proprietary code, everything you do dies with that company. I certainly don't want my life's work locked away like that. Working on OSS means a better chance to put the engineering first and do something that will last.
I did my few years and Silicon Valley too, and when it came to decide between money and code, I chose the code. Haven't regretted a thing.
I hear ya. Thanks for the reply. I'm glad you chose OSS and I fully share your views as expressed here.
I think helping make OSS a thing at all, especially in the very early days when my employer was seen as the poster child for its failure, will be the closest thing I have to a legacy. And I got to travel the world teaching about and evangelizing the open source process, tooling, and ethos which was great fun. I even got to play in the big leagues for a while, at the height of our consumer successes, and those years helped solidify some important industry standards that will certainly live on for a while.
I'm happy with my contributions, and happy with the comfortable life I achieved all while having a good time doing it. I'm also very happy that I got out a couple years ago before this latest wave of destruction.
OSS is even more important today. The days of the Unix vendors, early Google, when we had tech companies that were engineer focused - those days are gone. It's MBAs running the show, and that's how we get enshittification.
There is no set future to what kind of technology we will build and end up with. We can build something where everything is locked away, and poor stewardship and maintenance means everything gets jankier or less reliable - or we can build something like the Culture novels, with technology that effectively never fails - with generations of advancement building off the previous, ever improving debugability, redundancy, failsafes, and hardening, making things more modular and cleaner along the way.
I know which world I'd rather live in, and big tech ain't gonna make it happen. I've seen the way they write code.
So if some people see my career as giving a middle finger to those guys, I'm cool with that :)
Framing an agreement between companies to not poach each others top talent as a means to “crush their employees” is very discrediting.
I’m glad for the antitrust litigation. It’s very obvious that this was a collusion effort that was self serving to each party involved, as a means of overcoming a negative (for them) prisoners dilemma type situation.
The fact that it depressed wage growth was a welcomed side effect. But framing that as the intended outcome as a way of discrediting original author is telling. I don’t know if you’ve understood corporations to be rather simple profit seeking entities, whose behavior can be modeled and regulated to ideal societal outcomes accordingly.
> Framing an agreement between companies to not poach each others top talent as a means to “crush their employees” is very discrediting.
How exactly would you frame major corporations colluding to suppress wages?
> What military action is GitHub involved with.
GitHub has been part of Microsoft for the better part of a decade now, and Microsoft is pretty broadly involved with the military (across a wide swathe of countries)
Perceiving corpos as "simple profit seeking entities" is some of the most naive Milton Friedman crap. Corporations operate as an amalgamation of the desires of a group of powerful enough influencers, of which your rank and file investor is NOT making a meaningful contribution. Milton Friedman has done more harm to capitalism than Marx has done to socialism.
Friedman abstracted away feedback loops between corpos and the social/regulatory environment they operate in. We agree that that is beyond fucking useless.
I didn’t make that same naive assumption when describing corpos as simple profit seeking entities, you just misunderstood what I was saying.
Not to take a stance on the issue either way, but I think the author is only referring to the politics involved in building products, not the broader political/moral issue of what the company does with all of the money it earns from those products. I don't see their post as defending or even referring to the latter.
Everything is political, though. Establishing a barrier for cynicism so it doesn’t have to tackle the tough questions is understandable but it’s not that justifiable.
I think a more charitable reading of this post doesn't defend the moral aspects you're referring to, but is about much more pedestrian things like office politics.
It kinda makes me sad to see the top comment on a thoughtful piece like this expressing outrage on something the other didn't even take a stance on. I come to Hacker News to avoid this kind of rhetoric.
> I come to Hacker News to avoid this kind of rhetoric.
I think this rhetoric fits seamlessly inline with the hacker ethos, and that's one of my motivators (if not the biggest) to read through HN comments at all. It's exhausting to comprehend at times, but so are any well expressed positions in the complexity of life. Otherwise, I worry that HN will complete its transformation to become just another marketing platform for the wider tech sector, like some seem to already think it is.
I wrote this comment in a response to his second chapter, where he presents criticism of the political role of the company as cynical, and then later where he presents a perspective on some tech company anti-union behaviour being conspiratorial.
I definitely took an uncharitable reading, but man am I tired of being told big tech is neutral. I will continue to be cynical and I will continue to gnash my teeth at anyone who tells me otherwise.
What the post fails to understand is that a lot of the "top" people if big companies just doesn't understand the regular user because, well, they do not live a life like the regular users.
One can argue that an appropriate response of the regulator for failing a11y audit is making sure that regulated entity does in fact have a certain percent blind people among it's ranks with increasing the number for each repeated failure
> It is just a plain fact that software engineers are not the movers and shakers in large tech organizations. They do not set the direction of the company. To the extent that they have political influence, it’s in how they translate the direction of the company into specific technical changes. But that is actually quite a lot of influence!
I don’t know if you’d label this view “cynical” or “idealist” but it feels balanced and I think there is a lot of truth in it. As a software engineer, you’re not a mindless automaton “just doing your job”. Your judgment about the proper way to do things—or whether a thing should be done like that at all—makes a difference in how useful and beneficial a product is for end users and for our society more broadly.
> It’s a cynical way to view the C-staff of a company. I think it’s also inaccurate: from my limited experience, the people who run large tech companies really do want to deliver good software to users.
People who run large tech companies want one thing: to increase shareholder value. Delivering "good software" (a very, very squishy term) is secondary.
I don't even think "good" is a quantifiable or effective measure here. C-level executives are deviating from reality in terms of what they say that their products are capable of versus how their products actually perform. If you're a CEO shipping a frontier model that adds some value in terms of performing basic technical tasks while simultaneously saying that AI is gonna be writing all code in 3-6 months, you're only doing good by your shareholders.
I can tell you that everyone I’ve met whose job it has been to communicate with and guide C-suiters across many companies has regarded them as basically super-powerful young children, as far as their reasoning capacity, ability to understand things, and ability to focus. Never met more cynical people about the c-suite than the ones who spend a lot of time around lots of them, without being one of them or trying to become one of them (any time soon, anyway). Like they truly talk about them like they’re kindergarteners, and insist that if you want to reach them and be understood you have to do the same.
A lot of very cosplay/play-pretend (and sometimes expensive!) tactics I’ve seen in high level enterprise sales made a lot more sense after being exposed to these views. Lots of money spent on entire rooms that are basically playsets for high level execs to feel cool and serve no other purpose. Entire software projects executed for that purpose. I didn’t get it until those folks clued me in.
There's exceptions to this. Usuallly founders who've made it past many mergers and kept a central role in the company. Insulting their intelligence will bite you back very quick.
But otherwise I think it's spot on. Especially for Cxx specialized in keeping the ball running, they'll have no interest in understanding most of the business in the first place, they seem themselves as fixers who just need to say yay or nay based on their gut feelings.
> Like they truly talk about them like they’re kindergarteners
Well, a bunch of them are. From what one can hear about Elon Musk for example, at each of his companies there is an "Elon handler" team making sure that his bullshit doesn't endanger the mission and stuff keeps running [1], Steve Jobs was particularly infamous among employees [2] and family [3], Bill Gates has a host of allegations [4] even before getting into the Epstein allegations [5], and Trump... well, I don't think the infamous toddler blimp is too far off of reality.
> and insist that if you want to reach them and be understood you have to do the same.
That makes sense even for those who aren't emotional toddlers. At large companies it is simply impossible for any human to dive deep into technical details, so decisions have to be thoroughly researched and dumbed down - and it's the same in the military. The fact that people are allowed to hold positions across multiple companies makes this even worse - how is a board of directors supposed to protect the interests of the shareholders when each board member has ten, twenty or more other companies to "control"?
IMHO, companies should simply be broken up when they get too large. Corporate inertia, "too big to fail", impossibility to compete against virtually infinite cash coffers and lawyers - too large companies are a fundamental threat against our societies.
> People who run large tech companies want one thing: to increase shareholder value. Delivering "good software" (a very, very squishy term) is secondary.
Delivering shareholder value happens to be a consistent way to maintain the power and payouts a successful executive demands, but I'm not sure it's the motivation per se.
Delivering good software is so far down the hierarchy of motivations I'm not sure they can even see it from up there
Oh, I glossed over that in my response. I've had people at the C-level admit that they don't care about ethics to me, and I especially see startup CEOs lie a lot, or otherwise be so self-deluded to make sales easier that it's hard to tell if they know they're lying.
I think Sean is right that, in the abstract, they prefer good software to bad software, but they won't make any sacrifices if those sacrifices require losing money or status. It's the same "do your what your manager wants" playbook, but run up to board level.
> they won't make any sacrifices if those sacrifices require losing money or status
That's not preferring good software to bad software, though. In order for a value to be meaningful when expressed, it has to result in some kind of trade off. If you value honesty over safety but never are put in a situation where you have to choose between honesty and safety, then that value is fairly meaningless.
That's fair. I overstated my point a bit -- if a project was on schedule and it could be delayed by one day to improve something nebulous, many would agree. It's just that the tradeoffs are never that small, so you never actually see it happen, i.e, the preference is extremely minor.
This is a terrible take. The people who have sacrificed their ethics/morals/souls to reach the top absolutely optimize for different things than the people who passed an interview and put in their 40-80 hours knowing they'll never be in the c-suite. Suggesting otherwise is naive or intentionally deceptive.
> This is the type of cynicism the post is talking about and it's just trivially untrue.
It's a fundamental truth of capitalism, deeply interwoven in the history of markets and modern capitalism. It began when the Dutch East India Company sailed to the Banda Islands and committed genocide in order to harvest nutmeg for trade. Money is and has always been the prime directive of capitalism.
To quote Tom Stoppard: War is capitalism with the gloves off.
I too am an aussie swe (just 3700km up the road) who likes lots of things about working (on a much lower rung) in big (well, mid) tech. I have learned so much more in large orgs than startups, and I'm not done with it.
However:
We DO live in a late-stage-capitalist hellscape.
Large companies ARE run by aspiring robber barons who have no serious convictions beyond desiring power.
I have compromised my principles by giving them (or anyone) my labor.
but I don't lie to myself or anyone else about it. I don't find any need to rehabilitate the structural and personal failings I encounter. When my friends call me out for working at EvilCorp, I don't argue. I know it's like any job: it's all dirty money. Instead, I deal with reality: weigh up pros and cons. I judge each year just how much Corporate I'm willing to swallow to support my dependents.
I enjoy the author's redefinition of cynicism and optimism. These are useful ideas to consider and I've given it some thought, arriving at an attitude of Becoming that I guess some would call idealism.
PS OMFG I just realised its MS. I believe this is what the kids call cringe.
>> Cynical writing is like most medicines: the dose makes the poison. A healthy amount of cynicism can serve as an inoculation from being overly cynical.
I disagree. Cynicism is a toxicity and will fester. Anecdata: I only know people that are either 0% cynical or 100% cynical (kinda like how people feel about Geddy Lee's voice).
>> Tech companies have a normal mix of strong and weak engineers.
Yes, that's not "a little cynical" that's a healthy perspective.
I think OP is really trying to tell people to be stoic, not cynical, and is confused on the vocabulary.
>Anecdata: I only know people that are either 0% cynical or 100% cynical
I must have a more diverse group of friends and colleagues because I see and experience the whole spectrum. Perhaps it's worth considering why your bubble is so black and white and maybe even how to change that.
Props to Sean for this post. I have found his writings to be much closer to how I’ve learned to understand my career and companies than many standard reddit/HN posts portray things.
Lol thanks for reading my blog post! (Alex here) Your statement of my position:
> We live in a late-stage-capitalist hellscape, where large companies are run by aspiring robber barons who have no serious convictions beyond desiring power. All those companies want is for obedient engineering drones to churn out bad code fast, so they can goose the (largely fictional) stock price. Meanwhile, end-users are left holding the bag: paying more for worse software, being hassled by advertisements, and dealing with bugs that are unprofitable to fix. The only thing an ethical software engineer can do is to try and find some temporary niche where they can defy their bosses and do real, good engineering work, or to retire to a hobby farm and write elegant open-source software in their free time.
Let me re-state this in another way, which says functionally the same thing:
> Companies are hierarchical organizations where you sell your specialized labor for money. You should do what they expect of you in order to collect a paycheck, cultivate as enjoyable of a working environment as you can, then go home and enjoy the rest of your free time and your nice big tech salary.
Is this cynical? In some sense, sure, but I don't think it's inaccurate or even toxic, and I think it's probably how something like 90% of big tech employees operate. Sometimes your writing makes it seem like this is actually what you think. If your "objective description" of big tech companies were in service of this goal -- getting along better and not fighting the organization to preserve your own sanity and career -- I don't think people would take issue with it.
But you make the analogy of public service and seem in some sense to believe in values that are fundamentally at odds with these organizations. Is your position that, through successful maneuvering, and engineer can make a big tech organization serve the public in spite of internal political and economic pressures? This seems far more idealistic than what I believe. To quote Kurt Vonnegut, "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."
If we're doing cynicism - even if you write lovingly hand crafted free range OSS code - EvilCorp can still come along and use it as part of the EvilCorp backend.
Your just working for them for free rather than getting paid.
Cynical, indeed! I'm not good enough with leetcode exercises to worry about coding for a large organization. And I hardly use LLMs at all in my coding. Guess I'm back to focusing on value from my own perspective.
> > We live in a late-stage-capitalist hellscape, where large companies are run by aspiring robber barons who have no serious convictions beyond desiring power. All those companies want is for obedient engineering drones to churn out bad code fast, [...]
This morning's aspiring robber baron fun (I think it's OK mention this, under the circumstances, so long as I don't say anything identifying)...
Responding to a cold outreach from a new startup, for which I happened to also have unusual experience in their product domain (no, you won't guess which). They wanted me to relocate to SF, as a founding engineer, and do a startup incubator with them.
Me: if you haven't even done the incubator, just to clarify, you want a founding engineer, not a co-founder?
Them: it will be good experience for you, to work alongside me to develop the product, and to see how the incubator works from the inside.
(This isn't really their fault. The incubator has started telling kids that they should work for one of the incubator's portfolio startups for the experience (certainly not for the salary and stock options), and then maybe one day they can be the Glorious Founder. And then new Glorious Founders, who might not yet know any better, simply regurgitate that.)
(I previously tried to talk with that same incubator about this message that they were using, after they included it in a broadcast that also invited connecting with a particular person there. When I found a way to contact that named person, they ignored my question, and instead offered to delete my account on their thing, if I didn't like what they were saying. So I deleted my account myself. I'm not sure we really developed a collegial rapport and constructive shared understanding about the concern...)
> For instance, you might think that big tech engineers are being deliberately demoralized as part of an anti-labor strategy to prevent them from unionizing, which is nuts. Tech companies are simply not set up to engage in these kind of conspiracies.
A very good piece. Balance always. Ultimately, everything is politics, and always will be - that's reality; it's always people. Pick your poison, idealism or cynicism; in any organization you'll have to deal with the people. That's the balance. It's not easy.
They should at least understand why they are getting paid and basic business logic instead of thinking they are above it because they are 10x or whatever. You are a cost center unless you are making that line go up.
> There are very few problems that you can solve entirely on your own. Software engineers encounter more of these problems than average, because the nature of software means that a single engineer can have huge leverage by sitting down and making a single code change. But in order to make changes to large products - for instance, to make it possible for GitHub’s 150M users to use LaTeX in markdown - you need to coordinate with many other people at the company, which means you need to be involved in politics.
Maybe, just maybe, when any single individual is unable to propose a product improvement due to the requirement of ass-kissing and favor-dealings involved... the company is too big and should (be) split up.
Corporate inertia is what is killing many a Western company against the competition from China.
It always sounds so ridiculous to me when people working for Meta, Microsoft or Google talk about idealism, or solving good problems, or really any kind of values. The likes of you have very much sold your soul to the devil in exchange for a lot of money.
Any kind of idealism you may hold is nothing but a carefully crafted illusion to keep you from thinking too hard about what you are a part of, what are you are doing. If it hasn’t made click after big tech fell on their knees in front of Trump, there’s nothing left to say anymore.
So in a sense, Goedecke is right: Be a little cynical. Don’t bother with a veneer of the greater good or some other bullshit. Enjoy your paychecks while it lasts.
To get a reputation for being suspicious and distrustful is certainly not desirable. Nevertheless, men are so false, so insidious, so deceitful and cunning in their wiles, so avid in their own interest, and so oblivious to other's interests, that you cannot go wrong if you believe little and trust less.
I would have rather read an article about the best ways to create positive change in a capitalist system, a critique of socialism, Marxism, or anarchism, even if it was filled with words i didn't understand, than an article arguing about individual intent, and ignoring systemic design.
I have a somewhat tangential question. If this is late stage capitalism, and tech CEOs are compared to robber barons to show how rich and greedy they’ve become, then what stage was capitalism in when the actual robber barons were doing their thing a hundred years ago?
>cynical: concerned only with one's own interests and typically disregarding accepted standards in order to achieve them
Indeed you are, for calling software developers “engineers” meanwhile software development is actually writing, so they are more closer to writers than engineers.
I disagree with your view. It’s the thinking needed that makes it engineering, especially when you have a lot of constraints (massive scale, low latency, etc.).
Consider this: math is mostly doodling some glyphs on paper, so clearly it is closer to drawing than engineering.
To be fair most actual engineers just copy paste from a previous project (MEP engineers in architecture) or just look up numbers or equipment in a table (every structural engineer I’ve known). A vanishingly small percentage of any engineer (software or otherwise) are actually doing what most people think as “engineering”.
> We live in a late-stage-capitalist hellscape, where large companies are run by aspiring robber barons who have no serious convictions beyond desiring power. All those companies want is for obedient engineering drones to churn out bad code fast, so they can goose the (largely fictional) stock price. Meanwhile, end-users are left holding the bag: paying more for worse software, being hassled by advertisements, and dealing with bugs that are unprofitable to fix.
This is quite a straw man. I think a lot of engineers believe that other parts of the org lack perspective, sure. I’ve certainly seen managers or salespeople genuinely convinced that they’re delivering value when I know for a fact they’re selling snake oil. But I never assume it’s in bad faith, just an artifact of a shitty feedback and communication culture. People want to do good work, they just don’t often get good signal when they aren’t.
Why do you say it's a strawman? All of those claims seem pretty familiar to me, even if, as the post says, the full exact combination might not be. You say you never assume it's in bad faith. Well, great! But that doesn't mean it's a strawman, it seems that other people do!
I say it’s a straw man because it’s a caricature that is easy to knock down. The point of my comment was that I would be surprised to find out that even 20% of people think this, much less a majority.
20% is a lot of people! If 20% of people think something is true, that's something worth arguing against!
"Straw man" strictly speaking means something you invented, although, yes, that is likely overly strict, since you can find someone saying just about anything. But 20%? That's a substantial fraction of the relevant population!
The other thing worth noting here is that the point of a straw-man fallacy is. In a straw-man fallacy, you replace your opponent's argument with a ridiculous version, and argue against that instead of what they actually said. Or, alternatively, it's where you are arguing against some general nebulous concept, and you instantiate it as something ridiculous -- which maybe someone is actually saying! -- and use your argument against the ridiculous version as an argument against the more general concept, tarring other versions by association. (The real solution here of course is to not argue about nebulous concepts like that in the first place, it's not a useful way of arguing, but that's another matter.)
But if you're not performing either of these types of substitution, if the ridiculous position is actually out there and you're simply arguing against it as it is and not trying to use it to substitute for something else or tar something else by association... then that's not a straw man, that's just people believing ridiculous things and you having to argue against them.
Large corporations are just groups of people with conflicting incentives, and that means they are basically incapable of performing certain kinds of tasks. It also means that when the incentives do align, some tasks are very likely to be completed, even with other corporations or governments working in opposition.
Some of those tasks might be things you care about, like making a product of a certain quality, or furthering some other goal you have. In all those cases, it is best to to first think about what is most likely to happen and what is unlikely to happen. You have to think of the organization as just another phenomenon that you could exploit if you properly understood it. Unfortunately, how to manipulate complex systems of humans is an open problem, and if anyone had effective, repeatable solutions, then investors would demand that they be implemented.
As it is, most corporations don't act in the interest of the investors a significant amount of the time, even though they are supposed to. The only thing we can reliably bet on is: all organizations tend towards dysfunctional bureaucracies, the longer they live, and the bigger they get.
Cynicism is specific trait and has only negative connotations. It cannot be “good” for a social structure by definition.
Realism is neutral. But we often assume that realism implies cynicism which is not true.
Parrhesia (tact) is the only worthwhile, long term goal in terms of attitude. And that doesn’t include cynicism. It’s about being honest without feeling like betraying yourself.
“Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." - (supposedly) Isaac Newton
Never heard of this quote, but I could certainly use a large dose of tact as defined above! The quote seems to be due to an advertising executive though, Howard W. Newton, not Isaac Newton [1].
[1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/07/18/tact/
[^1]: My idea of Isaac Newton comes from Stephenson's novel. But I trust that Mr Stephenson's research because it aligns with Newton's other quotes (i.e. "standing in the shoulder of giants" is nice but he's calling another man a moron, eloquently) and the his relationship with Leibniz wasn't the one I would expect.
That's certainly very extreme, but a tempered, measured belief in the negative aspects of human nature is necessary, I think.
You might say, "that's just realism", but I think they are just separate axes: some amount of cynicism (and idealism) is necessary in order to be realistic. Possibly different amounts in different contexts, depending on the other people involved.
Then when they eventually outdo even your worst expectations, you will be less disappointed by the gap between your original impression and the fresh dose of reality. I've adopted a motto that I could finally put words on about a decade ago. "You are not cynical enough."
And no, not even after accounting for the above.
Is 'good for the social structure' the metric to use for defining good? Should we be serving the social structure to be 'good'?
> Is 'good for the social structure' the metric to use for defining good?
No.
> Should we be serving the social structure to be 'good'?
Yes.
Does that make sense? :-)
But, imagine the case where I do not think serving the social structure is good. And I make what sound like cynical jokes about serving the social structure. For those that believe in serving the social structure, that cynicism only had negative connotations. But for those who don't believe all that, the bitter joke might accurately reflect their understanding according to reality.
IMO that is a "series-B" type of argument. We know empirically that great things come out of putting trust on the hands of "unlikely candidates". So even if God doesn't exist, ppl are still capable of "good" just because they chose to do so, given the chance.
At the same time, it would be unwise to blindly trust ppl when there are warnings all around. So why not take a tempered approach? Trust a little, then trust a little more. The "applied answer" (e.g. social policies) falls within a spectrum that might change based on circumstance, there's no absolute representation as if we're picking a point in a Y/X axis, only optimal answers (like NP-complete problems).
I wouldn't call the tempered approach "cynical", I would call that "wise".
Emotions are influencing your thinking, whether you realize it or not. It's better to include them in your model of reality.
It's like modeling the lens you use in your camera. If you do that - you can correct for at least some distortions.
I think this is definitely overly charitable to corporations. Meta and Amazon both had pretty explicit policies that a modest level of employee churn was desirable, particularly when it involved folks leaving large quantities of unvested stock on the table.
I strongly disagree with this statement. What C-staff cares about is share-holder value. What middle management care about is empire building and promotions.
> for instance, to make it possible for GitHub’s 150M users to use LaTeX in markdown - you need to coordinate with many other people at the company, which means you need to be involved in politics.
You presented your point in a misleading way. I would classify this as collaboration/communication rather than politics.
Politics is when you need to tick off a useless boxes for your promo, when you try to to take credits for work you haven't helped with, when you throw your colleague under the bus, when you get undeserved performance rating because the manager thinks you are his good boy. There's a lot more, I didn't read any of your previous blogs, but all of these things are what engineers dread when we refer to politics.
What you’re describing is a particular form of manipulative and divisive politics which is performed by insecure, desperate or selfish people.
Many engineers are not good at building relationships (the job of coding isn’t optimal for it after all), so painting the people who are good at is as narcissistic may be comforting but isn’t correct.
Collaboration and communication are key parts of politics, though.
At its core, politics is simply the dynamics within a group of people. Since we innately organize into hierarchies, and power/wealth/fame are appealing to many, this inevitably leads to mind games, tension, and conflict.
But in order to accomplish anything within an organization, a certain level of politics must be involved. It's fine to find this abhorring and to try to avoid it, but that's just the reality of our society. People who play this game the best have the largest impact and are rewarded; those who don't usually have less impact and are often overlooked.
Its baffling to see US engineers repeatedly being shat on by the company, and yet still retain belief in the chain of command.
But, to be a good cynic, you need a rich information network to draw on to see what the wider business is doing and thinking. You must understand the motivations of the business, so that you can be correctly cynical.
But they are the best paid and everyone wants to move to the US.
I was paid exceptionally well when I was at a FAANG, but that didn't extend to me blindly following my leadership team into the same obvious bear trap every 6 months.
Not really, I prefer less pay but way more affordable cost of living over a dying country rapidly moving into fascism. What's your money worth compared to a life worth living without tyrannical maniacs ruling over your every move. Fuck the USA.
However, I think we've got some tactical disagreements on how to actually make society a better place. Namely, I think Sean is right if you have to remain an employee, but many people just don't have to do that, so it feels a bit like a great guide on how to win soccer while hopping on one leg. Just use two legs!
My own experience, especially over the last year, has been telling me that being positioned as an employee at most companies means you're largely irrelevant, i.e, you should adopt new positioning (e.g, become a third-party consultant like me) or find a place that's already running nearly perfectly. I can't imagine going back to a full-time job unless I was given a CTO/CEO or board role, where I could again operate with some autonomy... and I suspect at many of the worst places, even these roles can't do much.
Also Sean, if you're reading this, we'll get coffee together before March or die trying.
Cynics feel smart but optimists win.
You have to be at least a little optimistic, sometimes even naive, to achieve unlikely outcomes. Otherwise you’ll never put in enough oomph to get lucky.
That's not been my experience. Optimists also tend to assume the best motivations behind the actions of others, and that will nearly always bite you in the ass in any sizeable organization.
I've been the ultra-cynic before, and agree that doesn't work either. People don't like working with you, and don't trust you.
I think we need to be realistic on order to be successful, and neither ultra-cynicism nor optimism fits the bill.
I would suggest that a healthy, reasonable amount of cynicism is a part of being realistic about how the world works.
Start optimistic. Stop if it doesn’t work. In the long-term you don’t need to win every iteration, just enough for a positive expected value. And make sure you don’t get wiped out in any single iteration.
The weeks are short but the decades are long and the industry is smaller than you’d think :)
Is the issue being that one isn't being cynical enough? If you are very cynical about how things will turn out, and share that with others who don't appreciate it (even if you are right), then you are being optimistic in thinking it will change things. Controlling one's displays to others to appear as whatever gets one their best outcome is being even more cynical, to the point of abandoning any attempts at open honest relationships, but it likely works the best if one can pull it off.
Though that might be a very big if, and getting caught faking this likely is worse. Then again, is forcing oneself to adopt optimism just an attempt to do this indirectly, a sort of 'fool yourself so you can better fool others' approach when more direct manipulation doesn't work, given that drive for the optimism is to get better outcomes?
Feels like cynics are right and optimists get rich.
I definitely lean more to cynic, my very good friend is def more optimist. He’s worth more than 10x me.
But the right optimism in the right situation can really pay off. Imagine you're pitching your non-technical carmaker CEO on a proposal to make a new pickup truck, and the CEO asks if you can make the entire thing with 0.1mm accuracy.
If you say "Yes sir, in fact many parts will be even more accurate than that" your project gets funded.
If you say "No, thermal expansion alone makes that impossible, it's also unnecessary" you're gambling on him respecting your straight-talking and technical chops.
A lot of people missing that cynicism isn't the same as sneering grumpiness.
You can be perfectly pleasant and charming while being utterly cynical about how you approach professional relationships.
This is a problem with at least two axes. The cynicism part relies on accurately calibrating the distance between official narratives and reality.
If you're a pessimist, you overshoot. An optimist undershoots. A realist gets it more or less right.
But if the distance is huge, that automatically makes the realist a cynic, because the reality is a lie, and in most orgs failing to take false narratives at face value is considered dissidence.
The strategic part depends on how you handle that. You can be sneering and negative, you can play the game with a fake smile and an eye for opportunity, or you can aim for neutrality and a certain amount of distance.
Sneering negativity is usually the least effective option, even when it's the most honest.
A realist in a functional organisation won't be cynical at all.
Cynicaler take: That's how some companies fill their management with people who don't know when they're lying.
A person who knows how much 5m of steel expands with a 30°C temperature swing has to say "No" to the boss. A person who doesn't know that, but does know the production line uses a $250,000 Leica laser tracker thingummy that's real accurate can say "Yes Sir" and find themselves in charge of a funded project.
survivorship bias.
Win.. what?
> enough oomph to get lucky.
The underpaid cargo cult mentality is alive in well in corporate America.
Nothing but pseudo "grindset" cargo cultists as far as the eye can see writing worthless technical platitude posts.
It feels like a parody site of itself these days.
Depends what you want to win?
You won’t have happy kids and a good family life, if you don’t think it’s possible. Same as you won’t make a cool open-source library, if you aren’t optimistic (or naive) enough to go work on that.
And if you keep saying everything is impossible a huge drag extremely worthless and why even bother trying, you won’t get the fun projects at work.
The negative replies to this comment are ironic.
We know that C-level doesn't understand the tech they are evangelizing at all, and we know that at some point, they end up approving a lot of new middle management hires that are just as power hungry as they are, so the feedback loop from the shop to the top is sealed off. These two catastrophes seal the fate of any company.
If your company is still not infected with these, you can still call plausible deniability or oversight or whatever excuse for them, and true, they are human. But if I look into their eyes and see nothing but desire for power, that's a toxic company and no amount of "healthy cynicism" will help me with that.
The sole reason I am hired for my position as an engineer is that I am expected to make the life of my hiring manager easier. Not to save the world, not to do "the right thing" (whatever this means), but help my manager. During the interview, I had a chance to a get a rough idea what I am going to be responsible for.
If the organization or the mission changes to the extent that it is no longer consistent with my values, I start pinging my former colleagues working elsewhere.
So where is the intrigue?
If you want to save the world, join the Peace Corps or at least a non-profit.
What an ignorant way of working. Guess that's who they hire to build the software spying on Amazon drivers so they have to piss into bottles to make deliveries on time.
This has happened with other technologies as they matured. Bridges. Electrical power. Radio. (The story of Roebling, the Tweed Ring, and the Brooklyn Bridge is worth knowing. Tweed tried to steal too early in the history of the technology, and it backfired on him big-time.)
This happened to software a while back. Semiconductors had it less because keeping up with Moore's Law dominated the politics.
Learn more about the history of technology and this pattern reappears.
The organisation he works for is implicated in surveillance, monopoly exploitation, and current military action involving particularly unpopular wars. No one forced him into this role - he could have made less money elsewhere but decided not to. He has decided to be a cog in a larger, poorly functioning machine, and is handsomely rewarded for it. This sacrifice is, for many, a worthwhile trade.
If you don't want to engage with the moral ramifications of your profession, you are generally socially allowed to do so, provided the profession is above board. Unfortunately, you cannot then write a post trying to defend your position, saying that what I do is good, actually, meanwhile cashing your high 6-7 figure check. This is incoherent.
It is financially profitable to be a political actor within a decaying monopolist apparatus, but I don't need to accept that it's also a pathway to a well-lived life.
Getting older is worse than travelling near light speed dammmit.
Saying that he is morally bankrupt is like saying that you are morally bankrupt for continuing to live in the US because the current administration is a dumpster fire. It is financially profitable to live in the US; you basically cash in a 6 figure check (perhaps translate the metaphor by taking the monetary value that a significantly increased quality of life is worth to you) by living here rather than some other, lesser developed country with more morally aligned politics. Why not leave? I submit that the calculus that goes through your head to justify staying is roughly equivalent to the one that goes through his when he thinks about continuing to work at big tech. I also don’t think that either of you are wrong for having some justification.
I don't live in the US. But if I did, and I was capable enough to be a successful software engineer, I would try to work for an organisation that was not implicated in abhorrent behaviour. If I was to work for one, I would not attempt to dismiss criticisms of it as cynicism.
I'm also not really asking that people leave these roles - everyone has their own path to take. Just that they don't make posts dismissing criticism of these structures as silly cynicism. Or else they will have to contend with me writing a comment disgreeing with them.
A lot of people say this, while collecting 6-7 figure cheques. I've not seen that much evidence that it is correct - certainly, I might as well have been pissing into the wind, for all the effect my influence had on the direction of various FAANG
The cynicism the post is talking about is the argument that your chain of command doesn't want to make good software but you do, not anything related to the use of said software.
Democratic voters are culpable; their politicians are all about keeping the system going but tweaking it. No, the system is bad. A system that results in trump being elected a second time is prima facie evil and must be torn down. If you have power and aren't working to treat down this system, you are culpable.
I have found that mentioning that, elicits scorn and derision from many in tech.
Eh. Whatevs. I'm OK with it (but it appears a lot of others aren't, which mystifies me).
Part of the tradeoff the parent comment references is a lack of thinking about the moral ramifications. Thus, when you mention your position which is grounded in that tradeoff's opposite, the reaction is not surprising. They are largely incompatible. Because your position hinges on a moral component, you are thus passing a moral judgement on others. This is often met with scorn, most especially because people have an aversion to shame, and it doesn't help if it's on the behalf of someone essentially randomly declaring they are morally better than you anytime the topic of their employment comes up.
So really, I'm not sure why you would be surprised, though I sympathize with your general sentiments, in a way you should know better. Surely you are aware of the aversion to shame writ large. That seems a logical predicate of your own conceptualization of your position.
Maybe because I'm not especially interested in passing moral judgment on others, for working at a company that isn't a "moral high ground" company, but isn't exactly NSO or Palantir (I used to work for a defense contractor). I feel profoundly lucky to have found a company that made me feel good about what I did. It was worth the low salary (and other annoyances). I understand that I'm fortunate, and I'm grateful (not snotty).
I find that people take the mere existence of others that have different morals to be a personal attack.
I know that it happens, but I'm not really sure why. It's not like I'm thinking about comparing to others, when I say that I worked for a company that inspired me. I was simply sharing what I did, and why.
I read comments about people that are excited about what they do, and even how much they make, all the time (I spend a lot of time on HN), and never feel as if they are somehow attacking me. They are enthusiastic, and maybe even proud of what they do, and want to show off. I often enjoy that.
> I'm not especially interested in passing moral judgment on others
Earlier:
> I chose to spend most of my career at a company that did stuff I found morally acceptable (inspiring, even). I made probably half what I could have made at places that were more dodgy.
Put more succinctly:
"I work somewhere that is morally acceptable. I could have made double or more if I had worked at a 'more dodgy', less morally acceptable place. Like where you work. No judgement though."
Honestly, I would have more respect for your sentiments if you would just stick to the logical conclusion of your position. Perhaps the scorn you meet is simply a reaction to this inability to simply follow the logical course of your own viewpoint. It has nothing to do with the mere existence of your morals it has to do with the fact that they are incompatible.
You want to have it both ways - you want to make a moral judgement and yet not make a moral judgement. Or you want to bound your moral judgement simply to yourself as if it is at all logical to not extrapolate it to others. If others can work for wherever they please, then what do you even mean by "morally acceptable" or "dodgy"? Simply places you prefer? That's not what morally acceptable means.
For someone who speaks of moral judgements, you don't seem to grasp their implications. I would suggest reflecting on this if you actually care about the reactions you elicit in others. This brief back and forth with you is certainly suggestive of a picture far different from the one you originally painted.
To me it's like with vegetarians. If someone tells you out of the blue "I am a vegetarian because I find it completely irresponsible to not be vegetarian. No judgement though", it's not the same as someone saying "I would like to inform you that I am a vegetarian, given that we are going to eat something and it is relevant for you to know it right now". Yet that latter situation will regularly offend non-vegetarians just the same.
From a purely consistency perspective I don't think you're incorrect, but humans aren't purely consistent
We are able to accept that our personal preferences aren't the same as others and still like, respect or love them anyway
I read the GP as stating:
- he wanted to work for a place that made him happy
- he voiced that pleasure to others, "I'm glad I work at a place I find inspiring"
- they took that as an implicit attack on them
There are at least two parties to a conversation, each of them gets their own opportunity to interpret what occurs
It sounds like in this instance they interpreted his position much more negatively than he intended
Now to answer why is in my opinion is much more complicated and I honestly wouldn't hazard a guess without either being there or knowing both parties very well
That's not what he said though. His version included a comparison to others:
> I made probably half what I could have made at places that were more dodgy.
That's where the offense comes from.
Most posts are "I worked at a company that did stuff I really liked, and was honored to work with some really inspiring people."
That's usually enough to cause people to assume that I'm insulting them.
I do my best to not be offensive, but some folks live in a world, where everything is a personal slight, and there's really nothing I can do about that.
I’ve found talking about ethics and moral responsibility with people working in big tech is futile and frustrating. Almost everyone takes it as a personal attack though I never hold anyone else to my moral standards.
Also, religion and philosophy are alike in that some people have a rich inner life that they are not willing to share with most of the world. Your acquaintance who works for a defence contractor is not going to explain why he believes propping up the Pax Americana (or helping ICE deport migrants, or working for a social media company, or any other example of something you don't like) is morally right unless he feels safe in doing so.
People feel like if they want to climb the prestige ladder, they need some way of justifying the business practices of the megacorps.
In contrast, I feel like it’s well established that gigs in big law or finance or medicine have found a way to decorrelate pay from social status. You can make a choice between chasing money OR prestige.
I don't really think of it that way.
I didn't work for "not-bad" companies. I worked for a good company.
The attitude makes a difference. If the only way I can feel good about myself, is to define myself by what I'm against, I find life is bleak.
I prefer to define myself by what I'm for.
I will leave this world with no meaningful legacy, but that's preferable to exiting knowing that I'd directly helped Big Tech get bigger and even more evil.
If I'd had kids, maybe my calculus would have been different. Maybe I'd have been motivated enough for their futures to sacrifice my conscience for them, but I did not, and so all I had to consider was whether or not I'd be able to live with myself, and the answer for me was no.
There have always been enough decent, even well paying jobs in software outside of the Big Tech companies, even in Silicon Valley, and so paying my bills and saving for a good retirement didn't require the soul sacrifice.
I don't begrudge anyone who bit that lure but I am entirely content to have said no myself.
If you write proprietary code, everything you do dies with that company. I certainly don't want my life's work locked away like that. Working on OSS means a better chance to put the engineering first and do something that will last.
I did my few years and Silicon Valley too, and when it came to decide between money and code, I chose the code. Haven't regretted a thing.
I think helping make OSS a thing at all, especially in the very early days when my employer was seen as the poster child for its failure, will be the closest thing I have to a legacy. And I got to travel the world teaching about and evangelizing the open source process, tooling, and ethos which was great fun. I even got to play in the big leagues for a while, at the height of our consumer successes, and those years helped solidify some important industry standards that will certainly live on for a while.
I'm happy with my contributions, and happy with the comfortable life I achieved all while having a good time doing it. I'm also very happy that I got out a couple years ago before this latest wave of destruction.
There is no set future to what kind of technology we will build and end up with. We can build something where everything is locked away, and poor stewardship and maintenance means everything gets jankier or less reliable - or we can build something like the Culture novels, with technology that effectively never fails - with generations of advancement building off the previous, ever improving debugability, redundancy, failsafes, and hardening, making things more modular and cleaner along the way.
I know which world I'd rather live in, and big tech ain't gonna make it happen. I've seen the way they write code.
So if some people see my career as giving a middle finger to those guys, I'm cool with that :)
I’m glad for the antitrust litigation. It’s very obvious that this was a collusion effort that was self serving to each party involved, as a means of overcoming a negative (for them) prisoners dilemma type situation.
The fact that it depressed wage growth was a welcomed side effect. But framing that as the intended outcome as a way of discrediting original author is telling. I don’t know if you’ve understood corporations to be rather simple profit seeking entities, whose behavior can be modeled and regulated to ideal societal outcomes accordingly.
What military action is GitHub involved with.
How exactly would you frame major corporations colluding to suppress wages?
> What military action is GitHub involved with.
GitHub has been part of Microsoft for the better part of a decade now, and Microsoft is pretty broadly involved with the military (across a wide swathe of countries)
I didn’t make that same naive assumption when describing corpos as simple profit seeking entities, you just misunderstood what I was saying.
Upton Sinclair
Not to take a stance on the issue either way, but I think the author is only referring to the politics involved in building products, not the broader political/moral issue of what the company does with all of the money it earns from those products. I don't see their post as defending or even referring to the latter.
Everything is political, though. Establishing a barrier for cynicism so it doesn’t have to tackle the tough questions is understandable but it’s not that justifiable.
It kinda makes me sad to see the top comment on a thoughtful piece like this expressing outrage on something the other didn't even take a stance on. I come to Hacker News to avoid this kind of rhetoric.
I think this rhetoric fits seamlessly inline with the hacker ethos, and that's one of my motivators (if not the biggest) to read through HN comments at all. It's exhausting to comprehend at times, but so are any well expressed positions in the complexity of life. Otherwise, I worry that HN will complete its transformation to become just another marketing platform for the wider tech sector, like some seem to already think it is.
I definitely took an uncharitable reading, but man am I tired of being told big tech is neutral. I will continue to be cynical and I will continue to gnash my teeth at anyone who tells me otherwise.
I don’t know if you’d label this view “cynical” or “idealist” but it feels balanced and I think there is a lot of truth in it. As a software engineer, you’re not a mindless automaton “just doing your job”. Your judgment about the proper way to do things—or whether a thing should be done like that at all—makes a difference in how useful and beneficial a product is for end users and for our society more broadly.
People who run large tech companies want one thing: to increase shareholder value. Delivering "good software" (a very, very squishy term) is secondary.
I don't even think "good" is a quantifiable or effective measure here. C-level executives are deviating from reality in terms of what they say that their products are capable of versus how their products actually perform. If you're a CEO shipping a frontier model that adds some value in terms of performing basic technical tasks while simultaneously saying that AI is gonna be writing all code in 3-6 months, you're only doing good by your shareholders.
A lot of very cosplay/play-pretend (and sometimes expensive!) tactics I’ve seen in high level enterprise sales made a lot more sense after being exposed to these views. Lots of money spent on entire rooms that are basically playsets for high level execs to feel cool and serve no other purpose. Entire software projects executed for that purpose. I didn’t get it until those folks clued me in.
But otherwise I think it's spot on. Especially for Cxx specialized in keeping the ball running, they'll have no interest in understanding most of the business in the first place, they seem themselves as fixers who just need to say yay or nay based on their gut feelings.
Well, a bunch of them are. From what one can hear about Elon Musk for example, at each of his companies there is an "Elon handler" team making sure that his bullshit doesn't endanger the mission and stuff keeps running [1], Steve Jobs was particularly infamous among employees [2] and family [3], Bill Gates has a host of allegations [4] even before getting into the Epstein allegations [5], and Trump... well, I don't think the infamous toddler blimp is too far off of reality.
> and insist that if you want to reach them and be understood you have to do the same.
That makes sense even for those who aren't emotional toddlers. At large companies it is simply impossible for any human to dive deep into technical details, so decisions have to be thoroughly researched and dumbed down - and it's the same in the military. The fact that people are allowed to hold positions across multiple companies makes this even worse - how is a board of directors supposed to protect the interests of the shareholders when each board member has ten, twenty or more other companies to "control"?
IMHO, companies should simply be broken up when they get too large. Corporate inertia, "too big to fail", impossibility to compete against virtually infinite cash coffers and lawyers - too large companies are a fundamental threat against our societies.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34012719
[2] https://qz.com/984174/silicon-valley-has-idolized-steve-jobs...
[3] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/memoir-steve-jobs-apos-daught...
[4] https://www.amglaw.com/blog/2021/07/both-microsoft-and-its-f...
[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-...
Delivering shareholder value happens to be a consistent way to maintain the power and payouts a successful executive demands, but I'm not sure it's the motivation per se.
Delivering good software is so far down the hierarchy of motivations I'm not sure they can even see it from up there
I think Sean is right that, in the abstract, they prefer good software to bad software, but they won't make any sacrifices if those sacrifices require losing money or status. It's the same "do your what your manager wants" playbook, but run up to board level.
That's not preferring good software to bad software, though. In order for a value to be meaningful when expressed, it has to result in some kind of trade off. If you value honesty over safety but never are put in a situation where you have to choose between honesty and safety, then that value is fairly meaningless.
It's like saying that employees only want one thing: to get their paycheck.
It's a fundamental truth of capitalism, deeply interwoven in the history of markets and modern capitalism. It began when the Dutch East India Company sailed to the Banda Islands and committed genocide in order to harvest nutmeg for trade. Money is and has always been the prime directive of capitalism.
To quote Tom Stoppard: War is capitalism with the gloves off.
However:
We DO live in a late-stage-capitalist hellscape.
Large companies ARE run by aspiring robber barons who have no serious convictions beyond desiring power.
I have compromised my principles by giving them (or anyone) my labor.
but I don't lie to myself or anyone else about it. I don't find any need to rehabilitate the structural and personal failings I encounter. When my friends call me out for working at EvilCorp, I don't argue. I know it's like any job: it's all dirty money. Instead, I deal with reality: weigh up pros and cons. I judge each year just how much Corporate I'm willing to swallow to support my dependents.
I enjoy the author's redefinition of cynicism and optimism. These are useful ideas to consider and I've given it some thought, arriving at an attitude of Becoming that I guess some would call idealism.
PS OMFG I just realised its MS. I believe this is what the kids call cringe.
I disagree. Cynicism is a toxicity and will fester. Anecdata: I only know people that are either 0% cynical or 100% cynical (kinda like how people feel about Geddy Lee's voice).
>> Tech companies have a normal mix of strong and weak engineers.
Yes, that's not "a little cynical" that's a healthy perspective.
I think OP is really trying to tell people to be stoic, not cynical, and is confused on the vocabulary.
I must have a more diverse group of friends and colleagues because I see and experience the whole spectrum. Perhaps it's worth considering why your bubble is so black and white and maybe even how to change that.
You may actually have the winning strategy.
Tombstone (1993) Doc Holliday: Wyatt is my friend. Turkey Creek Jack Johnson: Friend? Hell, I got lots of friends. Doc Holliday: I don't.
> We live in a late-stage-capitalist hellscape, where large companies are run by aspiring robber barons who have no serious convictions beyond desiring power. All those companies want is for obedient engineering drones to churn out bad code fast, so they can goose the (largely fictional) stock price. Meanwhile, end-users are left holding the bag: paying more for worse software, being hassled by advertisements, and dealing with bugs that are unprofitable to fix. The only thing an ethical software engineer can do is to try and find some temporary niche where they can defy their bosses and do real, good engineering work, or to retire to a hobby farm and write elegant open-source software in their free time.
Let me re-state this in another way, which says functionally the same thing:
> Companies are hierarchical organizations where you sell your specialized labor for money. You should do what they expect of you in order to collect a paycheck, cultivate as enjoyable of a working environment as you can, then go home and enjoy the rest of your free time and your nice big tech salary.
Is this cynical? In some sense, sure, but I don't think it's inaccurate or even toxic, and I think it's probably how something like 90% of big tech employees operate. Sometimes your writing makes it seem like this is actually what you think. If your "objective description" of big tech companies were in service of this goal -- getting along better and not fighting the organization to preserve your own sanity and career -- I don't think people would take issue with it.
But you make the analogy of public service and seem in some sense to believe in values that are fundamentally at odds with these organizations. Is your position that, through successful maneuvering, and engineer can make a big tech organization serve the public in spite of internal political and economic pressures? This seems far more idealistic than what I believe. To quote Kurt Vonnegut, "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."
“The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.”
George Bernard Shaw
Your just working for them for free rather than getting paid.
This morning's aspiring robber baron fun (I think it's OK mention this, under the circumstances, so long as I don't say anything identifying)...
Responding to a cold outreach from a new startup, for which I happened to also have unusual experience in their product domain (no, you won't guess which). They wanted me to relocate to SF, as a founding engineer, and do a startup incubator with them.
Me: if you haven't even done the incubator, just to clarify, you want a founding engineer, not a co-founder?
Them: it will be good experience for you, to work alongside me to develop the product, and to see how the incubator works from the inside.
(This isn't really their fault. The incubator has started telling kids that they should work for one of the incubator's portfolio startups for the experience (certainly not for the salary and stock options), and then maybe one day they can be the Glorious Founder. And then new Glorious Founders, who might not yet know any better, simply regurgitate that.)
(I previously tried to talk with that same incubator about this message that they were using, after they included it in a broadcast that also invited connecting with a particular person there. When I found a way to contact that named person, they ignored my question, and instead offered to delete my account on their thing, if I didn't like what they were saying. So I deleted my account myself. I'm not sure we really developed a collegial rapport and constructive shared understanding about the concern...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
Idealism about one’s own behavior vs idealism about others’ behavior is an interesting tension to explore further.
Maybe, just maybe, when any single individual is unable to propose a product improvement due to the requirement of ass-kissing and favor-dealings involved... the company is too big and should (be) split up.
Corporate inertia is what is killing many a Western company against the competition from China.
So in a sense, Goedecke is right: Be a little cynical. Don’t bother with a veneer of the greater good or some other bullshit. Enjoy your paychecks while it lasts.
To get a reputation for being suspicious and distrustful is certainly not desirable. Nevertheless, men are so false, so insidious, so deceitful and cunning in their wiles, so avid in their own interest, and so oblivious to other's interests, that you cannot go wrong if you believe little and trust less.
-- No. 157, Maxims and Reflections (Ricordi)
If doing things ethically (not defrauding investors and customers) keeps your manager happy, then do it. If not, do it fucking anyways.
Indeed you are, for calling software developers “engineers” meanwhile software development is actually writing, so they are more closer to writers than engineers.
Consider this: math is mostly doodling some glyphs on paper, so clearly it is closer to drawing than engineering.
there are roughly 0.082% of software "engineers" that deal with these constraints or have to "think about them"
This is quite a straw man. I think a lot of engineers believe that other parts of the org lack perspective, sure. I’ve certainly seen managers or salespeople genuinely convinced that they’re delivering value when I know for a fact they’re selling snake oil. But I never assume it’s in bad faith, just an artifact of a shitty feedback and communication culture. People want to do good work, they just don’t often get good signal when they aren’t.
"Straw man" strictly speaking means something you invented, although, yes, that is likely overly strict, since you can find someone saying just about anything. But 20%? That's a substantial fraction of the relevant population!
The other thing worth noting here is that the point of a straw-man fallacy is. In a straw-man fallacy, you replace your opponent's argument with a ridiculous version, and argue against that instead of what they actually said. Or, alternatively, it's where you are arguing against some general nebulous concept, and you instantiate it as something ridiculous -- which maybe someone is actually saying! -- and use your argument against the ridiculous version as an argument against the more general concept, tarring other versions by association. (The real solution here of course is to not argue about nebulous concepts like that in the first place, it's not a useful way of arguing, but that's another matter.)
But if you're not performing either of these types of substitution, if the ridiculous position is actually out there and you're simply arguing against it as it is and not trying to use it to substitute for something else or tar something else by association... then that's not a straw man, that's just people believing ridiculous things and you having to argue against them.
Isn’t this the most prosperous, peaceful, and just period in history like ever? What “hellscape”?