In most of the west, technically talented people are fully subjugated to suits so I'm not surprised.
Sometimes, there are brief moments when technical people are given the control they need to deliver... But after a few years, they are again subjugated to MBAs in suits again and the capacity is lost.
I see this constantly nowadays. As a technical person, there are many companies/roles where the constraints set you up for failure from the beginning. I've delivered some very complex projects but I've also worked at jobs on far simpler projects where I knew since day 1 that the project wouldn't pan out due to counter-productive technical constraints being imposed... but you know the company is well positioned in the financial system and that the outcome won't matter; so you take the job anyway. You still get the high pay and the prestige from the brand name. There are many companies like this where people seem to keep failing upwards and stock price always goes up.
Why do you assume I have access to such opportunities? This whole argument rests on the idea that everyone has equal access to opportunities. Which is incorrect.
Firstly, it's trivial to prove that the hiring process is broken and discriminatory. Secondly, history is not an indication of future performance. Just because it's been working out for big tech over the past few decades, doesn't mean this will continue. Especially when you look at the socio-political environment today, the risk profile is incredibly high... For a vanishing return.
For me to become a millionaire through big tech, starting from today, the previous batch of tech bros would have to be pushed into the billionaire bracket... That's how much the stock would have to go up from where it is now to make me a millionaire. There would be hundreds of thousands of big-tech ex-employee billionaires? Made billionaire purely because they were lucky enough to be offered an opportunity at the right company at the right time. That's just not fair, nor realistic.
So getting access to an opportunity to take a tech test from a big tech company is just the first hurdle. And the tech test isn't even a good measure of skill!
Should a rank-and-file mediocre developer who joined Microsoft 10 years ago who has since been fired due to poor performance become a billionaire passive Microsoft shareholder?
The amount of corruption which would have to take place to make this happen is unfathomable. They'd need to release all the criminals from US prisons and hire them to work as gate keepers for big tech.
This is beyond retarded. It's not a loophole, it's too f stupid to count as a loophole. This interpretation is a violation of the law. They should jail every EU parliamentarian who claims that this is a valid interpretation.
Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.
It completely perverts the entire system. With this approach, any law can be passed by a minority; just phrase as a negative.
I propose a new law: "The EU is hereby not not not abolished" ohh look, it failed to gain majority vote! EU is over! Everyone go home! Look at how clever I am finding loopholes!
Maybe. Probably. It's hard for me to perceive sarcasm these days. I'm becoming just like the neoliberals I used to criticize who gets triggered at the slightest thing haha.
That said, I do think a lot of cynical engineers have a "Rat race" worldview and not the "Hamster wheel" one.
From my perspective, it's like if someone made a joke about genocide. My sarcasm detector switches off. This topic and this game is traumatic to me.
Also, the amount of money which is needed to retire in the game is huge! $1.7 million! I'm not even expecting to reach that at retirement. The fact that someone believes they can get this in a few years of grinding reveals a very cushy worldview...
What I would do for that kind of money...
I've been grinding like insane, nights and weekends for almost 15 years and my net worth is like $200k, 30% of it illiquid in a retirement fund. I never got a bonus, in spite of being called "the best engineer at the company" to my face by the company founder. After asking for a raise, they offered a 2% salary increase... This was a cryptocurrency company with a lot of money to spare.
On the end screen, it shows "Shareholder value created" with some huge number.
I find this unsettling because it hints that the people who built this game are more naive than I am. And this is a game about a cynical topic.
It reminds me of the narrative "No matter how bad you think it is, reality is worse."
The idea that the engineer is creating "shareholder value" is part of the conditioning. They're creating complexity and literally running a hamster wheel. Even more so than the game suggests. Lighting fires and putting them out. They are lucky to have this job where you can get away with this kind of pure performative engineering. Seriously, Netflix looks exactly the same as it did years ago. Same with Facebook. The fact that they have so many users and make so much money has nothing to do with engineering and everything to do with attention monopolization and incentive structures among investors to circulate money between companies that they have a stake in.
Working for a bootstrapped startup; that's real value creation because there is enormous risk involved and no engineer wants to take that risk.
Of course the value creation goes away as soon as the startup raises funding because then they become part of the club and the risk is taken out.
Working for FAANG is more like being appointed to the king's court. The king's fool is not creating any economic value for the average working citizen... And the line for that job is long. Being chosen is not based on skill or talent. Talent is abundant. It's a kind of lottery.
Absence of problems is definitely a major factor but I like to think of 'maintainability' as being the main marker of quality. Maintainable code has fewer problems because it makes problems easier to solve.
My car would start beeping randomly and one day it wouldn't stop beeping. Turns out it was because we have a baby seat in the back on a window seat but it would slightly touch the edge of the middle seat. The solution was to clip in the seatbelt on the middle seat even through there was nobody sitting there.
The term is not very useful since most humans are stochastic parrots... At least most of the time.
Not suggesting that I don't say stuff on autopilot sometimes but for many people, it's their only mode of operation. They never actually think about anything from first principles. Their whole approach to language is just chaining catchphrases together. It's how a toddler thinks; it seems like many people never moved past that stage of development.
As a developer, when some company says that some platform is end-to-end encrypted, you know that it means "the default client provides encryption, by default" but you know very well that they could selectively turn it off for anyone, at any time and it may be impossible to know that they did this this unless the target was tech savvy and actively monitoring their network packets during the brief period that encryption was turned off... Especially on the web, they could just serve a different JavaScript library with a backdoor to a specific IP address only and the target would have no idea.
Articles like this remind me that non-devs think "end-to-end encrypted" means it's always the case and they can't turn it off at will. This is not the case.
It sounds shocking because it's one sentence which delivers two surprises; Oxford is older than expected and the Aztec empire is more recent than expected.
I've come to dislike hacker culture. Worst part is that when the hackers succeed with their objectives and take over systems; they become the authority coordinating others and they are often 10x worse than the authorities who came before them. They just focus on extracting money for themselves, pulling up the ladder behind them and building moats instead. There's nothing anti-establishment about it at the end of the day, they just join the establishment and make it much more oppressive for the next generation.
Yes and my perspective is that GDPR has harmed EU startups and helped US companies by virtue of them being incumbents and having the resources to dedicate to compliance. Probably can't be fixed as easily now because of corporate culture around standards like SOC2 and ISO27001... Which I think are more harmful to security than helpful as they create complacency and hinder progress by creating barriers.
This is where I disagree as a software engineer who has seen EU products built and not adopted... I've also built products myself which were fully functioning and scalable but not widely adopted. Building is not the bottleneck.
It feels like there is a limit on distribution. Just getting people to try a product is incredibly hard. Very hard to reach them and ads feel like they're only served to bots.
Yes. A lot of people have a very loose definition. Which is strange to me.
Some people think of the postman who brings them letters as "helping" but I don't consider it that way as they're being paid.
The people who volunteer to charities are helping, I guess... Though some of them may just be looking for future leverage/opportunities; e.g. padding their resumes...
Some people, especially who have money, tend to struggle to isolate the monetary incentive and discount the value of money being given to the person in exchange.
The thing is, the pie feels as though it is fixed in tech sector due to monopolization. It's fixed in terms of who can have a slice at all. So while the size of the pie and people's slice can grow, who can sit at the table feels fixed.
Also, I wouldn't frame the person who provides electricity as helping you if you're paying them. It's an exchange since you earned that money. This isn't the definition of help I'm pushing against.
Also, help might be OK and even necessary in a different system for example, but it doesn't work in the current system IMO. My view is context dependent based on my experience in the current system and how it seems to consistently weaponize help and altruism.
It feels like they've been paid to sell out the users themselves, not just the data. It's weird that EU is so dependant on US tech when it comes to media platforms... While there are alternatives out there. In a lot of related areas in tech, it feels like suppression.
It's incredibly difficult for me to ask for help because I was raised to always pull myself up by the bootstraps. This attitude has seeped into my moral framework. If I get help, it's special treatment; it's an unfair advantage that I'm getting which will harm other people who have to compete against me.
I wish people would just stop 'helping' each other (as it is currently). Help should only be given to people who are in dire need and it should only be enough to allow them to stay afloat. Helping someone to become a multi-millionaire is not 'help', it's injustice; it only exacerbates the problem. It creates a system where success is impossible without receiving help. This, in turn, creates a totalitarian system where people are just trading favors with each other since everyone who succeeded helped each other to various extents and everything they're doing is balancing favors.
'Paying forward' really means; giving favors to someone new in order to obtain favors from them in the future. It's not good for anyone.
Also, no real trust is being built here. It's not trust if you need to keep paying. It's dependency.
Quitting is a bad move. You should just quiet quit and start acting and don't take anything too seriously. Probably all your colleagues feel the same way anyway. Everyone is just hustling and bullshitting at this point. Everyone is laser focused on how to maximize their lock-in factor whilst putting in as little effort as possible. Because it's what works.
You can't avoid the bullshit unfortunately. Whatever company you join, it will be the same thing. If the company REALLY provided value, they would have gone bankrupt. There's no avoiding the bullshit. You must embrace it.
Sometimes, there are brief moments when technical people are given the control they need to deliver... But after a few years, they are again subjugated to MBAs in suits again and the capacity is lost.
I see this constantly nowadays. As a technical person, there are many companies/roles where the constraints set you up for failure from the beginning. I've delivered some very complex projects but I've also worked at jobs on far simpler projects where I knew since day 1 that the project wouldn't pan out due to counter-productive technical constraints being imposed... but you know the company is well positioned in the financial system and that the outcome won't matter; so you take the job anyway. You still get the high pay and the prestige from the brand name. There are many companies like this where people seem to keep failing upwards and stock price always goes up.