> For instance? I'm honestly just curious about what you think is especially challenging Well, just look up active research labs at any top-tier university. Or

> For instance? I'm honestly just curious about what you think is especially challenging Well, just look up active research labs at any top-tier university. Or peruse the work that's happening in top industry labs. And then realize that there are lots of groups within companies working on similar types of problems. And then a lot of stuff that's not "research" but still demands lots of background in some field of science/engineering in order to avoid Bad Things. Designing the control software for a new power plant, for example. > So do we agree that software development is, on average, mid-tech? I'm not sure the question is even well-formed. It's like asking if "health-care" is mid-tech. Well, certain nurses certainly are. Neurosurgeons certainly aren't. > The software I was building in that after-school job in high school isn't a whole lot different to the dominant types of projects I see out there today TBF maybe you shouldn't have been building that software without a lot more training? Maybe the lack of seriousness in the software industry is fundamentally unethical. See Equifax. As a high schooler I built software that interfaced with a database containing a shitload of social security numbers/dobs/names/addresses. I should not have been allowed to build public-facing interfaces to that database without oversight from a practiced software engineer. > But this is not the typical case that the BLS is drawing their conclusions from. They are looking at the entire industry as a whole. Well, yes, that's been exactly my point since the first post...