4 ms·

The primary purpose of the code we write is/should be to serve a function. Being legible to others is a secondary aspect. In terms of cost/benefit, the cost of

The primary purpose of the code we write is/should be to serve a function. Being legible to others is a secondary aspect. In terms of cost/benefit, the cost of the programmer time in debugging far outweighs the cost of executing the code. If the function the code is supposed to fulfill is immoral Two wrongs don't make a right. Whistleblowing is to be preferred to sabotage.

yakubin 7y ago
Oh, I don't see anything inherently wrong in sabotage. And remember that it's an article about a hypothetical hippocratic oath for software developers we are talking about. Imagine if the oath doctors took was about being nice to other doctors and not obligations to the patients. And whistleblowing will get you nowhere when everybody knows everything, it's just the way our economy is built that makes these "evil companies" flourish. It's worth remembering that you have a (limited) choice when looking for a job. I for one would be very happy writing software for the operation of trains or something similar. This is quite useful. Going to work for a company selling financial services I pretty much have a guarantee of harming people or not contributing to anything in any way at best.
- stcredzero 7y ago
  Oh, I don't see anything inherently wrong in sabotage. Isn't that cheating? Isn't that betraying trust? Going to work for a company selling financial services I pretty much have a guarantee of harming people or not contributing to anything in any way at best. I think one should distrust these sorts of absolute condemnations of entire industries. Can you substantiate what you just wrote? Can you provide ironclad proof that all financial services companies are "evil?" In my opinion, the notion that, "Evil is okay to perform, so long as it's against those I don't like," is a sign that someone, somewhere doesn't understand principles and the concept of "evil."
  - yakubin 7y ago
    > Isn't that cheating? Isn't that betraying trust? Of course. > I think one should distrust these sorts of absolute condemnations of entire industries. Can you substantiate what you just wrote? Can you provide ironclad proof that all financial services companies are "evil?" It suffices to say that it is in the best interest of these companies to fool the people when they operate under current economic system. 2008 is one such example. Goldman Sachs owners getting rich, just the customers getting screwed is an extreme-case example. "Proof"? "All financial services"? Now you sound as if you expected me to produce a mathematical proof. I'm just talking about what the reasonable expectations are when considering different job offers. In today's startup-fueled climate I can phrase this way: a startup finds a solution to a problem noone knew they had, it spends time marketing it, ... Oh, back to the beginning: startup announces that it found a solution to a problem. Now they don't actually have any working code. They struggle to make a PoC for months, after that another PoC, ... Nothing actually does anything, just suffices to produce the illusion that something is being done and that something will eventually do something. All this just to keep the ball of fundraising rolling. The investors know it's all bullshit, but it's all not about getting a product in the end. It's about speculating what the next big thing will be. But it's all unimportant. Just keep the appearances and keep the money flowing. But don't fool yourself that any regular guy will benefit from what you're doing. For me it's depressing. But there are a lot of software developers who are just fine with it for the sake of a high salary. > In my opinion, the notion that, "Evil is okay to perform, so long as it's against those I don't like," is a sign that someone, somewhere doesn't understand principles and the concept of "evil." Classifying things unambiguously into "good" and "evil" may be unproductive. It's all a matter of context. I'd say that when your superior/boss requests you to harm others, you don't owe them obedience. Disobedience, cheating etc. aren't inherently "evil".
    - stcredzero 7y ago
      "Proof"? "All financial services"? Now you sound as if you expected me to produce a mathematical proof. At least produce something that attempts to sound like a cogent theory, like the Marxists. (Though Karl Marx explicitly invents his own form of "logic" to do so.) Seems like you just don't like certain kinds of people, based on your prejudices about certain industries. I'd say that when your superior/boss requests you to harm others, you don't owe them obedience. I'd say that when some "activist" requests you to harm others, they aren't on the side of justice. Disobedience, cheating etc. aren't inherently "evil". Against someone who isn't intentionally doing you harm? That sounds pretty evil to me. Of course, the world's very worst evils consist of convincing one's own side the other is "evil" by redefining what that means, thereby justifying the other's harm.

yakubin 7y ago

Oh, I don't see anything inherently wrong in sabotage. And remember that it's an article about a hypothetical hippocratic oath for software developers we are talking about. Imagine if the oath doctors took was about being nice to other doctors and not obligations to the patients. And whistleblowing will get you nowhere when everybody knows everything, it's just the way our economy is built that makes these "evil companies" flourish. It's worth remembering that you have a (limited) choice when looking for a job. I for one would be very happy writing software for the operation of trains or something similar. This is quite useful. Going to work for a company selling financial services I pretty much have a guarantee of harming people or not contributing to anything in any way at best.

stcredzero 7y ago
Oh, I don't see anything inherently wrong in sabotage. Isn't that cheating? Isn't that betraying trust? Going to work for a company selling financial services I pretty much have a guarantee of harming people or not contributing to anything in any way at best. I think one should distrust these sorts of absolute condemnations of entire industries. Can you substantiate what you just wrote? Can you provide ironclad proof that all financial services companies are "evil?" In my opinion, the notion that, "Evil is okay to perform, so long as it's against those I don't like," is a sign that someone, somewhere doesn't understand principles and the concept of "evil."
- yakubin 7y ago
  > Isn't that cheating? Isn't that betraying trust? Of course. > I think one should distrust these sorts of absolute condemnations of entire industries. Can you substantiate what you just wrote? Can you provide ironclad proof that all financial services companies are "evil?" It suffices to say that it is in the best interest of these companies to fool the people when they operate under current economic system. 2008 is one such example. Goldman Sachs owners getting rich, just the customers getting screwed is an extreme-case example. "Proof"? "All financial services"? Now you sound as if you expected me to produce a mathematical proof. I'm just talking about what the reasonable expectations are when considering different job offers. In today's startup-fueled climate I can phrase this way: a startup finds a solution to a problem noone knew they had, it spends time marketing it, ... Oh, back to the beginning: startup announces that it found a solution to a problem. Now they don't actually have any working code. They struggle to make a PoC for months, after that another PoC, ... Nothing actually does anything, just suffices to produce the illusion that something is being done and that something will eventually do something. All this just to keep the ball of fundraising rolling. The investors know it's all bullshit, but it's all not about getting a product in the end. It's about speculating what the next big thing will be. But it's all unimportant. Just keep the appearances and keep the money flowing. But don't fool yourself that any regular guy will benefit from what you're doing. For me it's depressing. But there are a lot of software developers who are just fine with it for the sake of a high salary. > In my opinion, the notion that, "Evil is okay to perform, so long as it's against those I don't like," is a sign that someone, somewhere doesn't understand principles and the concept of "evil." Classifying things unambiguously into "good" and "evil" may be unproductive. It's all a matter of context. I'd say that when your superior/boss requests you to harm others, you don't owe them obedience. Disobedience, cheating etc. aren't inherently "evil".
  - stcredzero 7y ago
    "Proof"? "All financial services"? Now you sound as if you expected me to produce a mathematical proof. At least produce something that attempts to sound like a cogent theory, like the Marxists. (Though Karl Marx explicitly invents his own form of "logic" to do so.) Seems like you just don't like certain kinds of people, based on your prejudices about certain industries. I'd say that when your superior/boss requests you to harm others, you don't owe them obedience. I'd say that when some "activist" requests you to harm others, they aren't on the side of justice. Disobedience, cheating etc. aren't inherently "evil". Against someone who isn't intentionally doing you harm? That sounds pretty evil to me. Of course, the world's very worst evils consist of convincing one's own side the other is "evil" by redefining what that means, thereby justifying the other's harm.