This is honestly a major contributor to the badness of software in general. Ideal software would be continually fine-tuned and shrunk -- there'd be no bi-annua

This is honestly a major contributor to the badness of software in general. Ideal software would be continually fine-tuned and shrunk -- there'd be no bi-annual massive redesign, no change for change's sake alone. Instead of bored devs sitting around an office looking for ways to integrate $FRAMEWORK_OF_THE_MONTH and get those coveted resume points, a well-run project would make something work well and then they'd leave well enough alone, focusing only on bugfixes, performance, and other "boring" projects that don't make for big press releases. Changes to working products should be as surgical and minimal as possible. A good compensation structure that would prioritize stability and consistency would pay an ongoing royalty to the relevant technical people based on the product's performance, uptime, and minimal crash/bug occurrence. "Hours worked" would be minimally relevant. One wonders if so many people would be so desperate to desecrate their production infrastructure if a high-quality work product and compensation were actually correlated. But because we can't break out of the assembly-line 40-hours-per-week mentality, we pay developers as if they're line workers, and there's always got to be something on the line to keep those worker bees buzzing, regardless of the aggregate negative impact of constant uncoordinated meddling in complex systems.