9 ms·

I want to express sympathies in a particular way: When I had a job I didn’t want, in a city i didn’t want, no kids, no wife, and prospects abounding, it was ea

by tobmlt 6y ago

I want to express sympathies in a particular way: When I had a job I didn’t want, in a city i didn’t want, no kids, no wife, and prospects abounding, it was easy to speak truth to power. I did it, and I was right technically, businesswise, and morally. What a win...(?) Now, I have my dream job, my dream location, my own damn house, and my family. -Whole thing feels like a dream I might wake up from if I am not careful... and I feel totally weighed down when it comes to speaking up in a way I would have never countenanced a few years ago. All that to say, this poor kid... I can only imagine the incentive structures that led him to choose this route, but I know academia being f’ed is a big part of it, and it ticks me off.

sn41 6y ago
I agree, mate. I've decided to stop brooding over things less. I do still sniff the toxic sludge at my workplace, but turn away by thinking about technical and intense.
xenihn 6y ago
>Now, I have my dream job, my dream location, my own damn house, and my family. -Whole thing feels like a dream I might wake up from if I am not careful... and I feel totally weighed down when it comes to speaking up in a way I would have never countenanced a few years ago. I'm not at this point yet, but reading this makes me wonder why any employer would ever prefer younger employees with nothing tying them down, for any reasons other than the fact that we cost less. Sure, you'll save money on salary, but odds are that we're going to move on within a year or two if you're not a top-paying company. Even then, there's no guarantee. Meanwhile, someone who has dependents and a mortgage has more to lose and less leverage.
- vinceguidry 6y ago
  I’m convinced that it’s because younger people are easier to control and less likely to speak up about messed up stuff. So while it would be in the company’s best interest to hire more experienced developers, it’s in the interest of individual managers to prefer younger folks.
  - xenihn 6y ago
    This makes sense. I didn't think about it specifically from a manager's POV, since I'd like to think they're more likely to act in the company's best interests when it's a tiny/small eng org.
- tobmlt 6y ago
  Oh yes, some (many?) employers do prefer those with more to loose. Immigration rules tie right into this as well (of course).
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    Oh yes, some (many?) employers do prefer those with more to loose. Years ago I actually had a hiring manager tell me "all of our guys have families" and later "we're really looking for people who want that stability". Direct discrimination against single people. Fortunately I did not get that job, and ended up much better off elsewhere.
- sva_ 6y ago
  > makes me wonder why any employer would ever prefer younger employees with nothing tying them down Probably a lot of reasons, but a major one may be that young people with no family of their own got all day, every day, to think about work-related problems - especially so, if they derive a lot of meaning from their work, as many people do. It's probably also a lot easier to boss them around, especially if said people crave acknowledgement from some authority figure.
- AnHonestComment 6y ago
  It’s a trade off: Younger workers have less to lose, so tend to leave more — but they’re also less experienced and tend to have lower expectations for the workplace. Older workers are less likely to leave because it’s disruptive, but they’re also more experienced at the political side of life — and tend to insist on things like reasonable hours, professional management, etc. My personal stance is that trying to exploit your workers is a losing game — but from the employers who act that way... There’s some who prefer the lower expectations (eg, Amazon) and some who prefer the more stable crew (eg, ATT).
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    > My personal stance is that trying to exploit your workers is a losing game Maybe in highly paid and creative fields, but for the vast majority of business around the world, I observe exploiting the power imbalance between employer and employee to be very beneficial for the employer.
    - AnHonestComment 6y ago
      How so? My experience is that you get small gains (eg, 10-100M) but you see an uptick in similarly sized faults (eg, tax audits or plane defects) and then go negative on the occasional preventable disaster (eg, 737 MAX). Edit: this is different than being beneficial for some employee at the employer — ie, it probably improves some VPs bonus even though it’s negative for the company, overall. Then you have the various examples that succeeded by treating workers well — Ford, Avis, Boeing, etc. I’m curious how you’re comparing companies to reach that conclusion.
- timwaagh 6y ago
  Having to pay less is pretty major if you are the one doing the paying.
  - xenihn 6y ago
    Sure, but is it cheaper in the long run when you account for attrition, hiring costs (recruiters, engineer hours spent interviewing), and ramp-up? Let's go ahead and assume that things like code quality and technical debt aren't factors here, and that the replacements for regrettable attrition would receive (and accept) offers with comparable TC.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      You don't bother thinking about that. Over time you have a large enough sample size for attrition rate and you hire based off that. it doesn't matter if a few leave, a few will always leave.
      - xenihn 6y ago
        Why not think about it?
        ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        It costs time and value when you really can't control it. No matter what there will be attrition for reasons completely outside of a company's control. You find a comfortable attrition rate for your business. if it's too high you deal with it.
    - timwaagh 6y ago
      That depends on project duration. Most projects did not go on more than a year or two. If that's the case your ramp up would happen once every two years even if everybody stayed forever. If you're reasonably efficient about it, you can hire someone with maybe a few hours of engineer time. If the average engineer stays even a year it's not that much.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  HN is filled with ultra talented devs getting offers. It's not that easy to find a new job for 90% of the population.
atoav 6y ago
Totally understandably so. However I think that it is also a matter of perception: If we view it as a matter of living the dream while some intrusion might endanger that dream, surely minimizing the damage done to the dream is a logical consequence. But what if the intrusion stops making your job a dream job? I was in a similar situation where a superior demanded that I breach the trust our users had in the privacy of our service. This would not only have been illegal, but there was no way to make use of that data without revealing that we broke that trust. Additionally it made no sense, because the info my superior hoped to gain through this wouldn't have been readable from the data anyways. My superior was a typical authotarian male: Saying no to him is something he took very personal. This was my dream job, but breaking privacy rules goes against anything I stand for (which no longer would make it my dream job), so I did what needed to be done and stood up. I explained carefully what he needs to know before making that decision and why I wouldn't do it that way, all the time making sure there is a way out for him where he can keep his face. Guess what, I didn't need to breach that trust and the superior ultimately was thankful that I stopped him from running into this. But it left a very bitter taste in my mouth that the guy even considered this as a possibility.
- rlonn 6y ago
  In my experience, people who try to intimidate others into unethical acts are pretty much rotten at the core. They either lack morals, or empathy, or both. Chances are your superior did some damage control when expressing gratitude towards you later on.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- darkerside 6y ago
  It sounds like he didn't understand what he was asking for and was thankful for you informing him. Seems like a reasonable case, although maybe there's something about the initial demand that made it more of an intimidation tactic?
feralimal 6y ago
"I was right technically, businesswise, and morally." ... and in third place, morality. And now lost in the distance. I'm not a Christian, but this is worth considering by everyone: "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul? Or what will a man give as an exchange for his soul?"
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  > I'm not a Christian, but this is worth considering by everyone: >"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul? Or what will a man give as an exchange for his soul?" This would only affect people who assume “they” have an immortal component, i.e. a soul.
  - novia 6y ago
    You can look at it metaphorically. Whatever that thing is that people are talking about when they say, "have a heart!!", that's the soul. It's supposed to be your innermost self. If your innermost self becomes unethical or immoral as a habit, that's, "losing your soul."
  - M277 6y ago
    Even if you don't subscribe to that belief, you still have something to lose -- conscience. Conscience doesn't really die overnight (and this is from my experience of living in a corrupt society), it's a death-by-a-thousand-cuts situation. The beginning is "Come on, everyone is doing it" and you can guess the end.
    - coldtea 6y ago
      >Conscience doesn't really die overnight Well, some are ruthless and competitive without coscience even as kids, and continue so...
      - M277 6y ago
        Yes, but do they really start out like that, or is it a gradual descent? There's usually a catalyst that starts it in kids. Parents demanding success at all cost / rampant cheating around them (or just being surrounded by ruthless kids) / a very competitive rat race that turns out to be pretty dirty / the parents themselves are without conscience / etc.
shrimpx 6y ago
Tragically, a non-trivial number of Ph.D. students commit suicide. It's natural to gradually put all your eggs in the imagined Ph.D. outcome (e.g., an idealized notion of a professorship) with increasing depth as the years wear on. After multiple years and a huge emotional and intellectual commitment, if you start to see the cracks in the structure, and you cannot reconcile the newly perceived reality with your model and goal, it can be absolutely devastating.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  An experience I had as an undergrad of walking around a not-yet-bleached spot on the sidewalk in front of Pierce played some role in my not going to grad school.
  - andrepd 6y ago
    Bleached? In what sense?
    - webmaven 6y ago
      A concrete surface (such as a sidewalk) needs to be cleaned with a bleaching agent in order to remove bodily fluid stains, which can otherwise persist for years.
      - andrepd 6y ago
        Oh...
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      They put up a barrier and some "biohazard" signs around the spot, until they had a chance to clean the concrete thoroughly. It would be unseemly for students to trod on the remains of their recently deceased schoolmate.
bachmeier 6y ago
> I know academia being f’ed is a big part of it I'm sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with the way you've ended your comment. This lets the people responsible off the hook. The guilty party is an individual (and perhaps several individuals). Academia, peer review, conferences, and organizations didn't cause this. The professor was responsible. He wasn't just a cog in the system.
- woofie11 6y ago
  I went to MIT. MIT has procedures involving NDAs and non-disparage agreements to cover up academic fraud. Academic fraud widespread, at least in the departments I worked with, and the Institute can apply *a lot* of pressure to get people to shut up. Except for anonymous web forums, I did. I'm sorry, but this isn't letting the individuals off the hook, any more than accusing the KKK of being racist isn't letting a particular KKK member off the hook, or a mafia of engaging in extortion letting any particular member off-the-hook. There are no effective, enforceable structures for stopping academic fraud. Most people who've engaged in it did not become persona non grata, let alone been fired; most continue to hold tenured academic jobs. Worst-case outcomes are a multiyear slap-on-the-wrist of some kind. That, combined with intense competition, led some people to cheat. Eventually, when it turned out to work okay, it became a culture of cheating. Yes, the individuals involved should be punished, but much more important are: 1) Procedures for getting crooks out of the academy 2) Reducing competition, so there aren't the intense incentives to cheat 3) Implementing transparency. Why do universities get to use taxpayer dollars (grant / tuition overhead) and charitable contributions to cover up this stuff? Governance should be transparent and open. Data should be transparent and open whenever possible. NDAs and non-disparage agreements should be off-bounds. 4) Big money should be out. Yes, I know how much the typical professor gets paid, but the million-dollar salaries for presidents, Nobel laureates, and similar high-ranked positions distort things. 5) Related to the prior, conflict-of-interest provisions should be just a couple orders of magnitude more enforceable. The industry<->academia and especially startup<->academia pipelines help ground things and prevent things from getting detached, but if you're doing research to start a startup to make a few million dollars, that tends to apply extreme pressure to bake data. 6) Hiring and promotion structures shouldn't be so impact-focused. The easiest way to have impact is to tell politically-popular lies. P-hunt for data that shows liberals are smarter than conservatives, atheists are more open-minded than evangelicals, racism is wholesale, wokeness is the way to solve it, and so on. On this list, the really most harmful is when you reach correct conclusions from false data (much more so, even, than false conclusions from false data). ... and so on. This should happen wholesale, across academia, to be eligible for federal grants or tuition subsidies.
phabora 6y ago
I don’t understand what kind of sympathy this is supposed to express. Presumably the “kid” was really desperate and didn’t know what else to do. Even if someone from successful picket lane might know better. Sometimes it’s better to say nothing.
DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." -- Upton Sinclair
temp8964 6y ago
That guy sent internal email to his students in Chinese. This is crazy.
gher-shyu3i 6y ago
> and I feel totally weighed down when it comes to speaking up in a way I would have never countenanced a few years ago. The prevalent "cancel culture" today makes this even more difficult. If you don't go by the groupthink, you lose your livelihood and can't support your family anymore.

by tobmlt 6y ago

sn41 6y ago

I agree, mate. I've decided to stop brooding over things less. I do still sniff the toxic sludge at my workplace, but turn away by thinking about technical and intense.

xenihn 6y ago

>Now, I have my dream job, my dream location, my own damn house, and my family. -Whole thing feels like a dream I might wake up from if I am not careful... and I feel totally weighed down when it comes to speaking up in a way I would have never countenanced a few years ago. I'm not at this point yet, but reading this makes me wonder why any employer would ever prefer younger employees with nothing tying them down, for any reasons other than the fact that we cost less. Sure, you'll save money on salary, but odds are that we're going to move on within a year or two if you're not a top-paying company. Even then, there's no guarantee. Meanwhile, someone who has dependents and a mortgage has more to lose and less leverage.

vinceguidry 6y ago
I’m convinced that it’s because younger people are easier to control and less likely to speak up about messed up stuff. So while it would be in the company’s best interest to hire more experienced developers, it’s in the interest of individual managers to prefer younger folks.
- xenihn 6y ago
  This makes sense. I didn't think about it specifically from a manager's POV, since I'd like to think they're more likely to act in the company's best interests when it's a tiny/small eng org.
tobmlt 6y ago
Oh yes, some (many?) employers do prefer those with more to loose. Immigration rules tie right into this as well (of course).
- nitrogen 6y ago
  Oh yes, some (many?) employers do prefer those with more to loose. Years ago I actually had a hiring manager tell me "all of our guys have families" and later "we're really looking for people who want that stability". Direct discrimination against single people. Fortunately I did not get that job, and ended up much better off elsewhere.
sva_ 6y ago
> makes me wonder why any employer would ever prefer younger employees with nothing tying them down Probably a lot of reasons, but a major one may be that young people with no family of their own got all day, every day, to think about work-related problems - especially so, if they derive a lot of meaning from their work, as many people do. It's probably also a lot easier to boss them around, especially if said people crave acknowledgement from some authority figure.
AnHonestComment 6y ago
It’s a trade off: Younger workers have less to lose, so tend to leave more — but they’re also less experienced and tend to have lower expectations for the workplace. Older workers are less likely to leave because it’s disruptive, but they’re also more experienced at the political side of life — and tend to insist on things like reasonable hours, professional management, etc. My personal stance is that trying to exploit your workers is a losing game — but from the employers who act that way... There’s some who prefer the lower expectations (eg, Amazon) and some who prefer the more stable crew (eg, ATT).
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  > My personal stance is that trying to exploit your workers is a losing game Maybe in highly paid and creative fields, but for the vast majority of business around the world, I observe exploiting the power imbalance between employer and employee to be very beneficial for the employer.
  - AnHonestComment 6y ago
    How so? My experience is that you get small gains (eg, 10-100M) but you see an uptick in similarly sized faults (eg, tax audits or plane defects) and then go negative on the occasional preventable disaster (eg, 737 MAX). Edit: this is different than being beneficial for some employee at the employer — ie, it probably improves some VPs bonus even though it’s negative for the company, overall. Then you have the various examples that succeeded by treating workers well — Ford, Avis, Boeing, etc. I’m curious how you’re comparing companies to reach that conclusion.
timwaagh 6y ago
Having to pay less is pretty major if you are the one doing the paying.
- xenihn 6y ago
  Sure, but is it cheaper in the long run when you account for attrition, hiring costs (recruiters, engineer hours spent interviewing), and ramp-up? Let's go ahead and assume that things like code quality and technical debt aren't factors here, and that the replacements for regrettable attrition would receive (and accept) offers with comparable TC.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    You don't bother thinking about that. Over time you have a large enough sample size for attrition rate and you hire based off that. it doesn't matter if a few leave, a few will always leave.
    - xenihn 6y ago
      Why not think about it?
      - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        It costs time and value when you really can't control it. No matter what there will be attrition for reasons completely outside of a company's control. You find a comfortable attrition rate for your business. if it's too high you deal with it.
  - timwaagh 6y ago
    That depends on project duration. Most projects did not go on more than a year or two. If that's the case your ramp up would happen once every two years even if everybody stayed forever. If you're reasonably efficient about it, you can hire someone with maybe a few hours of engineer time. If the average engineer stays even a year it's not that much.
ntsplnkv2 6y ago
HN is filled with ultra talented devs getting offers. It's not that easy to find a new job for 90% of the population.

atoav 6y ago

Totally understandably so. However I think that it is also a matter of perception: If we view it as a matter of living the dream while some intrusion might endanger that dream, surely minimizing the damage done to the dream is a logical consequence. But what if the intrusion stops making your job a dream job? I was in a similar situation where a superior demanded that I breach the trust our users had in the privacy of our service. This would not only have been illegal, but there was no way to make use of that data without revealing that we broke that trust. Additionally it made no sense, because the info my superior hoped to gain through this wouldn't have been readable from the data anyways. My superior was a typical authotarian male: Saying no to him is something he took very personal. This was my dream job, but breaking privacy rules goes against anything I stand for (which no longer would make it my dream job), so I did what needed to be done and stood up. I explained carefully what he needs to know before making that decision and why I wouldn't do it that way, all the time making sure there is a way out for him where he can keep his face. Guess what, I didn't need to breach that trust and the superior ultimately was thankful that I stopped him from running into this. But it left a very bitter taste in my mouth that the guy even considered this as a possibility.

rlonn 6y ago
In my experience, people who try to intimidate others into unethical acts are pretty much rotten at the core. They either lack morals, or empathy, or both. Chances are your superior did some damage control when expressing gratitude towards you later on.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
darkerside 6y ago
It sounds like he didn't understand what he was asking for and was thankful for you informing him. Seems like a reasonable case, although maybe there's something about the initial demand that made it more of an intimidation tactic?

feralimal 6y ago

"I was right technically, businesswise, and morally." ... and in third place, morality. And now lost in the distance. I'm not a Christian, but this is worth considering by everyone: "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul? Or what will a man give as an exchange for his soul?"

lotsofpulp 6y ago
> I'm not a Christian, but this is worth considering by everyone: >"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul? Or what will a man give as an exchange for his soul?" This would only affect people who assume “they” have an immortal component, i.e. a soul.
- novia 6y ago
  You can look at it metaphorically. Whatever that thing is that people are talking about when they say, "have a heart!!", that's the soul. It's supposed to be your innermost self. If your innermost self becomes unethical or immoral as a habit, that's, "losing your soul."
- M277 6y ago
  Even if you don't subscribe to that belief, you still have something to lose -- conscience. Conscience doesn't really die overnight (and this is from my experience of living in a corrupt society), it's a death-by-a-thousand-cuts situation. The beginning is "Come on, everyone is doing it" and you can guess the end.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >Conscience doesn't really die overnight Well, some are ruthless and competitive without coscience even as kids, and continue so...
    - M277 6y ago
      Yes, but do they really start out like that, or is it a gradual descent? There's usually a catalyst that starts it in kids. Parents demanding success at all cost / rampant cheating around them (or just being surrounded by ruthless kids) / a very competitive rat race that turns out to be pretty dirty / the parents themselves are without conscience / etc.

shrimpx 6y ago

Tragically, a non-trivial number of Ph.D. students commit suicide. It's natural to gradually put all your eggs in the imagined Ph.D. outcome (e.g., an idealized notion of a professorship) with increasing depth as the years wear on. After multiple years and a huge emotional and intellectual commitment, if you start to see the cracks in the structure, and you cannot reconcile the newly perceived reality with your model and goal, it can be absolutely devastating.

jessaustin 6y ago
An experience I had as an undergrad of walking around a not-yet-bleached spot on the sidewalk in front of Pierce played some role in my not going to grad school.
- andrepd 6y ago
  Bleached? In what sense?
  - webmaven 6y ago
    A concrete surface (such as a sidewalk) needs to be cleaned with a bleaching agent in order to remove bodily fluid stains, which can otherwise persist for years.
    - andrepd 6y ago
      Oh...
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    They put up a barrier and some "biohazard" signs around the spot, until they had a chance to clean the concrete thoroughly. It would be unseemly for students to trod on the remains of their recently deceased schoolmate.

bachmeier 6y ago

> I know academia being f’ed is a big part of it I'm sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with the way you've ended your comment. This lets the people responsible off the hook. The guilty party is an individual (and perhaps several individuals). Academia, peer review, conferences, and organizations didn't cause this. The professor was responsible. He wasn't just a cog in the system.

woofie11 6y ago
I went to MIT. MIT has procedures involving NDAs and non-disparage agreements to cover up academic fraud. Academic fraud widespread, at least in the departments I worked with, and the Institute can apply *a lot* of pressure to get people to shut up. Except for anonymous web forums, I did. I'm sorry, but this isn't letting the individuals off the hook, any more than accusing the KKK of being racist isn't letting a particular KKK member off the hook, or a mafia of engaging in extortion letting any particular member off-the-hook. There are no effective, enforceable structures for stopping academic fraud. Most people who've engaged in it did not become persona non grata, let alone been fired; most continue to hold tenured academic jobs. Worst-case outcomes are a multiyear slap-on-the-wrist of some kind. That, combined with intense competition, led some people to cheat. Eventually, when it turned out to work okay, it became a culture of cheating. Yes, the individuals involved should be punished, but much more important are: 1) Procedures for getting crooks out of the academy 2) Reducing competition, so there aren't the intense incentives to cheat 3) Implementing transparency. Why do universities get to use taxpayer dollars (grant / tuition overhead) and charitable contributions to cover up this stuff? Governance should be transparent and open. Data should be transparent and open whenever possible. NDAs and non-disparage agreements should be off-bounds. 4) Big money should be out. Yes, I know how much the typical professor gets paid, but the million-dollar salaries for presidents, Nobel laureates, and similar high-ranked positions distort things. 5) Related to the prior, conflict-of-interest provisions should be just a couple orders of magnitude more enforceable. The industry<->academia and especially startup<->academia pipelines help ground things and prevent things from getting detached, but if you're doing research to start a startup to make a few million dollars, that tends to apply extreme pressure to bake data. 6) Hiring and promotion structures shouldn't be so impact-focused. The easiest way to have impact is to tell politically-popular lies. P-hunt for data that shows liberals are smarter than conservatives, atheists are more open-minded than evangelicals, racism is wholesale, wokeness is the way to solve it, and so on. On this list, the really most harmful is when you reach correct conclusions from false data (much more so, even, than false conclusions from false data). ... and so on. This should happen wholesale, across academia, to be eligible for federal grants or tuition subsidies.

phabora 6y ago

I don’t understand what kind of sympathy this is supposed to express. Presumably the “kid” was really desperate and didn’t know what else to do. Even if someone from successful picket lane might know better. Sometimes it’s better to say nothing.

DyslexicAtheist 6y ago

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." -- Upton Sinclair

temp8964 6y ago

That guy sent internal email to his students in Chinese. This is crazy.

gher-shyu3i 6y ago

> and I feel totally weighed down when it comes to speaking up in a way I would have never countenanced a few years ago. The prevalent "cancel culture" today makes this even more difficult. If you don't go by the groupthink, you lose your livelihood and can't support your family anymore.