4 ms·

I have to say, this is pretty stupid. The tweets are barely coherent and have little correct grammar, capitalization, or punctuation. And the substance of the a

I have to say, this is pretty stupid. The tweets are barely coherent and have little correct grammar, capitalization, or punctuation. And the substance of the argument is pretty thin. The author just asserts that all products released by these companies are crap and thus their engineers are crap too, and it's due to class warfare that we think they are good... or something. He seems to conveniently ignore the fact that it's through these products that he is free to unleash his inane argument on the poor citizens of the world. I feel dumber for having read this, and I don't know why it's upvoted.

netizen-936824 5y ago
The only grammar mistake I noticed was not capitalizing "i" I may have missed the others, are there any you can point out to me?
- runnerup 5y ago
  It’s generally trivial to find a large number of grammatical improvements for anyones writing. In this case, the first tweet: > i will never get over the dissonance between how we call google/twitter/fb centres of "top engineering talent" despite the products released by such continually demonstrating otherwise Generally “dissonance between” should be used in the form “dissonance between a and b” however here it’s used ”dissonance between a, despite b”. You can understand what the author meant, but it’s not proper use of English. “Such” is probably inappropriate here. “Them” would be a better choice, “those companies” better still. A better tweet, grammatically, might be: I’m struck by dissonance whenever I hear FAANG companies referred to as “centers of top engineer talent.” The superlatives clash with my personal negative experiences; their products feel like rather low-quality work, not paragons.
nebulous_two 5y ago
You're missing the point. The engineers might be great but the incentives are all wrong. Engineers from those.companies aren't specialized in making software that improves peoples' lives. They are specialized in making software that makes money. These tweets call out what that end result looks like from organizational and technical perspectives. People confound money-making with good engineering. "Good" is where people disagree. The tweeter is taking good as "good" for the consumers. Orgs make "good" mean "makes more money".

netizen-936824 5y ago

The only grammar mistake I noticed was not capitalizing "i" I may have missed the others, are there any you can point out to me?

runnerup 5y ago
It’s generally trivial to find a large number of grammatical improvements for anyones writing. In this case, the first tweet: > i will never get over the dissonance between how we call google/twitter/fb centres of "top engineering talent" despite the products released by such continually demonstrating otherwise Generally “dissonance between” should be used in the form “dissonance between a and b” however here it’s used ”dissonance between a, despite b”. You can understand what the author meant, but it’s not proper use of English. “Such” is probably inappropriate here. “Them” would be a better choice, “those companies” better still. A better tweet, grammatically, might be: I’m struck by dissonance whenever I hear FAANG companies referred to as “centers of top engineer talent.” The superlatives clash with my personal negative experiences; their products feel like rather low-quality work, not paragons.

nebulous_two 5y ago

You're missing the point. The engineers might be great but the incentives are all wrong. Engineers from those.companies aren't specialized in making software that improves peoples' lives. They are specialized in making software that makes money. These tweets call out what that end result looks like from organizational and technical perspectives. People confound money-making with good engineering. "Good" is where people disagree. The tweeter is taking good as "good" for the consumers. Orgs make "good" mean "makes more money".