4 ms·

The irony being that it's software that's allowed the massive expansion of bullshitisation and the transformation of society into performative simulation of hum

The irony being that it's software that's allowed the massive expansion of bullshitisation and the transformation of society into performative simulation of human life. (this isn't an objection/rant to your post, it's just an opportune point to reply on how this relates to software quality) There are people in the world that create things. Then there are people in the world that take those things, and figure out how to make money. Then they seek to direct those who create. They take software and turn it to inappropriate ends, misuse it, abuse it, make it a panacea, a weapon, then a crutch. They build whole cities and societies around things they neither understand nor appreciate the origins of. And we let them. We build doll houses. They rent them out to a real family. It isn't that software cannot be engineering, but to make it so we'd have to change a whole stack of human relations and the world doesn't seem ready for that. I studied software engineering at the end of my CSEE degree and in 30 years, in all but a few medical/military applications where ISO documents properly govern _what_ is used, and _how_ it's used (not who makes it) I've been laughed at for even suggesting the principles I learned in software engineering. Software is still an experimental rocket burning fuel as fast it can to achieve escape velocity. There is not enough space in a short post to express how ridiculously I think the "software industry" is structured, but the solution is not regulation, which will make almost everything worse and kill innovation stone-dead. The solution lies with us. When programmers have ethics and courage, enough to say "no", it will make a vast difference.

Dracophoenix 5y ago
>The solution lies with us. When programmers have ethics and courage, enough to say "no", it will make a vast difference. In the context of your statement, how are you defining "ethics"? One could argue that it's completely ethical to trade one's information or skills on a subject to the highest bidder. That's how a job works. What someone does with a knife or book doesn't concern a storekeeper after the purchase. Absent any evidence of one's rights being violated, what does it matter what another person chooses to do after one has been compensated? He has his life and you have yours. >They take software and turn it to inappropriate ends, misuse it, abuse it, make it a panacea, a weapon, then a crutch. They build whole cities and societies around things they neither understand nor appreciate the origins of. In this context, who is or should be the arbiter of "inappropriate", "misuse", "abuse", etc. ? I agree with you that many people don't understand the totality or consequences of what they purchase. But is that to be held against them as evidence of "unworthiness" or that they must patronized?
- nonrandomstring 5y ago
  > In the context of your statement, how are you defining "ethics"? One could argue that it's completely ethical... Really glad you asked that Dracophoenix! :) Indeed, it's such an interesting and extensive topic that I am writing a book (aprox. 500pp) on it. You will be able to read it in a few months. Meanwhile have a look at this one [1] which lightly touches on some of the issues that intersect ethics and code. Cheers. https://digitalvegan.net https://digitalvegan.net

Dracophoenix 5y ago

>The solution lies with us. When programmers have ethics and courage, enough to say "no", it will make a vast difference. In the context of your statement, how are you defining "ethics"? One could argue that it's completely ethical to trade one's information or skills on a subject to the highest bidder. That's how a job works. What someone does with a knife or book doesn't concern a storekeeper after the purchase. Absent any evidence of one's rights being violated, what does it matter what another person chooses to do after one has been compensated? He has his life and you have yours. >They take software and turn it to inappropriate ends, misuse it, abuse it, make it a panacea, a weapon, then a crutch. They build whole cities and societies around things they neither understand nor appreciate the origins of. In this context, who is or should be the arbiter of "inappropriate", "misuse", "abuse", etc. ? I agree with you that many people don't understand the totality or consequences of what they purchase. But is that to be held against them as evidence of "unworthiness" or that they must patronized?

nonrandomstring 5y ago
> In the context of your statement, how are you defining "ethics"? One could argue that it's completely ethical... Really glad you asked that Dracophoenix! :) Indeed, it's such an interesting and extensive topic that I am writing a book (aprox. 500pp) on it. You will be able to read it in a few months. Meanwhile have a look at this one [1] which lightly touches on some of the issues that intersect ethics and code. Cheers. https://digitalvegan.net https://digitalvegan.net