3 ms·

A lot of programmers don't realize that there's a difference between <building an application> and <ensuring that the actors that make up the global economy gen

A lot of programmers don't realize that there's a difference between <building an application> and <ensuring that the actors that make up the global economy generate predictable returns on investments in order to grow stock-based compensation for shareholders>. All of the bizarre decisions by higher-ups--red tape, bad hiring, conflicting goals, ridiculous security policies--it all boils down to "what do we report on the financials, and how can we manipulate investors to continue to buy and hold"? It doesn't even matter what's actually profitable, just what's perceived as increasing real or potential share values by the actors in the market.

mech422 4y ago
That seems to assume organizations are 'rational actors'... Which sadly is the minority of organizations I've worked for. The premise ignores the layers of people in-between the 'C' levels trying to get that return, and the engineers trying to build stuff. It seems lots of these people are mostly interested in politicking and justifying their position. (which I think accounts for some of the WFH resistance. If people can get stuff done with less supervision, it might lead to less managers :-P )
- quacked 4y ago
  I've never met an organization staffed with rational actors that had more than like 8 people in it, so you're not wrong. I think what I'm getting is that ultimately every edict that flows downward into the layers of management and engineers is centered around increasing perceived profit for shareholders. Any department, project, etc. at large enough organizations was ultimately greenlit for the sake of possibly making more money (not for improving the product at a cost to the company or improving society, etc.)
  - mech422 4y ago
    >> I've never met an organization staffed with rational actors that had more than like 8 people in it, so you're not wrong. LOL - I like that, I'm stealing that line :-) I disagree with 'was ultimately greenlit...'. Seems like quite a lot of them are greenlit to improve someone's political position within the organization. (often, despite being told it will be a net negative for the organization as a whole) Things like 'use it or lose it' budgeting, compensation tied to headcount (and not value generated), etc. cause real conflicts of interest at many organizations. Anyway - thanks for the chuckle - I really love the 'rational actors' line :-) (hopefully, I'm one of the 8 ? :-D )
    - quacked 4y ago
      Oh--I see what you're getting at. Yeah, I understand and agree. I'll have to say my point with that caveat in the future. I'm glad you liked my joke!
bookofjoe 4y ago
"Perceived": profound Related, distantly: "The secret to success in the stock market is not predicting which stocks will appreciate but rather anticipating which stocks most investors believe will increase in price." —John Maynard Keynes, who in addition to writing foundational economic texts became rich as a result of astute investments in the stock market

mech422 4y ago

That seems to assume organizations are 'rational actors'... Which sadly is the minority of organizations I've worked for. The premise ignores the layers of people in-between the 'C' levels trying to get that return, and the engineers trying to build stuff. It seems lots of these people are mostly interested in politicking and justifying their position. (which I think accounts for some of the WFH resistance. If people can get stuff done with less supervision, it might lead to less managers :-P )

quacked 4y ago
I've never met an organization staffed with rational actors that had more than like 8 people in it, so you're not wrong. I think what I'm getting is that ultimately every edict that flows downward into the layers of management and engineers is centered around increasing perceived profit for shareholders. Any department, project, etc. at large enough organizations was ultimately greenlit for the sake of possibly making more money (not for improving the product at a cost to the company or improving society, etc.)
- mech422 4y ago
  >> I've never met an organization staffed with rational actors that had more than like 8 people in it, so you're not wrong. LOL - I like that, I'm stealing that line :-) I disagree with 'was ultimately greenlit...'. Seems like quite a lot of them are greenlit to improve someone's political position within the organization. (often, despite being told it will be a net negative for the organization as a whole) Things like 'use it or lose it' budgeting, compensation tied to headcount (and not value generated), etc. cause real conflicts of interest at many organizations. Anyway - thanks for the chuckle - I really love the 'rational actors' line :-) (hopefully, I'm one of the 8 ? :-D )
  - quacked 4y ago
    Oh--I see what you're getting at. Yeah, I understand and agree. I'll have to say my point with that caveat in the future. I'm glad you liked my joke!

bookofjoe 4y ago

"Perceived": profound Related, distantly: "The secret to success in the stock market is not predicting which stocks will appreciate but rather anticipating which stocks most investors believe will increase in price." —John Maynard Keynes, who in addition to writing foundational economic texts became rich as a result of astute investments in the stock market