This resonates, but I think it's overly pessimistic about the knowledge that software engineers collectively have. Actually there's a lot of deep knowledge and

This resonates, but I think it's overly pessimistic about the knowledge that software engineers collectively have. Actually there's a lot of deep knowledge and experience, just not enough to counterbalance the massive volume of people and ideas trying to get things done in the space. To use his example of civil engineering, the reason that's a more solid technical discipline is because the difficulties and consequences are more visible and comprehensible to laymen. People understand it's hard to build the Hoover Dam and the consequences if you fuck up. It's obviously a huge responsibility that is taken seriously, and does not attract dilettantes just looking to get rich. Because projects are expansive, massive and local, there's no scalability principal that favors engineers contribution. The only way to get rich off big construction or civil engineering projects is to run massive companies, because the actual costs are large, and the biggest overall factor in success is good logistics and project management. Software is just a whole different thing because there is no physical locality or even logical locality. Code is trivial to copy and remix in any form, heterogenous executing machines can interact across the network. Goals are arbitrary and can be understood differently by every participant if they even are understood at all. Yet despite this, software can be deployed and made instantly to billions of people at the push of a button. Zombo.com wasn't lying, you really can do anything you want with software. Impact can range from world changing and unequaled wealth to a life spent toiling in obscurity on imaginary sand castles. It's no wonder software is a mess.