4 ms·

It was sarcasm yes, but engineers are not paid to think. They are paid to do work (which may involve thinking) toward a given goal decided by the executives. P

It was sarcasm yes, but engineers are not paid to think. They are paid to do work (which may involve thinking) toward a given goal decided by the executives. People are regularly faced with such situations (with both small and large stakes) and all three of those choices are taken by different people. We know that 1. happens because controversial stuff still gets made. 2. happens because we hear about it in the media. And 3. I assume happens as well. But in the end the company can always find new people that choose 1. "Do it or I'll find someone who will." is both true and powerful. If you quit you lose your livelihood and potentially could be blacklisted from the industry, and yet the bad thing still happens anyway.

atmavatar 3y ago
> "Do it or I'll find someone who will." is both true and powerful. If you quit you lose your livelihood and potentially could be blacklisted from the industry, and yet the bad thing still happens anyway. That's merely a rationalization to remain a member of group 1. The truth is that 2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive, and together, they can and do occasionally prevent "bad thing" from happening. In some cases, it's because group 1 is small enough that the company cannot hire a toady to do "bad thing" in time to retain their contract for doing so. It may also be because the combination of external publicity coupled with a high-profile resignation is enough of a PR hit that the company reconsiders. There's another element to consider: other, unrelated teams within the company who catch wind of "bad thing" can also opt for 2 and/or 3, further disincentivizing the company and perhaps even its competitors from proceeding, as losing a leading team in a highly-contested market segment could mean ceding significant ground to a competitor. Granted, such moral stands don't affect change as often as one might like, but parroting "bad thing will always happen regardless what you try" everywhere certainly doesn't help things.
red-iron-pine 3y ago
no engineers are paid to think. that's why they're not technicians. and it's why they usually have to have a decent amount of education -- which usually includes ethics -- and in many cases (like civil or mechanical engineers) have to have a formal certification from a governing body. programming doesn't have that, but probably should. regardless, it's a knowledge field, not a fork-and-spoon operator gig. > "Do it or I'll find someone who will." is both true and powerful. it's only powerful when there are high salaries attached. most people would swallow their objections for a steady 300k/yr

atmavatar 3y ago

> "Do it or I'll find someone who will." is both true and powerful. If you quit you lose your livelihood and potentially could be blacklisted from the industry, and yet the bad thing still happens anyway. That's merely a rationalization to remain a member of group 1. The truth is that 2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive, and together, they can and do occasionally prevent "bad thing" from happening. In some cases, it's because group 1 is small enough that the company cannot hire a toady to do "bad thing" in time to retain their contract for doing so. It may also be because the combination of external publicity coupled with a high-profile resignation is enough of a PR hit that the company reconsiders. There's another element to consider: other, unrelated teams within the company who catch wind of "bad thing" can also opt for 2 and/or 3, further disincentivizing the company and perhaps even its competitors from proceeding, as losing a leading team in a highly-contested market segment could mean ceding significant ground to a competitor. Granted, such moral stands don't affect change as often as one might like, but parroting "bad thing will always happen regardless what you try" everywhere certainly doesn't help things.

red-iron-pine 3y ago

no engineers are paid to think. that's why they're not technicians. and it's why they usually have to have a decent amount of education -- which usually includes ethics -- and in many cases (like civil or mechanical engineers) have to have a formal certification from a governing body. programming doesn't have that, but probably should. regardless, it's a knowledge field, not a fork-and-spoon operator gig. > "Do it or I'll find someone who will." is both true and powerful. it's only powerful when there are high salaries attached. most people would swallow their objections for a steady 300k/yr