3 ms·

> After I picked my jaw up off the floor I realized I simply lacked the scruples I'd need to be "one of them." This is the reason why I always tell young engin

> After I picked my jaw up off the floor I realized I simply lacked the scruples I'd need to be "one of them." This is the reason why I always tell young engineers to treat companies with utmost business-only mentality. It's not that all managers are bad. It's that the company rewards psychopathic behaviors - that aren't easily apparent to humble people. Companies are merely out there squeezing and exploring employees. Employees should feel free to return the favor. In short, Fuck the corporations. They fired the first shot.

dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
> that aren't easily apparent to humble people. This is indeed a major problem. The stereotypical engineers is such a humble personality. A kind of almost idiot-savant syndrome.
antimemetics 2y ago
Corporations are a form of “slow” AI - this is literally a war against the machines
bruce511 2y ago
Unfortunately the word "company" encompasses hundreds of millions of entities, of enormously different cultures, attitudes, ethics and so on. Personally, I think behavior does (and likely has to) evolve with size. Unfortunately bigger tends to be worse. Culture is also primarily a top-down flow. I'd the CEO is a screamer expect screamers all the way down and so on. Of course there are companies, too many of them, that behave badly. There are too many people who treat other people as nameless, expendable and exploitable. There are also many others, the ones that don't make the juicy comments on reddit, which behave well, treat people as people, and so on. Treating your work-place as a hostile environment can be emotionally and mentally draining. It can be counter-productive if the environment desires to support you. Equally, if your environment is hostile then at least be looking elsewhere. Not all companies are created the same so there are likely better options elsewhere (although getting those posts is harder because people tend not to leave.) Your advice rings true for many companies. But people stay in those places because they believe everywhere is the same. So a more nuanced advice might be to understand the culture and behavior where you work and decide if that's a culture you want to assimilate, and support, long term or not. For the record, the place where I work has never expected anyone to do emails etc out-of-hours and you'd be laughed at if you suggested people should behave otherwise.
- steelframe 2y ago
  I wonder how much of a thing "long-term culture" really is in the tech industry. The culture at Google in the year 2024 looks very different from the culture at Google in 2010. In many ways the culture at Microsoft in 2024 is radically different from the culture at Microsoft in 2001. I do agree with the notion that company culture trickles down from the CEO over time. So that suggests that company culture can shift as CEOs come and go. Another factor that can impact culture include market pressure. I can say with some confidence that the relentless squeeze that shareholders put on operating costs undeniably has a direct impact on practices and policies that govern the quality of the average employee's experience at work.
- consteval 2y ago
  I disagree. The fundamental idea of a company causes this behavior. They, the company, actually doesn't have a choice. You have to turn a profit and the only way to achieve that is exploitation. You have to take labor and pay less than it's worth and pocket the difference. There's no way around it. You might say "well you can be less exploitative" - but not really. Because you ALSO have to thrive in your market. Even if you are an angel sent from God to save corporate America, your competition isn't. They lie, they cheat, they steal. If you don't you're a sucker, and it's only a matter of time until your company goes under. Because consumers will choose the cheaper option almost every time. And they don't actually know much about the company, they only know advertising. And they don't know much about the product either, because products are complex. Even domain-specific products, like, say, medical equipment - the buyers don't know shit. They know what the product should do, but do they know the materials are reliable? Do they know the power system is reliable? Do they know the software is written in a memory-safe manor? No, they don't. So you lie (advertise). And you steal (pay your employees a low wage). And you cheat (use capital to undercut competitors, sometimes selling at a loss in new markets). And if you say no, then you will be replaced by someone who does. Nobody has any choice in this system.
  - nine_zeros 2y ago
    > Because consumers will choose the cheaper option almost every time. Largely true - but the key word is "almost". > You have to turn a profit and the only way to achieve that is exploitation. You have to take labor and pay less than it's worth and pocket the difference. There's no way around it. But this is NOT the only way to achieve lower prices. Lower prices can be achieved by simple things like keeping your employee turnover at a minimum, not going through rounds and rounds of layoff+hiring cycles, not wasting time on "performance reviews" and other BS management activities - and generally treating employees and customers as an asset. This is automatic cost savings that can be passed down to the customers. Do you know why customers are willing to pay higher prices at Trader Joes? It is because the store is always staffed, clean, and full of inventory with happy employees. There is clearly a higher quality way of winning. The factory-style squeeze and replace seems rather naive and stupid from a branding and long term return perspective.

dennis_jeeves2 2y ago

> that aren't easily apparent to humble people. This is indeed a major problem. The stereotypical engineers is such a humble personality. A kind of almost idiot-savant syndrome.

antimemetics 2y ago

Corporations are a form of “slow” AI - this is literally a war against the machines

bruce511 2y ago

Unfortunately the word "company" encompasses hundreds of millions of entities, of enormously different cultures, attitudes, ethics and so on. Personally, I think behavior does (and likely has to) evolve with size. Unfortunately bigger tends to be worse. Culture is also primarily a top-down flow. I'd the CEO is a screamer expect screamers all the way down and so on. Of course there are companies, too many of them, that behave badly. There are too many people who treat other people as nameless, expendable and exploitable. There are also many others, the ones that don't make the juicy comments on reddit, which behave well, treat people as people, and so on. Treating your work-place as a hostile environment can be emotionally and mentally draining. It can be counter-productive if the environment desires to support you. Equally, if your environment is hostile then at least be looking elsewhere. Not all companies are created the same so there are likely better options elsewhere (although getting those posts is harder because people tend not to leave.) Your advice rings true for many companies. But people stay in those places because they believe everywhere is the same. So a more nuanced advice might be to understand the culture and behavior where you work and decide if that's a culture you want to assimilate, and support, long term or not. For the record, the place where I work has never expected anyone to do emails etc out-of-hours and you'd be laughed at if you suggested people should behave otherwise.

steelframe 2y ago
I wonder how much of a thing "long-term culture" really is in the tech industry. The culture at Google in the year 2024 looks very different from the culture at Google in 2010. In many ways the culture at Microsoft in 2024 is radically different from the culture at Microsoft in 2001. I do agree with the notion that company culture trickles down from the CEO over time. So that suggests that company culture can shift as CEOs come and go. Another factor that can impact culture include market pressure. I can say with some confidence that the relentless squeeze that shareholders put on operating costs undeniably has a direct impact on practices and policies that govern the quality of the average employee's experience at work.
consteval 2y ago
I disagree. The fundamental idea of a company causes this behavior. They, the company, actually doesn't have a choice. You have to turn a profit and the only way to achieve that is exploitation. You have to take labor and pay less than it's worth and pocket the difference. There's no way around it. You might say "well you can be less exploitative" - but not really. Because you ALSO have to thrive in your market. Even if you are an angel sent from God to save corporate America, your competition isn't. They lie, they cheat, they steal. If you don't you're a sucker, and it's only a matter of time until your company goes under. Because consumers will choose the cheaper option almost every time. And they don't actually know much about the company, they only know advertising. And they don't know much about the product either, because products are complex. Even domain-specific products, like, say, medical equipment - the buyers don't know shit. They know what the product should do, but do they know the materials are reliable? Do they know the power system is reliable? Do they know the software is written in a memory-safe manor? No, they don't. So you lie (advertise). And you steal (pay your employees a low wage). And you cheat (use capital to undercut competitors, sometimes selling at a loss in new markets). And if you say no, then you will be replaced by someone who does. Nobody has any choice in this system.
- nine_zeros 2y ago
  > Because consumers will choose the cheaper option almost every time. Largely true - but the key word is "almost". > You have to turn a profit and the only way to achieve that is exploitation. You have to take labor and pay less than it's worth and pocket the difference. There's no way around it. But this is NOT the only way to achieve lower prices. Lower prices can be achieved by simple things like keeping your employee turnover at a minimum, not going through rounds and rounds of layoff+hiring cycles, not wasting time on "performance reviews" and other BS management activities - and generally treating employees and customers as an asset. This is automatic cost savings that can be passed down to the customers. Do you know why customers are willing to pay higher prices at Trader Joes? It is because the store is always staffed, clean, and full of inventory with happy employees. There is clearly a higher quality way of winning. The factory-style squeeze and replace seems rather naive and stupid from a branding and long term return perspective.