5 ms·

>These days it feels a bit like another well known toxic field, finance, in that people conflate an outsized leverage for personal valor. Didn't we pass the ru

by lovich 2y ago

>These days it feels a bit like another well known toxic field, finance, in that people conflate an outsized leverage for personal valor. Didn't we pass the rubicon on that in the early 2010s? I personally don't feel that its "like" finance but that its the exact same behaviors from the exact same set of people. Once tech stopped being a bunch of nerds in a basement and started being a source of wealth and power, it attracted a whole slew of intelligent and wealth seeking individuals who would have gone to wall street previously. Its not like the math skills don't have a heavy overlap already. And well, now that they're here, we see all the same power games being played with the same results

ambicapter 2y ago
I don't think it "attracted" a certain kind of people, I think the people who were already in tech just became more wealthy and powerful, and that, predictably, brought out the worst in some. The worst qualities of "tech" people can be conflated but I think have a different flavor than the worst qualities of "finance" people. It's really just the same obnoxious behavior you can spot in young tech people. Some people grow out of it, and some people earn a ton of money and so have no reason to grow out of anything (not that you can't make money AND grow out of it, but there's less outside pressure to do so).
- grandempire 2y ago
  It absolutely attracted different people. The inflows are much larger and not the same. For example EE used to be prestige and CS was the backup. And that would never compare to finance or law.
  - yubblegum 2y ago
    Yes but imo this change happened no later than late 90s. I distinctly remember how suddenly it became cool to be a programmer and the 'new type' was already making changes by early '00s. And yes, the $s attracted smart people who did not embody the old hacker ethos. These are the new bloods that gifted us with surveillance tech, btw.
    - chasd00 2y ago
      “Call 1-800 beageek”. Remember that commercial? That was around the time software dev went mainstream, late 90s iirc.
      - grandempire 2y ago
        Mainstream is different than upper middle class and ambitious.
    - blendo 2y ago
      Back in the 90s, they were the “suits”. Andreessen, Scott McNealy, & Ellison were, to me, the ones that left a particularly bad taste.
- only-one1701 2y ago
  It's a "yes and" situation. You're completely correct that people who were already in tech just became more wealthy, but there's no question that in the mid to late teens (in particular), tech fundamentally became, for many, about $$$. There was a huge migration of people who couldn't write code from NY to SF in a "there's gold in them thar hills" kind of way. Now the people entering the industry by and large see it as a game of wealth acquisition similar to finance or big law, and big tech is adapting in a similar way -- high salaries, insanely bad wlb, politics far exceeding any other skill as a determiner of career progression.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
    Same kind of thing happened in the early 2000's, when the Web suddenly took off. For a while, if you knew how to type into a text editor, you were hired as a "webmaster." Lots of people made a lot of money, writing awful stuff. If there's money to be made, people will pour in. They aren't necessarily bad folks, and many of them are skilled, and willing to work hard, so the trope of "thousands of terrible engineers" is maybe not that accurate. However, I kind of despair at the management skills of the folks that run the teams, and the decision-makers that set the bar. But the story is correct. Teams need cohesion, a lot more than rockstars. We can do together, what I can't do alone.
- lovich 2y ago
  The behavior you're describing definitely happened but what I'm describing did as well. At some point the wheeling and dealing, snake oil, corporate backstabby like people that many associate with finance were actually high schoolers at some point who had to pick where they went in life. The ones who only care about wealth and power, only care about wealth and power, so if software was a good route to that theyll put on their software face and do that job. Before software made a lot of money for people, finance was the default
- awesome_dude 2y ago
  Yeah - this is a bit like "competition brings out the best in people" when the reality is that it also brings out the worst in people
- swatcoder 2y ago
  No, the field grew tremendously and you can see a clear generational bias -- by years of experience, not age -- where the cohort from the last 10-15 years has a completely different understanding of what the craft is [software engineering vs business development] and how to approach it [optimal solution vs soonest deliverable]. You can also trace personal backgrounds and you'll see a much higher representation in the newer cohort coming from upper middle class backgrounds with families in careers like finance, consulting, medicine/dentistry whereas more in the older cohort came from more modest middle class backgrounds in engineering, academia, or even working class trades. Of course, there were always some of all of these people in the industry, but the balance shifted dramatically during the last couple booms, tracking the atypically high compensation standards set by FAANG's since 2010 or so.
  - Swizec 2y ago
    Speaking as an old school basement nerd (coding since middle school, 90’s): If I can do cool things with code _and_ get paid, I’m gonna go do that. Business constraints make it feel much more interesting than writing code in a vacuum. Also money is nice.
    - Aeolun 2y ago
      > Business constraints make it feel much more interesting than writing code in a vacuum. You never write code in a vacuum do you? You always have some kind of goal.
      - nicoburns 2y ago
        I should hope not. Even if your body could withstand the low pressure, you'd suffocate very quickly.
      - Swizec 2y ago
        I don’t know dude, this one time I wrote a LOLCODE compiler into a Babel macro. https://swizec.com/blog/lolcodetojavascript-compiler-babel-macro/ https://swizec.com/blog/lolcodetojavascript-compiler-babel-m... It was pretty fun. Also this other time I wrote a nodejs script to keep my computer at a specific temperature because our office fridge kept freezing my carrots. https://swizec.com/blog/i-built-a-node-app-to-thaw-my-favorite-snack/ https://swizec.com/blog/i-built-a-node-app-to-thaw-my-favori...
- asdff 2y ago
  People in the trades relatively speaking in the midwest are easily far more wealthy than engineers in the bay area, and they have no such delusions of grandeur seemingly. They seem to understand that an electrician is an electrician and an engineer is fungible. That is why many of these engineers are unionized as well because they understand labor is replaceable and needs to advocate for itself. The coasts have much to learn from the corn lands it seems despite the prevailing narrative being the opposite.
  - vineyardmike 2y ago
    1. The data absolutely does not show that midwestern tradesmen are wealthier than Bay Area engineers. 2. I agree that unions are useful, and you’re starting to see them (eg Alphabet Workers Union). There is definitely opportunity here. 3. I think your visions of non-grandeur are blinding you to the possibilities that others live life and advocate for themselves differently, without it being wrong. Sometimes change is ok and sometimes people being different from you and your beliefs is ok. While I do think unions are important, Silicon Valley engineers are responding in-kind to their fungibility. It’s pretty common to see people jump around every few years, chasing opportunities instead of loyalty. Usually collecting a pay bump. It’s generally not looked down upon in hiring, because it’s increasingly normal, and the extra pay and corresponding savings protects against periods of unemployment. Regardless of people’s thoughts on the practice, “resume driven development” grew as a reaction to the fungibility - forcing their own self-growth upon a disloyal employer. Big urban areas with lots of job opportunities are difference employment environments, and employee’s actions of self protection evolved differently. Is there room for learning? Always. But this entire comment seems to pass judgement upon a world that frankly doesn’t exist. As a Bay Area resident who once lived in the Midwest, I can confidently say that people on the coast don’t have such a negative view of “corn lands” - this narrative is very much self imposed.
    - asdff 2y ago
      The data does show that if you look at what cost of living is buying you in the midwest versus the bay. New construction large homes on large lots are in reach. Multiple vehicles are in reach. Everything is in reach after that. I'm sorry but the housing stock in the bay is just poor quality for what it is. The lots are tiny barely larger than the home. The home is small. The bedrooms are small. Most you can do is tear out the old chicken wire and plaster building and build a big ugly modern glass/cement box to the edges of the property line and even then you are slumming it in terms of space to what you'd have in the midwest. You want actual property, with some setbacking from your neigbors, and still convenient to things, its just not really available even if you had the money. Like those homes on pinehill or robin road in san mateo would be the caliber i'm talking about you can buy as a tradie in the midwest, in terms of setback and square footage, even finishes too for that matter. and that land in the midwest will actually be relatively flat and probably cleared out for you vs it being a home tucked in high slope chaparral you might technically own but can't really do anything with like build outlaying buildings. You could have an indoor pool in a detached building. You could keep horses. You could have a 6 car garage. All the upgrades from the builder too. All for a song in comparison to a home a fraction of all that in the bay. I mean just start looking on zillow between these sorts of homes in say indiana or ohio and it is absurd the difference in cost of living. How much you'd have to pay to rent a tiny old boat on lake tahoe for the day vs buying a boat outright and even paying to winterize and store it in a yacht club on a great lake. SF country club fees vs midwest, literally exclusive fuck you old money rates vs only a couple thousand initiation fee for the same sort of course conditions and probably a nicer appointed newer constructed clubhouse in the midwest. Same is true for the private schools too, the nicest ones nationally recognized in the area can only charge so much because there's just so many people with kids and wealth in the private school market so they aren't absolutely stupid like in the bay. Even the public schools go up to bat with those in some districts. I don't think "the data" you might cite are considering all of these factors of the lived experience. Maybe one or two economic indicators but not how life actually plays out with even the half dozen or so things I've laid out above.
rsanek 2y ago
>Once tech [...] started being a source of wealth and power this happened "in the early 2010s"? I don't think so. Software engineers have no power, and in comparison to finance, quite limited wealth.
- golergka 2y ago
  Out of 10 richest people of the world, 8 have background in software engineering. Musk, Zuck, Bezos, Ellison, Gates, Page, Brin, Ballmer. Only Buffet and Arnault are exceptions.
  - sesm 2y ago
    They are not richest people though, they are biggest public shareholders. Real wealth is always well-hidden.
    - RUnconcerned 2y ago
      The idea that these centibillionaires do not have "real wealth" is beyond absurd
  - cafard 2y ago
    Ballmer has a background in working for a software company. Did he ever actually work in software as such?
    - psunavy03 2y ago
      Pretty sure he was explicitly brought on by Gates and Allen because he was a non-technical MBA type, and Microsoft had grown to the point where they needed one of those. Sort of tracks with the Welchian bullshit he seems to have supported as CEO.
- lovich 2y ago
  Despite where they are now, the FAANG founders could sling some amount of code back in the day. I have no doubt they would fail their current interview cycle for engineers if they tried it under a pseudonym, they were considered software engineers when they started their companies and that cohort is now in charge of a double digit percentage of the planets wealth. If you think software engineers have no power and limited wealth compared to finance then I can only imagine you are not a software engineer are are downplaying the amount of power the class has absorbed, or we fundamentally disagree on what a software engineer is
ozim 2y ago
Oh stop narrating like nerds in a basement are cuddly lovable bunch. Amount of toxic behavior in nerdy groups is just as high as finance. Every single one just thinks how smart he is and how to one up the other. Technical interviews were always bad even before 2010 as there was loads of gatekeeping anyway.
- djfivyvusn 2y ago
  Yup, this idea that we're in a unique industry or that our industry is any different to any other career path is very toxic. Accountants have the same bullshit memes we do.
- DanielHB 2y ago
  Remember programming language quizzes? I kinda miss those, if you are testing for knowledge they have more value than leetcode
hinkley 2y ago
The story is that the reason Boeing got eaten by McDonnell Douglas is because the MD execs were meaner than the Boeing execs and they used their sharp elbows to take over a company that was objectively doing better than they were. And it started showing signs of unravelling on the first airplane they built under the new regime and has only gotten worse since. The 787 did something Boeing vowed they would never ever do. They let Mitsubishi build the wings of the 787. They’ve never let a supplier do that. The wings are the heart of the airplane. I am completely amazed that Mitsubishi never progressed past commuter jets after that project (and I believe they shut that division down about 5-10 years ago). Just unfathomably dumb. I don’t know what we in software need to learn from this. I don’t think being meaner makes anything better, but maybe more assertive is the answer.

by lovich 2y ago

ambicapter 2y ago

I don't think it "attracted" a certain kind of people, I think the people who were already in tech just became more wealthy and powerful, and that, predictably, brought out the worst in some. The worst qualities of "tech" people can be conflated but I think have a different flavor than the worst qualities of "finance" people. It's really just the same obnoxious behavior you can spot in young tech people. Some people grow out of it, and some people earn a ton of money and so have no reason to grow out of anything (not that you can't make money AND grow out of it, but there's less outside pressure to do so).

grandempire 2y ago
It absolutely attracted different people. The inflows are much larger and not the same. For example EE used to be prestige and CS was the backup. And that would never compare to finance or law.
- yubblegum 2y ago
  Yes but imo this change happened no later than late 90s. I distinctly remember how suddenly it became cool to be a programmer and the 'new type' was already making changes by early '00s. And yes, the $s attracted smart people who did not embody the old hacker ethos. These are the new bloods that gifted us with surveillance tech, btw.
  - chasd00 2y ago
    “Call 1-800 beageek”. Remember that commercial? That was around the time software dev went mainstream, late 90s iirc.
    - grandempire 2y ago
      Mainstream is different than upper middle class and ambitious.
  - blendo 2y ago
    Back in the 90s, they were the “suits”. Andreessen, Scott McNealy, & Ellison were, to me, the ones that left a particularly bad taste.
only-one1701 2y ago
It's a "yes and" situation. You're completely correct that people who were already in tech just became more wealthy, but there's no question that in the mid to late teens (in particular), tech fundamentally became, for many, about $$$. There was a huge migration of people who couldn't write code from NY to SF in a "there's gold in them thar hills" kind of way. Now the people entering the industry by and large see it as a game of wealth acquisition similar to finance or big law, and big tech is adapting in a similar way -- high salaries, insanely bad wlb, politics far exceeding any other skill as a determiner of career progression.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
  Same kind of thing happened in the early 2000's, when the Web suddenly took off. For a while, if you knew how to type into a text editor, you were hired as a "webmaster." Lots of people made a lot of money, writing awful stuff. If there's money to be made, people will pour in. They aren't necessarily bad folks, and many of them are skilled, and willing to work hard, so the trope of "thousands of terrible engineers" is maybe not that accurate. However, I kind of despair at the management skills of the folks that run the teams, and the decision-makers that set the bar. But the story is correct. Teams need cohesion, a lot more than rockstars. We can do together, what I can't do alone.
lovich 2y ago
The behavior you're describing definitely happened but what I'm describing did as well. At some point the wheeling and dealing, snake oil, corporate backstabby like people that many associate with finance were actually high schoolers at some point who had to pick where they went in life. The ones who only care about wealth and power, only care about wealth and power, so if software was a good route to that theyll put on their software face and do that job. Before software made a lot of money for people, finance was the default
awesome_dude 2y ago
Yeah - this is a bit like "competition brings out the best in people" when the reality is that it also brings out the worst in people
swatcoder 2y ago
No, the field grew tremendously and you can see a clear generational bias -- by years of experience, not age -- where the cohort from the last 10-15 years has a completely different understanding of what the craft is [software engineering vs business development] and how to approach it [optimal solution vs soonest deliverable]. You can also trace personal backgrounds and you'll see a much higher representation in the newer cohort coming from upper middle class backgrounds with families in careers like finance, consulting, medicine/dentistry whereas more in the older cohort came from more modest middle class backgrounds in engineering, academia, or even working class trades. Of course, there were always some of all of these people in the industry, but the balance shifted dramatically during the last couple booms, tracking the atypically high compensation standards set by FAANG's since 2010 or so.
- Swizec 2y ago
  Speaking as an old school basement nerd (coding since middle school, 90’s): If I can do cool things with code _and_ get paid, I’m gonna go do that. Business constraints make it feel much more interesting than writing code in a vacuum. Also money is nice.
  - Aeolun 2y ago
    > Business constraints make it feel much more interesting than writing code in a vacuum. You never write code in a vacuum do you? You always have some kind of goal.
    - nicoburns 2y ago
      I should hope not. Even if your body could withstand the low pressure, you'd suffocate very quickly.
    - Swizec 2y ago
      I don’t know dude, this one time I wrote a LOLCODE compiler into a Babel macro. https://swizec.com/blog/lolcodetojavascript-compiler-babel-macro/ https://swizec.com/blog/lolcodetojavascript-compiler-babel-m... It was pretty fun. Also this other time I wrote a nodejs script to keep my computer at a specific temperature because our office fridge kept freezing my carrots. https://swizec.com/blog/i-built-a-node-app-to-thaw-my-favorite-snack/ https://swizec.com/blog/i-built-a-node-app-to-thaw-my-favori...
asdff 2y ago
People in the trades relatively speaking in the midwest are easily far more wealthy than engineers in the bay area, and they have no such delusions of grandeur seemingly. They seem to understand that an electrician is an electrician and an engineer is fungible. That is why many of these engineers are unionized as well because they understand labor is replaceable and needs to advocate for itself. The coasts have much to learn from the corn lands it seems despite the prevailing narrative being the opposite.
- vineyardmike 2y ago
  1. The data absolutely does not show that midwestern tradesmen are wealthier than Bay Area engineers. 2. I agree that unions are useful, and you’re starting to see them (eg Alphabet Workers Union). There is definitely opportunity here. 3. I think your visions of non-grandeur are blinding you to the possibilities that others live life and advocate for themselves differently, without it being wrong. Sometimes change is ok and sometimes people being different from you and your beliefs is ok. While I do think unions are important, Silicon Valley engineers are responding in-kind to their fungibility. It’s pretty common to see people jump around every few years, chasing opportunities instead of loyalty. Usually collecting a pay bump. It’s generally not looked down upon in hiring, because it’s increasingly normal, and the extra pay and corresponding savings protects against periods of unemployment. Regardless of people’s thoughts on the practice, “resume driven development” grew as a reaction to the fungibility - forcing their own self-growth upon a disloyal employer. Big urban areas with lots of job opportunities are difference employment environments, and employee’s actions of self protection evolved differently. Is there room for learning? Always. But this entire comment seems to pass judgement upon a world that frankly doesn’t exist. As a Bay Area resident who once lived in the Midwest, I can confidently say that people on the coast don’t have such a negative view of “corn lands” - this narrative is very much self imposed.
  - asdff 2y ago
    The data does show that if you look at what cost of living is buying you in the midwest versus the bay. New construction large homes on large lots are in reach. Multiple vehicles are in reach. Everything is in reach after that. I'm sorry but the housing stock in the bay is just poor quality for what it is. The lots are tiny barely larger than the home. The home is small. The bedrooms are small. Most you can do is tear out the old chicken wire and plaster building and build a big ugly modern glass/cement box to the edges of the property line and even then you are slumming it in terms of space to what you'd have in the midwest. You want actual property, with some setbacking from your neigbors, and still convenient to things, its just not really available even if you had the money. Like those homes on pinehill or robin road in san mateo would be the caliber i'm talking about you can buy as a tradie in the midwest, in terms of setback and square footage, even finishes too for that matter. and that land in the midwest will actually be relatively flat and probably cleared out for you vs it being a home tucked in high slope chaparral you might technically own but can't really do anything with like build outlaying buildings. You could have an indoor pool in a detached building. You could keep horses. You could have a 6 car garage. All the upgrades from the builder too. All for a song in comparison to a home a fraction of all that in the bay. I mean just start looking on zillow between these sorts of homes in say indiana or ohio and it is absurd the difference in cost of living. How much you'd have to pay to rent a tiny old boat on lake tahoe for the day vs buying a boat outright and even paying to winterize and store it in a yacht club on a great lake. SF country club fees vs midwest, literally exclusive fuck you old money rates vs only a couple thousand initiation fee for the same sort of course conditions and probably a nicer appointed newer constructed clubhouse in the midwest. Same is true for the private schools too, the nicest ones nationally recognized in the area can only charge so much because there's just so many people with kids and wealth in the private school market so they aren't absolutely stupid like in the bay. Even the public schools go up to bat with those in some districts. I don't think "the data" you might cite are considering all of these factors of the lived experience. Maybe one or two economic indicators but not how life actually plays out with even the half dozen or so things I've laid out above.

rsanek 2y ago

>Once tech [...] started being a source of wealth and power this happened "in the early 2010s"? I don't think so. Software engineers have no power, and in comparison to finance, quite limited wealth.

golergka 2y ago
Out of 10 richest people of the world, 8 have background in software engineering. Musk, Zuck, Bezos, Ellison, Gates, Page, Brin, Ballmer. Only Buffet and Arnault are exceptions.
- sesm 2y ago
  They are not richest people though, they are biggest public shareholders. Real wealth is always well-hidden.
  - RUnconcerned 2y ago
    The idea that these centibillionaires do not have "real wealth" is beyond absurd
- cafard 2y ago
  Ballmer has a background in working for a software company. Did he ever actually work in software as such?
  - psunavy03 2y ago
    Pretty sure he was explicitly brought on by Gates and Allen because he was a non-technical MBA type, and Microsoft had grown to the point where they needed one of those. Sort of tracks with the Welchian bullshit he seems to have supported as CEO.
lovich 2y ago
Despite where they are now, the FAANG founders could sling some amount of code back in the day. I have no doubt they would fail their current interview cycle for engineers if they tried it under a pseudonym, they were considered software engineers when they started their companies and that cohort is now in charge of a double digit percentage of the planets wealth. If you think software engineers have no power and limited wealth compared to finance then I can only imagine you are not a software engineer are are downplaying the amount of power the class has absorbed, or we fundamentally disagree on what a software engineer is

ozim 2y ago

Oh stop narrating like nerds in a basement are cuddly lovable bunch. Amount of toxic behavior in nerdy groups is just as high as finance. Every single one just thinks how smart he is and how to one up the other. Technical interviews were always bad even before 2010 as there was loads of gatekeeping anyway.

djfivyvusn 2y ago
Yup, this idea that we're in a unique industry or that our industry is any different to any other career path is very toxic. Accountants have the same bullshit memes we do.
DanielHB 2y ago
Remember programming language quizzes? I kinda miss those, if you are testing for knowledge they have more value than leetcode

hinkley 2y ago

The story is that the reason Boeing got eaten by McDonnell Douglas is because the MD execs were meaner than the Boeing execs and they used their sharp elbows to take over a company that was objectively doing better than they were. And it started showing signs of unravelling on the first airplane they built under the new regime and has only gotten worse since. The 787 did something Boeing vowed they would never ever do. They let Mitsubishi build the wings of the 787. They’ve never let a supplier do that. The wings are the heart of the airplane. I am completely amazed that Mitsubishi never progressed past commuter jets after that project (and I believe they shut that division down about 5-10 years ago). Just unfathomably dumb. I don’t know what we in software need to learn from this. I don’t think being meaner makes anything better, but maybe more assertive is the answer.