4 ms·
I did not think this was what was going on for most of the piece (which is part of why I spent most of it not following WTF it was about) but by the end I think
by alabastervlog 2y ago
I did not think this was what was going on for most of the piece (which is part of why I spent most of it not following WTF it was about) but by the end I think this is accurate: the author's complaint is that scientific and number-y workers from non-computing disciplines aren't paid like SV programmers. (Which, neither are the vast majority of programmers, so, you know...)
Like, I think (it's still not entirely clear to me) that's the actual point. It's made fairly clear (relatively clear—again, still hard to follow, at least for me) toward the end.
- threatofrain 2y agoOn the other side, the lack of the human skills she champions is a boundary often drawn to sieve technical people out of leadership. Her clients seem like extra successful people, so yeah, if she wants to be like them then maybe she's not technical yet. But if she's focusing on the money part then stepping into the business domain is a step above technical.
- alabastervlog 2y agoYeah, I earn well over US median, and just going from evidence in the essay I'm pretty sure the author makes more than I do, but that we both earn less than her sense of "Technical" (US coastal big-tech workers that get programmer-scale salaries) which makes the attempts to connect this to struggles due to sex and gender identity and race and SES background fall pretty damn flat for me. Incidentally, the photo at the top of the piece would make for really good "rich coastal tech worker" in-group signaling.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]