4 ms·

If leadership is that inept, then this is likely only 1 of many problems they are creating for the organization. I would be looking for alternative employment A

by bloppe 1y ago

If leadership is that inept, then this is likely only 1 of many problems they are creating for the organization. I would be looking for alternative employment ASAP.

GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
the issue isn't recognizing malign influence within your current organization... it's an issue throughout the entire industry, and I think what we're all afraid of is that it's becoming more inevitable every day, because we're not the ones who have the final say. the luddites essentially failed, after all, because the wider world was not and is not ready for a discussion about quality versus profit.
- bloppe 1y ago
  A poor quality product can only be profitable if no high quality alternative exists (at a similar price point). Every time that's the case, it's an epic opportunity for anybody with the wherewithal to raise some funding and build that high quality alternative themselves. A dysfunctional industry running on AI slop will not be able to keep you from eating their lunch unless they can achieve some sort of regulatory capture, which would be a separate (political) issue. Regarding your Luddite reference, I think the cost-vs-quality debate was actually the centerpiece of that incident. Would you rather pay $100 for a T-shirt that's only marginally better than one that costs $10? I certainly would not. People are constantly evaluating cost-quality tradeoffs when making purchasing decisions. The exact ratio of the tradeoff matters. There's always a price point at which something starts (or stops) making sense.
  - y0eswddl 1y ago
    ...have you seen the funding numbers for AI startups versus non-AI? it's not even remotely close rn... A major problem of the way we have built our society in a way such that the wrong people end up with the most power and authority. the majority of engineers across the industry feel the same way we do and yet there's little most of us can do unless we all decide to do something together :/
    - bloppe 1y ago
      An epic opportunity is an epic opportunity. If most investors are too stupid to notice one (yes, that is often true, I know), then that's also an epic opportunity for the 1 investor who might take the chance. I'm not saying the industry is perfect, but if the scale of the missed opportunity is so large and so obvious to so many engineers, and we live in a world with tens of thousands of VC firms and probably millions of other avenues for funding like angels, incubators, and grant programs, it's hard to imagine 100% of them missing it. And it only takes 1 to take advantage.
  - latchup 1y ago
    Unfortunately, your reasoning has an enormous hole in it. A huge part of a product's quality is how it fares over time, i.e. how many years it lasts and how much it costs to maintain. Sadly, this either takes time or a realistic assessment to determine, both of which cannot part of a market bubble. The 10$ shirt becomes a much shittier proposal once, in addition to its worse looks, fit, and comfort, you factor in its significantly lower durability and lifespan. That's why the 100$ shirt still exists after all. Nevermind that the example is a bad one to begin with because low-price commodities like T-shirts are never worth fixing when they break, but code with a paid maintainer clearly is. In an market bubble like the one we find ourselves in, longevity is simply not relevant because the financial opportunity lies precisely in getting off in the train right before it crashes. For investors and managers, that is. Developers may be allowed to change cars, but they are stuck the train. It's sad how some of the doomed are so desperate to avoid their fate that they fall prey to promises they know to be bullshit. The argument for Wish and TEMU products is exactly the same, yet we can all see it for what it is in those cases: a particularly short-lived lie.
    - soco 1y ago
      Just addressing the comparison: a t-shirt can be changed for the cost of the new t-shirt. A software product costs not only the new one (being AI, very cheap) but also the cost of integrating it with processes and people - and this can kill you.
  - int_19h 1y ago
    You don't need regulatory capture to monopolize a market.
array_key_first 1y ago
I think virtually all leadership across corporate America is very metrics-driven. Unfortunately, that means this a lot of the time.
dmurvihill 1y ago
There is precious little alternative employment that cares about the long-term sustainability of their software, is the problem.

by bloppe 1y ago

If leadership is that inept, then this is likely only 1 of many problems they are creating for the organization. I would be looking for alternative employment ASAP.

GuinansEyebrows 1y ago

the issue isn't recognizing malign influence within your current organization... it's an issue throughout the entire industry, and I think what we're all afraid of is that it's becoming more inevitable every day, because we're not the ones who have the final say. the luddites essentially failed, after all, because the wider world was not and is not ready for a discussion about quality versus profit.

bloppe 1y ago
A poor quality product can only be profitable if no high quality alternative exists (at a similar price point). Every time that's the case, it's an epic opportunity for anybody with the wherewithal to raise some funding and build that high quality alternative themselves. A dysfunctional industry running on AI slop will not be able to keep you from eating their lunch unless they can achieve some sort of regulatory capture, which would be a separate (political) issue. Regarding your Luddite reference, I think the cost-vs-quality debate was actually the centerpiece of that incident. Would you rather pay $100 for a T-shirt that's only marginally better than one that costs $10? I certainly would not. People are constantly evaluating cost-quality tradeoffs when making purchasing decisions. The exact ratio of the tradeoff matters. There's always a price point at which something starts (or stops) making sense.
- y0eswddl 1y ago
  ...have you seen the funding numbers for AI startups versus non-AI? it's not even remotely close rn... A major problem of the way we have built our society in a way such that the wrong people end up with the most power and authority. the majority of engineers across the industry feel the same way we do and yet there's little most of us can do unless we all decide to do something together :/
  - bloppe 1y ago
    An epic opportunity is an epic opportunity. If most investors are too stupid to notice one (yes, that is often true, I know), then that's also an epic opportunity for the 1 investor who might take the chance. I'm not saying the industry is perfect, but if the scale of the missed opportunity is so large and so obvious to so many engineers, and we live in a world with tens of thousands of VC firms and probably millions of other avenues for funding like angels, incubators, and grant programs, it's hard to imagine 100% of them missing it. And it only takes 1 to take advantage.
- latchup 1y ago
  Unfortunately, your reasoning has an enormous hole in it. A huge part of a product's quality is how it fares over time, i.e. how many years it lasts and how much it costs to maintain. Sadly, this either takes time or a realistic assessment to determine, both of which cannot part of a market bubble. The 10$ shirt becomes a much shittier proposal once, in addition to its worse looks, fit, and comfort, you factor in its significantly lower durability and lifespan. That's why the 100$ shirt still exists after all. Nevermind that the example is a bad one to begin with because low-price commodities like T-shirts are never worth fixing when they break, but code with a paid maintainer clearly is. In an market bubble like the one we find ourselves in, longevity is simply not relevant because the financial opportunity lies precisely in getting off in the train right before it crashes. For investors and managers, that is. Developers may be allowed to change cars, but they are stuck the train. It's sad how some of the doomed are so desperate to avoid their fate that they fall prey to promises they know to be bullshit. The argument for Wish and TEMU products is exactly the same, yet we can all see it for what it is in those cases: a particularly short-lived lie.
  - soco 1y ago
    Just addressing the comparison: a t-shirt can be changed for the cost of the new t-shirt. A software product costs not only the new one (being AI, very cheap) but also the cost of integrating it with processes and people - and this can kill you.
- int_19h 1y ago
  You don't need regulatory capture to monopolize a market.

array_key_first 1y ago

I think virtually all leadership across corporate America is very metrics-driven. Unfortunately, that means this a lot of the time.

dmurvihill 1y ago

There is precious little alternative employment that cares about the long-term sustainability of their software, is the problem.