14 ms·

Software engineers should be a little bit cynical

300 points by zdw 10mo ago

sleazebreeze 10mo ago
Props to Sean for this post. I have found his writings to be much closer to how I’ve learned to understand my career and companies than many standard reddit/HN posts portray things.
- mettamage 10mo ago
  Some of the HN comments iver the years though are really in line with this post. They have protected me from a lot of emotional anguish.
ludicity 10mo ago
Just wanted to pop in and say that I think Sean is absolutely right here. I've tried the ultra-cynical view at workplaces, and would have had better results with some "idealism", which he rightly notes in his form is just a more effectively action atop a base of clear-eyed cynicism. However, I think we've got some tactical disagreements on how to actually make society a better place. Namely, I think Sean is right if you have to remain an employee, but many people just don't have to do that, so it feels a bit like a great guide on how to win soccer while hopping on one leg. Just use two legs! My own experience, especially over the last year, has been telling me that being positioned as an employee at most companies means you're largely irrelevant, i.e, you should adopt new positioning (e.g, become a third-party consultant like me) or find a place that's already running nearly perfectly. I can't imagine going back to a full-time job unless I was given a CTO/CEO or board role, where I could again operate with some autonomy... and I suspect at many of the worst places, even these roles can't do much. Also Sean, if you're reading this, we'll get coffee together before March or die trying.
- Swizec 10mo ago
  > I've tried the ultra-cynical view at workplaces, and would have had better results with some "idealism", which he rightly notes in his form is just a more effectively action atop a base of clear-eyed cynicism. Cynics feel smart but optimists win. You have to be at least a little optimistic, sometimes even naive, to achieve unlikely outcomes. Otherwise you’ll never put in enough oomph to get lucky.
  - themafia 10mo ago
    > but optimists win. Win.. what? > enough oomph to get lucky. The underpaid cargo cult mentality is alive in well in corporate America.
    - bayarearefugee 10mo ago
      Have you logged into LinkedIn lately? Nothing but pseudo "grindset" cargo cultists as far as the eye can see writing worthless technical platitude posts. It feels like a parody site of itself these days.
      - ludicity 10mo ago
        It's important to note that many of those people aren't winning. What you're witnessing is the marketing equivalent of what random government software engineers produce. A good number of the people on HN would be trivially outearning those nerds
      - tormeh 10mo ago
        That's all fake. LinkedIn is for sales and recruiting. If you see something there - a post, anything - it's meant to sell something. It's all as fake as the contents of an ad break.
      - gjvc 10mo ago
        >Nothing but pseudo "grindset" cargo cultists as far as the eye can see writing worthless technical platitude posts. stealing this. ;-)
    - Swizec 10mo ago
      > > but optimists win. > Win.. what? Depends what you want to win? You won’t have happy kids and a good family life, if you don’t think it’s possible. Same as you won’t make a cool open-source library, if you aren’t optimistic (or naive) enough to go work on that. And if you keep saying everything is impossible a huge drag extremely worthless and why even bother trying, you won’t get the fun projects at work.
    - 10mo ago
eleventen 10mo ago
> We live in a late-stage-capitalist hellscape, where large companies are run by aspiring robber barons who have no serious convictions beyond desiring power. All those companies want is for obedient engineering drones to churn out bad code fast, so they can goose the (largely fictional) stock price. Meanwhile, end-users are left holding the bag: paying more for worse software, being hassled by advertisements, and dealing with bugs that are unprofitable to fix. This is quite a straw man. I think a lot of engineers believe that other parts of the org lack perspective, sure. I’ve certainly seen managers or salespeople genuinely convinced that they’re delivering value when I know for a fact they’re selling snake oil. But I never assume it’s in bad faith, just an artifact of a shitty feedback and communication culture. People want to do good work, they just don’t often get good signal when they aren’t.
- Sniffnoy 10mo ago
  Why do you say it's a strawman? All of those claims seem pretty familiar to me, even if, as the post says, the full exact combination might not be. You say you never assume it's in bad faith. Well, great! But that doesn't mean it's a strawman, it seems that other people do!
  - eleventen 10mo ago
    I say it’s a straw man because it’s a caricature that is easy to knock down. The point of my comment was that I would be surprised to find out that even 20% of people think this, much less a majority.
    - Sniffnoy 10mo ago
      20% is a lot of people! If 20% of people think something is true, that's something worth arguing against! "Straw man" strictly speaking means something you invented, although, yes, that is likely overly strict, since you can find someone saying just about anything. But 20%? That's a substantial fraction of the relevant population! The other thing worth noting here is that the point of a straw-man fallacy is. In a straw-man fallacy, you replace your opponent's argument with a ridiculous version, and argue against that instead of what they actually said. Or, alternatively, it's where you are arguing against some general nebulous concept, and you instantiate it as something ridiculous -- which maybe someone is actually saying! -- and use your argument against the ridiculous version as an argument against the more general concept, tarring other versions by association. (The real solution here of course is to not argue about nebulous concepts like that in the first place, it's not a useful way of arguing, but that's another matter.) But if you're not performing either of these types of substitution, if the ridiculous position is actually out there and you're simply arguing against it as it is and not trying to use it to substitute for something else or tar something else by association... then that's not a straw man, that's just people believing ridiculous things and you having to argue against them.
gavinhoward 10mo ago
> For instance, you might think that big tech engineers are being deliberately demoralized as part of an anti-labor strategy to prevent them from unionizing, which is nuts. Tech companies are simply not set up to engage in these kind of conspiracies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
CodingJeebus 10mo ago
> It’s a cynical way to view the C-staff of a company. I think it’s also inaccurate: from my limited experience, the people who run large tech companies really do want to deliver good software to users. People who run large tech companies want one thing: to increase shareholder value. Delivering "good software" (a very, very squishy term) is secondary. I don't even think "good" is a quantifiable or effective measure here. C-level executives are deviating from reality in terms of what they say that their products are capable of versus how their products actually perform. If you're a CEO shipping a frontier model that adds some value in terms of performing basic technical tasks while simultaneously saying that AI is gonna be writing all code in 3-6 months, you're only doing good by your shareholders.
- ludicity 10mo ago
  Oh, I glossed over that in my response. I've had people at the C-level admit that they don't care about ethics to me, and I especially see startup CEOs lie a lot, or otherwise be so self-deluded to make sales easier that it's hard to tell if they know they're lying. I think Sean is right that, in the abstract, they prefer good software to bad software, but they won't make any sacrifices if those sacrifices require losing money or status. It's the same "do your what your manager wants" playbook, but run up to board level.
  - jaggederest 10mo ago
    > they won't make any sacrifices if those sacrifices require losing money or status That's not preferring good software to bad software, though. In order for a value to be meaningful when expressed, it has to result in some kind of trade off. If you value honesty over safety but never are put in a situation where you have to choose between honesty and safety, then that value is fairly meaningless.
    - ludicity 10mo ago
      That's fair. I overstated my point a bit -- if a project was on schedule and it could be delayed by one day to improve something nebulous, many would agree. It's just that the tradeoffs are never that small, so you never actually see it happen, i.e, the preference is extremely minor.
9dev 10mo ago
It always sounds so ridiculous to me when people working for Meta, Microsoft or Google talk about idealism, or solving good problems, or really any kind of values. The likes of you have very much sold your soul to the devil in exchange for a lot of money. Any kind of idealism you may hold is nothing but a carefully crafted illusion to keep you from thinking too hard about what you are a part of, what are you are doing. If it hasn’t made click after big tech fell on their knees in front of Trump, there’s nothing left to say anymore. So in a sense, Goedecke is right: Be a little cynical. Don’t bother with a veneer of the greater good or some other bullshit. Enjoy your paychecks while it lasts.
tamimio 10mo ago
>cynical: concerned only with one's own interests and typically disregarding accepted standards in order to achieve them Indeed you are, for calling software developers “engineers” meanwhile software development is actually writing, so they are more closer to writers than engineers.
- mettamage 10mo ago
  I disagree with your view. It’s the thinking needed that makes it engineering, especially when you have a lot of constraints (massive scale, low latency, etc.). Consider this: math is mostly doodling some glyphs on paper, so clearly it is closer to drawing than engineering.
  - bdangubic 10mo ago
    > especially when you have a lot of constraints (massive scale, low latency, etc.) there are roughly 0.082% of software "engineers" that deal with these constraints or have to "think about them"
    - chasd00 10mo ago
      To be fair most actual engineers just copy paste from a previous project (MEP engineers in architecture) or just look up numbers or equipment in a table (every structural engineer I’ve known). A vanishingly small percentage of any engineer (software or otherwise) are actually doing what most people think as “engineering”.
      - bdangubic 10mo ago
        this type of comment will get you downvoted here faaaast… ;) bunch of “engineers” here engineering and shit
  - s5300 10mo ago
    [dead]
- 10mo ago
therobots927 10mo ago
This reads like a pickme LinkedIn post.
divbzero 10mo ago
> It is just a plain fact that software engineers are not the movers and shakers in large tech organizations. They do not set the direction of the company. To the extent that they have political influence, it’s in how they translate the direction of the company into specific technical changes. But that is actually quite a lot of influence! I don’t know if you’d label this view “cynical” or “idealist” but it feels balanced and I think there is a lot of truth in it. As a software engineer, you’re not a mindless automaton “just doing your job”. Your judgment about the proper way to do things—or whether a thing should be done like that at all—makes a difference in how useful and beneficial a product is for end users and for our society more broadly.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
burnto 10mo ago
I appreciate that the author looks specifically at what elements of a given viewpoint are idealistic vs cynical. Idealism about one’s own behavior vs idealism about others’ behavior is an interesting tension to explore further.
elliotto 10mo ago
The author seems like a nice guy, but perhaps a bit naive regarding the efforts big tech companies go to to crush employees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...). They appear to be a staff level engineer at a big tech company - I don't know how much money they make, but I suspect it's an ungodly amount. The organisation he works for is implicated in surveillance, monopoly exploitation, and current military action involving particularly unpopular wars. No one forced him into this role - he could have made less money elsewhere but decided not to. He has decided to be a cog in a larger, poorly functioning machine, and is handsomely rewarded for it. This sacrifice is, for many, a worthwhile trade. If you don't want to engage with the moral ramifications of your profession, you are generally socially allowed to do so, provided the profession is above board. Unfortunately, you cannot then write a post trying to defend your position, saying that what I do is good, actually, meanwhile cashing your high 6-7 figure check. This is incoherent. It is financially profitable to be a political actor within a decaying monopolist apparatus, but I don't need to accept that it's also a pathway to a well-lived life.
- conception 10mo ago
  Evergreen: It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. Upton Sinclair
  - bdangubic 10mo ago
    except they do understand it of course but choose not to accept it :)
- stanfordkid 10mo ago
  The dude works for GitHub. I don’t doubt there is some rotten code on there, but what you’re saying seems like a stretch and exactly what he’s describing.
  - rrdharan 10mo ago
    GitHub is owned by Microsoft which covers most of what GP is alluding to…
29athrowaway 10mo ago
> "you should do things that make your manager happy" If doing things ethically (not defrauding investors and customers) keeps your manager happy, then do it. If not, do it fucking anyways.
black_13 10mo ago
[dead]
KaiserPro 10mo ago
Being british, I am cynical by default. Its baffling to see US engineers repeatedly being shat on by the company, and yet still retain belief in the chain of command. But, to be a good cynic, you need a rich information network to draw on to see what the wider business is doing and thinking. You must understand the motivations of the business, so that you can be correctly cynical.
- simianwords 10mo ago
  >Its baffling to see US engineers repeatedly being shat on by the company, and yet still retain belief in the chain of command. But they are the best paid and everyone wants to move to the US.
  - KaiserPro 10mo ago
    But thats different. I was paid exceptionally well when I was at a FAANG, but that didn't extend to me blindly following my leadership team into the same obvious bear trap every 6 months.
    - Muromec 10mo ago
      Blindly following or just paying lip service to keep being paid? How do you know somebody is a cynic if they dont express open their contempt openly?
      - achenet 10mo ago
        I'd argue that expressing one's contempt openly is probably a sign of optimism more than anything - it shows you believe that your words might actually affect the direction of the organization rather than just getting you fired for disagreeing with your pointy-haired boss.
      - swiftcoder 10mo ago
        A lot of us expressed our contempt pretty damn openly in FAANG. It didn't seem like a barrier to getting paid
kayo_20211030 10mo ago
A very good piece. Balance always. Ultimately, everything is politics, and always will be - that's reality; it's always people. Pick your poison, idealism or cynicism; in any organization you'll have to deal with the people. That's the balance. It's not easy.
the_cat_kittles 10mo ago
i genuinely believe the correct response to a post like this is: "shut the fuck up"
why-o-why 10mo ago
>> Cynical writing is like most medicines: the dose makes the poison. A healthy amount of cynicism can serve as an inoculation from being overly cynical. I disagree. Cynicism is a toxicity and will fester. Anecdata: I only know people that are either 0% cynical or 100% cynical (kinda like how people feel about Geddy Lee's voice). >> Tech companies have a normal mix of strong and weak engineers. Yes, that's not "a little cynical" that's a healthy perspective. I think OP is really trying to tell people to be stoic, not cynical, and is confused on the vocabulary.
- asadotzler 10mo ago
  >Anecdata: I only know people that are either 0% cynical or 100% cynical I must have a more diverse group of friends and colleagues because I see and experience the whole spectrum. Perhaps it's worth considering why your bubble is so black and white and maybe even how to change that.
  - why-o-why 10mo ago
    Well, I -do- only know two people, so I got that going for me.
    - asadotzler 10mo ago
      :D You may actually have the winning strategy. Tombstone (1993) Doc Holliday: Wyatt is my friend. Turkey Creek Jack Johnson: Friend? Hell, I got lots of friends. Doc Holliday: I don't.
biglyburrito 10mo ago
A little bit?
justatdotin 10mo ago
I too am an aussie swe (just 3700km up the road) who likes lots of things about working (on a much lower rung) in big (well, mid) tech. I have learned so much more in large orgs than startups, and I'm not done with it. However: We DO live in a late-stage-capitalist hellscape. Large companies ARE run by aspiring robber barons who have no serious convictions beyond desiring power. I have compromised my principles by giving them (or anyone) my labor. but I don't lie to myself or anyone else about it. I don't find any need to rehabilitate the structural and personal failings I encounter. When my friends call me out for working at EvilCorp, I don't argue. I know it's like any job: it's all dirty money. Instead, I deal with reality: weigh up pros and cons. I judge each year just how much Corporate I'm willing to swallow to support my dependents. I enjoy the author's redefinition of cynicism and optimism. These are useful ideas to consider and I've given it some thought, arriving at an attitude of Becoming that I guess some would call idealism. PS OMFG I just realised its MS. I believe this is what the kids call cringe.
mschuster91 10mo ago
> There are very few problems that you can solve entirely on your own. Software engineers encounter more of these problems than average, because the nature of software means that a single engineer can have huge leverage by sitting down and making a single code change. But in order to make changes to large products - for instance, to make it possible for GitHub’s 150M users to use LaTeX in markdown - you need to coordinate with many other people at the company, which means you need to be involved in politics. Maybe, just maybe, when any single individual is unable to propose a product improvement due to the requirement of ass-kissing and favor-dealings involved... the company is too big and should (be) split up. Corporate inertia is what is killing many a Western company against the competition from China.
neilv 10mo ago
> > We live in a late-stage-capitalist hellscape, where large companies are run by aspiring robber barons who have no serious convictions beyond desiring power. All those companies want is for obedient engineering drones to churn out bad code fast, [...] This morning's aspiring robber baron fun (I think it's OK mention this, under the circumstances, so long as I don't say anything identifying)... Responding to a cold outreach from a new startup, for which I happened to also have unusual experience in their product domain (no, you won't guess which). They wanted me to relocate to SF, as a founding engineer, and do a startup incubator with them. Me: if you haven't even done the incubator, just to clarify, you want a founding engineer, not a co-founder? Them: it will be good experience for you, to work alongside me to develop the product, and to see how the incubator works from the inside. (This isn't really their fault. The incubator has started telling kids that they should work for one of the incubator's portfolio startups for the experience (certainly not for the salary and stock options), and then maybe one day they can be the Glorious Founder. And then new Glorious Founders, who might not yet know any better, simply regurgitate that.) (I previously tried to talk with that same incubator about this message that they were using, after they included it in a broadcast that also invited connecting with a particular person there. When I found a way to contact that named person, they ignored my question, and instead offered to delete my account on their thing, if I didn't like what they were saying. So I deleted my account myself. I'm not sure we really developed a collegial rapport and constructive shared understanding about the concern...)
AttentionBlock 10mo ago
> It’s a cynical way to view the C-staff of a company. I think it’s also inaccurate: from my limited experience, the people who run large tech companies really do want to deliver good software to users. I strongly disagree with this statement. What C-staff cares about is share-holder value. What middle management care about is empire building and promotions. > for instance, to make it possible for GitHub’s 150M users to use LaTeX in markdown - you need to coordinate with many other people at the company, which means you need to be involved in politics. You presented your point in a misleading way. I would classify this as collaboration/communication rather than politics. Politics is when you need to tick off a useless boxes for your promo, when you try to to take credits for work you haven't helped with, when you throw your colleague under the bus, when you get undeserved performance rating because the manager thinks you are his good boy. There's a lot more, I didn't read any of your previous blogs, but all of these things are what engineers dread when we refer to politics.
- rainonmoon 10mo ago
  It's always worth being skeptical when someone appeals with the term "good". I'm sure there are people who run large tech companies who want to deliver "good software", but it's such a meaninglessly vague designation that it being true doesn't matter. I can't speak to the motivations of C-suites I've never met, but I can say for sure that my idea of "good software" is very different to theirs.
- imiric 10mo ago
  > You presented your point in a misleading way. I would classify this as collaboration/communication rather than politics. Collaboration and communication are key parts of politics, though. At its core, politics is simply the dynamics within a group of people. Since we innately organize into hierarchies, and power/wealth/fame are appealing to many, this inevitably leads to mind games, tension, and conflict. But in order to accomplish anything within an organization, a certain level of politics must be involved. It's fine to find this abhorring and to try to avoid it, but that's just the reality of our society. People who play this game the best have the largest impact and are rewarded; those who don't usually have less impact and are often overlooked.
- 10mo ago
siliconc0w 10mo ago
If we're doing cynicism - even if you write lovingly hand crafted free range OSS code - EvilCorp can still come along and use it as part of the EvilCorp backend. Your just working for them for free rather than getting paid.
- nzeid 10mo ago
  Nah. Healthy cynicism is using your contributions to gain leverage while interviewing with said EvilCorp. It's not like the OSS is anonymous.
skeptrune 10mo ago
We're all just trying to do a good job. I think it's very rare for someone to be earnestly malicious attempting to block the company from doing well.
fullshark 10mo ago
They should at least understand why they are getting paid and basic business logic instead of thinking they are above it because they are 10x or whatever. You are a cost center unless you are making that line go up.
skeptrune 10mo ago
plain and minimally styled UI is going to make a huge comeback in 2026. i think people are tired of all the maximalism in web dev
- tormeh 10mo ago
  Maximalism? Go to a japanese or chinese website. Those are maximalist. Western web design is all mobile-first minimalism.
alexwennerberg 10mo ago
Lol thanks for reading my blog post! (Alex here) Your statement of my position: > We live in a late-stage-capitalist hellscape, where large companies are run by aspiring robber barons who have no serious convictions beyond desiring power. All those companies want is for obedient engineering drones to churn out bad code fast, so they can goose the (largely fictional) stock price. Meanwhile, end-users are left holding the bag: paying more for worse software, being hassled by advertisements, and dealing with bugs that are unprofitable to fix. The only thing an ethical software engineer can do is to try and find some temporary niche where they can defy their bosses and do real, good engineering work, or to retire to a hobby farm and write elegant open-source software in their free time. Let me re-state this in another way, which says functionally the same thing: > Companies are hierarchical organizations where you sell your specialized labor for money. You should do what they expect of you in order to collect a paycheck, cultivate as enjoyable of a working environment as you can, then go home and enjoy the rest of your free time and your nice big tech salary. Is this cynical? In some sense, sure, but I don't think it's inaccurate or even toxic, and I think it's probably how something like 90% of big tech employees operate. Sometimes your writing makes it seem like this is actually what you think. If your "objective description" of big tech companies were in service of this goal -- getting along better and not fighting the organization to preserve your own sanity and career -- I don't think people would take issue with it. But you make the analogy of public service and seem in some sense to believe in values that are fundamentally at odds with these organizations. Is your position that, through successful maneuvering, and engineer can make a big tech organization serve the public in spite of internal political and economic pressures? This seems far more idealistic than what I believe. To quote Kurt Vonnegut, "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."
senshan 10mo ago
Indeed: “The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.” George Bernard Shaw
senshan 10mo ago
I do not understand the dilemma. The sole reason I am hired for my position as an engineer is that I am expected to make the life of my hiring manager easier. Not to save the world, not to do "the right thing" (whatever this means), but help my manager. During the interview, I had a chance to a get a rough idea what I am going to be responsible for. If the organization or the mission changes to the extent that it is no longer consistent with my values, I start pinging my former colleagues working elsewhere. So where is the intrigue?
- SoftTalker 10mo ago
  Exactly, and this is what the deal has always been when you are an employee in a for-profit corporation. You do what the company asks you to do, and they pay you for your time. This is not "late-stage" anything it's the way it's always been. If you want to save the world, join the Peace Corps or at least a non-profit.
- zwnow 10mo ago
  Tldr: Yes my lord, I'll build the concentration camps as you desired, as its not my business to question thy authority. As long as I get paid, I wont question the effects my work has. What an ignorant way of working. Guess that's who they hire to build the software spying on Amazon drivers so they have to piss into bottles to make deliveries on time.
  - senshan 10mo ago
    Not quite. I do not think it was implied. This is why the interview was mentioned and the criterion for quitting. What is your approach?
- fcantournet 10mo ago
  Unless you are a personal assistant, your job probably is not to "make the life of your hiring manager easier". You have responsibilities, which ideally should be stipulated in some form in a contract, and if you are vaguely senior they hopefully go beyond "do whatever steeve needs to feel good". I would argue that it is in fact your manager whose job entails making your (and your peers) professional life easier, by identifying the roadblocks, escalating problems if need be, etc...
Animats 10mo ago
This is a consequence of late-stage technology. When few people could make it work at all, the people who could were left alone to make it work. Once it was a routine job, management and political priorities began to control. This has happened with other technologies as they matured. Bridges. Electrical power. Radio. (The story of Roebling, the Tweed Ring, and the Brooklyn Bridge is worth knowing. Tweed tried to steal too early in the history of the technology, and it backfired on him big-time.) This happened to software a while back. Semiconductors had it less because keeping up with Moore's Law dominated the politics. Learn more about the history of technology and this pattern reappears.
alehlopeh 10mo ago
I have a somewhat tangential question. If this is late stage capitalism, and tech CEOs are compared to robber barons to show how rich and greedy they’ve become, then what stage was capitalism in when the actual robber barons were doing their thing a hundred years ago?
alphazard 10mo ago
I don't know who this kind of cynic vs. idealist vs. optimist thinking works on/for, but it doesn't seem to give me any kind of conceptual edge. Instead of trying to frame things in terms of a mood or a feeling, it's better to try to understand things in terms of what is likely and unlikely to happen. Large corporations are just groups of people with conflicting incentives, and that means they are basically incapable of performing certain kinds of tasks. It also means that when the incentives do align, some tasks are very likely to be completed, even with other corporations or governments working in opposition. Some of those tasks might be things you care about, like making a product of a certain quality, or furthering some other goal you have. In all those cases, it is best to to first think about what is most likely to happen and what is unlikely to happen. You have to think of the organization as just another phenomenon that you could exploit if you properly understood it. Unfortunately, how to manipulate complex systems of humans is an open problem, and if anyone had effective, repeatable solutions, then investors would demand that they be implemented. As it is, most corporations don't act in the interest of the investors a significant amount of the time, even though they are supposed to. The only thing we can reliably bet on is: all organizations tend towards dysfunctional bureaucracies, the longer they live, and the bigger they get.
- atmosx 10mo ago
  I believe the terminology is off. The author seems to confuse cynicism with realism. Cynicism is specific trait and has only negative connotations. It cannot be “good” for a social structure by definition. Realism is neutral. But we often assume that realism implies cynicism which is not true. Parrhesia (tact) is the only worthwhile, long term goal in terms of attitude. And that doesn’t include cynicism. It’s about being honest without feeling like betraying yourself. “Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." - (supposedly) Isaac Newton
  - kelnos 10mo ago
    I don't really agree. The dictionary definition of cynical is "believing the worst of human nature and motives; having a sneering disbelief in e.g. selflessness of others". That's certainly very extreme, but a tempered, measured belief in the negative aspects of human nature is necessary, I think. You might say, "that's just realism", but I think they are just separate axes: some amount of cynicism (and idealism) is necessary in order to be realistic. Possibly different amounts in different contexts, depending on the other people involved.
moezd 10mo ago
This is just a coping mechanism. We know that C-level doesn't understand the tech they are evangelizing at all, and we know that at some point, they end up approving a lot of new middle management hires that are just as power hungry as they are, so the feedback loop from the shop to the top is sealed off. These two catastrophes seal the fate of any company. If your company is still not infected with these, you can still call plausible deniability or oversight or whatever excuse for them, and true, they are human. But if I look into their eyes and see nothing but desire for power, that's a toxic company and no amount of "healthy cynicism" will help me with that.
rramadass 10mo ago
Everybody (and not just Software Engineers) should keep this quote from Francesco Guicciardini (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Guicciardini https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Guicciardini) always in mind when dealing with people/companies/world; To get a reputation for being suspicious and distrustful is certainly not desirable. Nevertheless, men are so false, so insidious, so deceitful and cunning in their wiles, so avid in their own interest, and so oblivious to other's interests, that you cannot go wrong if you believe little and trust less. -- No. 157, Maxims and Reflections (Ricordi)
khana 10mo ago
[dead]
mos87 10mo ago
In 2026 everyone could do worse than become a little bit more cynical
not_that_d 10mo ago
What the post fails to understand is that a lot of the "top" people if big companies just doesn't understand the regular user because, well, they do not live a life like the regular users.
- closewith 10mo ago
  The same is true of most software developers.
  - Muromec 10mo ago
    One can argue that an appropriate response of the regulator for failing a11y audit is making sure that regulated entity does in fact have a certain percent blind people among it's ranks with increasing the number for each repeated failure
    - DerArzt 10mo ago
      What would we do when we ran out of blind people?
Jgoauh 10mo ago
I would have rather read an article about the best ways to create positive change in a capitalist system, a critique of socialism, Marxism, or anarchism, even if it was filled with words i didn't understand, than an article arguing about individual intent, and ignoring systemic design.
KolibriFly 10mo ago
A lot of "anti-cynical" takes are actually built on a deeply cynical view of how change happens
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
m0llusk 10mo ago
Cynical, indeed! I'm not good enough with leetcode exercises to worry about coding for a large organization. And I hardly use LLMs at all in my coding. Guess I'm back to focusing on value from my own perspective.
roschdal 10mo ago
Tech companies have become pure evil
swiftcoder 10mo ago
> To the extent they have any control, they try to make their employees happy so they’ll work for less money and not leave. I think this is definitely overly charitable to corporations. Meta and Amazon both had pretty explicit policies that a modest level of employee churn was desirable, particularly when it involved folks leaving large quantities of unvested stock on the table.
- spongebobstoes 10mo ago
  some people are happier in a high performance environment with employee churn, when it means having more talented coworkers
  - swiftcoder 10mo ago
    > when it means having more talented coworkers I'm not sure it is really correlated? It causes a lot of the high-performers to jump ship pretty regularly too - the company is perfectly happy replacing an expensive veteran with a college hire
    - mpyne 10mo ago
      If the net inflow of talented coworkers to the company with churn (including hi-po churn) still exceeds the level of talent you'd get at the company with stagnant workforce levels, then maybe you'd still find it preferable. High churn doesn't necessarily mean low average talent, especially if the skills you need to be a high-performer are not specific to any one company.
  - alexwennerberg 10mo ago
    > some people are happier in a high performance environment with employee churn, when it means having more talented coworkers It means having coworkers who are constantly in competition with you for survival. It's a nightmare.
    - ketzo 10mo ago
dfilppi 10mo ago
[dead]
fennecbutt 10mo ago
I have always worked this way professionally. But unfortunately it often bleeds over into real life; it's so hard to see the good in things. :(
lisbbb 10mo ago
I spent nearly 2 years at a major pharmacy chain trying to implement various solutions for them and going in circles. Meanwhile, the entire construction of Epic Universe in Orlando took place. I've moved from realist to cynic. In fact, I'm not even working and may just be retired at this point. I just couldn't get past certain things about how these gigs have gone for the most part--so much waste.
sfpotter 10mo ago
I made a conscious choice to work at a small company rather than a large company because of this. The politics are smaller, but that doesn't mean the stakes are.
lazarus01 10mo ago
Cynicism is something I was curious about, particularly what drives people to feel this way. It’s such a powerful emotion that tilts someone’s worldview. It comes from negative experience and not dealing with the effects of that experience. The weight of that negativity is what tilts your views to be overtly cynical. You don’t just choose to be cynical, it’s part of your predisposition. Idealism comes when you are younger in age and as you get older, you become more cynical about things, because you have been through many more experiences. Young people should not be overtly cynical. They should look at the world with bright eyes and try to change things for the better. A young person who is overly cynical is a tragedy. In regard to playing politics, I think that is just intellectual laziness. Getting people on board with your ideas requires thoughtfulness. Try to find common ground on something you both believe in is a challenge, that requires effort. Treating people as individuals, showing genuine curiosity in their beliefs and exchanging direct feedback in a respectful way, is how you get people on board with your ideas.
- ls612 10mo ago
  Cynicism in younger people is merely operationalizing the adage “prepare for the worst and hope for the best”. Hope just isn’t a great foundation for basing decisions on if you have any other foundation available.
  - lazarus01 10mo ago
    Hope is a great foundation, especially if you’re in a negative environment. It’s important to deal directly with reality, but sometimes reality is harsh and you need a break from the present moment. Hope is that break.
    - ls612 10mo ago
      If you have nothing else sure. Otherwise build your life on reality not on sandcastles in the clouds.
      - deleted 10mo ago
        [deleted]
crawfordcomeaux 10mo ago
Any analysis of corporations without contextualizing them within systems generating/maintaining genocides is going to be too reductive to be about the real world, like most economic models. The result will always be too idealistic & artificially limiting the scope of potentially meaningful work (as well as the creativity needed to move past such limits). Passively contributing to genocide is still contributing to genocide. Complicity/apathy toward genocide is still contributing to genocide.
lo_zamoyski 10mo ago
Humility and prudence. Humility involves accurate assessment of self and one's situation. A humble person is not a lowly person, as our contemporary use of the term would suggest. We all know the image of the hunched over, pitiable creature. No, a humble person is someone who has a rationally founded sense of his own strengths and weaknesses, the features of the situation, a sound sense of what he knows about it, and where discernment is needed, how the first combines with the latter. So, a humble person is neither arrogant nor small-souled. Prudence is the ability to recognize what ought to be done given the circumstances, and what means ought to be used. This presupposes humility, because without accurate self-knowledge and knowledge of circumstances, you cannot determine the correct course of action. You cannot even determine what the true good is that you ought to be pursuing in the first place. Words like "cynic", "optimist", "idealist", "realist", or "pessimist" are fairly useless here. They describe willful and emotional dispositions. Sometimes, people will paint a thin veneer of "rationality" over these. They will rationalize their small-mindedness and mediocrity, or their grandiosity. Now, you need to recognize the state of world as it is. That is not the same as recognizing how it ought to be. And the truth is that the world is a mixed bag. Each of us is a mixed bag. Let's say the Nazis performed medical experiments on people to develop a cure (which they did). Let's say you have the disease for which that cure would work. Do you use the cure? Is it morally licit? It certainly can be (the key term here is "remote cooperation with evil"). Making use of the good effect of an evil of another's actions is not the same as committing the evil action itself. In this world, there is nothing that has not in some way benefited from an injustice. Nothing. Benefiting from these things downstream is not categorically evil. What matters are that the reasons are proportionate to the gravity of the evil, and the proximity of the act. And participating in imperfect institutions is not necessarily evil, either. It depends on what you are contributing to and how. The principle of double effect [0] is an excellent guide here. It's not cynical to recognize that people are morally flawed. We are. We do good things and bad things, and some people are worse than others. That's just an obvious fact. But that's not an excuse to commit moral evils. That's the old defense children use: "But everyone else is doing it!" You need prudence to help you determine what you ought to pursue and how. You need prudence to be just. And you need justice to have the courage to do the right thing. [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/
jasonm23 10mo ago
more than we already are?!
- nacozarina 10mo ago
  is the cynicism of saying we’re not cynical enough, not enough?

300 points by zdw 10mo ago

Props to Sean for this post. I have found his writings to be much closer to how I’ve learned to understand my career and companies than many standard reddit/HN posts portray things.

mettamage 10mo ago
Some of the HN comments iver the years though are really in line with this post. They have protected me from a lot of emotional anguish.

ludicity 10mo ago

Just wanted to pop in and say that I think Sean is absolutely right here. I've tried the ultra-cynical view at workplaces, and would have had better results with some "idealism", which he rightly notes in his form is just a more effectively action atop a base of clear-eyed cynicism. However, I think we've got some tactical disagreements on how to actually make society a better place. Namely, I think Sean is right if you have to remain an employee, but many people just don't have to do that, so it feels a bit like a great guide on how to win soccer while hopping on one leg. Just use two legs! My own experience, especially over the last year, has been telling me that being positioned as an employee at most companies means you're largely irrelevant, i.e, you should adopt new positioning (e.g, become a third-party consultant like me) or find a place that's already running nearly perfectly. I can't imagine going back to a full-time job unless I was given a CTO/CEO or board role, where I could again operate with some autonomy... and I suspect at many of the worst places, even these roles can't do much. Also Sean, if you're reading this, we'll get coffee together before March or die trying.

Swizec 10mo ago
> I've tried the ultra-cynical view at workplaces, and would have had better results with some "idealism", which he rightly notes in his form is just a more effectively action atop a base of clear-eyed cynicism. Cynics feel smart but optimists win. You have to be at least a little optimistic, sometimes even naive, to achieve unlikely outcomes. Otherwise you’ll never put in enough oomph to get lucky.
- themafia 10mo ago
  > but optimists win. Win.. what? > enough oomph to get lucky. The underpaid cargo cult mentality is alive in well in corporate America.
  - bayarearefugee 10mo ago
    Have you logged into LinkedIn lately? Nothing but pseudo "grindset" cargo cultists as far as the eye can see writing worthless technical platitude posts. It feels like a parody site of itself these days.
    - ludicity 10mo ago
      It's important to note that many of those people aren't winning. What you're witnessing is the marketing equivalent of what random government software engineers produce. A good number of the people on HN would be trivially outearning those nerds
    - tormeh 10mo ago
      That's all fake. LinkedIn is for sales and recruiting. If you see something there - a post, anything - it's meant to sell something. It's all as fake as the contents of an ad break.
    - gjvc 10mo ago
      >Nothing but pseudo "grindset" cargo cultists as far as the eye can see writing worthless technical platitude posts. stealing this. ;-)
  - Swizec 10mo ago
    > > but optimists win. > Win.. what? Depends what you want to win? You won’t have happy kids and a good family life, if you don’t think it’s possible. Same as you won’t make a cool open-source library, if you aren’t optimistic (or naive) enough to go work on that. And if you keep saying everything is impossible a huge drag extremely worthless and why even bother trying, you won’t get the fun projects at work.
  - 10mo ago

eleventen 10mo ago

> We live in a late-stage-capitalist hellscape, where large companies are run by aspiring robber barons who have no serious convictions beyond desiring power. All those companies want is for obedient engineering drones to churn out bad code fast, so they can goose the (largely fictional) stock price. Meanwhile, end-users are left holding the bag: paying more for worse software, being hassled by advertisements, and dealing with bugs that are unprofitable to fix. This is quite a straw man. I think a lot of engineers believe that other parts of the org lack perspective, sure. I’ve certainly seen managers or salespeople genuinely convinced that they’re delivering value when I know for a fact they’re selling snake oil. But I never assume it’s in bad faith, just an artifact of a shitty feedback and communication culture. People want to do good work, they just don’t often get good signal when they aren’t.

Sniffnoy 10mo ago
Why do you say it's a strawman? All of those claims seem pretty familiar to me, even if, as the post says, the full exact combination might not be. You say you never assume it's in bad faith. Well, great! But that doesn't mean it's a strawman, it seems that other people do!
- eleventen 10mo ago
  I say it’s a straw man because it’s a caricature that is easy to knock down. The point of my comment was that I would be surprised to find out that even 20% of people think this, much less a majority.
  - Sniffnoy 10mo ago
    20% is a lot of people! If 20% of people think something is true, that's something worth arguing against! "Straw man" strictly speaking means something you invented, although, yes, that is likely overly strict, since you can find someone saying just about anything. But 20%? That's a substantial fraction of the relevant population! The other thing worth noting here is that the point of a straw-man fallacy is. In a straw-man fallacy, you replace your opponent's argument with a ridiculous version, and argue against that instead of what they actually said. Or, alternatively, it's where you are arguing against some general nebulous concept, and you instantiate it as something ridiculous -- which maybe someone is actually saying! -- and use your argument against the ridiculous version as an argument against the more general concept, tarring other versions by association. (The real solution here of course is to not argue about nebulous concepts like that in the first place, it's not a useful way of arguing, but that's another matter.) But if you're not performing either of these types of substitution, if the ridiculous position is actually out there and you're simply arguing against it as it is and not trying to use it to substitute for something else or tar something else by association... then that's not a straw man, that's just people believing ridiculous things and you having to argue against them.

gavinhoward 10mo ago

> For instance, you might think that big tech engineers are being deliberately demoralized as part of an anti-labor strategy to prevent them from unionizing, which is nuts. Tech companies are simply not set up to engage in these kind of conspiracies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...

CodingJeebus 10mo ago

> It’s a cynical way to view the C-staff of a company. I think it’s also inaccurate: from my limited experience, the people who run large tech companies really do want to deliver good software to users. People who run large tech companies want one thing: to increase shareholder value. Delivering "good software" (a very, very squishy term) is secondary. I don't even think "good" is a quantifiable or effective measure here. C-level executives are deviating from reality in terms of what they say that their products are capable of versus how their products actually perform. If you're a CEO shipping a frontier model that adds some value in terms of performing basic technical tasks while simultaneously saying that AI is gonna be writing all code in 3-6 months, you're only doing good by your shareholders.

ludicity 10mo ago
Oh, I glossed over that in my response. I've had people at the C-level admit that they don't care about ethics to me, and I especially see startup CEOs lie a lot, or otherwise be so self-deluded to make sales easier that it's hard to tell if they know they're lying. I think Sean is right that, in the abstract, they prefer good software to bad software, but they won't make any sacrifices if those sacrifices require losing money or status. It's the same "do your what your manager wants" playbook, but run up to board level.
- jaggederest 10mo ago
  > they won't make any sacrifices if those sacrifices require losing money or status That's not preferring good software to bad software, though. In order for a value to be meaningful when expressed, it has to result in some kind of trade off. If you value honesty over safety but never are put in a situation where you have to choose between honesty and safety, then that value is fairly meaningless.
  - ludicity 10mo ago
    That's fair. I overstated my point a bit -- if a project was on schedule and it could be delayed by one day to improve something nebulous, many would agree. It's just that the tradeoffs are never that small, so you never actually see it happen, i.e, the preference is extremely minor.

9dev 10mo ago

It always sounds so ridiculous to me when people working for Meta, Microsoft or Google talk about idealism, or solving good problems, or really any kind of values. The likes of you have very much sold your soul to the devil in exchange for a lot of money. Any kind of idealism you may hold is nothing but a carefully crafted illusion to keep you from thinking too hard about what you are a part of, what are you are doing. If it hasn’t made click after big tech fell on their knees in front of Trump, there’s nothing left to say anymore. So in a sense, Goedecke is right: Be a little cynical. Don’t bother with a veneer of the greater good or some other bullshit. Enjoy your paychecks while it lasts.

tamimio 10mo ago

>cynical: concerned only with one's own interests and typically disregarding accepted standards in order to achieve them Indeed you are, for calling software developers “engineers” meanwhile software development is actually writing, so they are more closer to writers than engineers.

mettamage 10mo ago
I disagree with your view. It’s the thinking needed that makes it engineering, especially when you have a lot of constraints (massive scale, low latency, etc.). Consider this: math is mostly doodling some glyphs on paper, so clearly it is closer to drawing than engineering.
- bdangubic 10mo ago
  > especially when you have a lot of constraints (massive scale, low latency, etc.) there are roughly 0.082% of software "engineers" that deal with these constraints or have to "think about them"
  - chasd00 10mo ago
    To be fair most actual engineers just copy paste from a previous project (MEP engineers in architecture) or just look up numbers or equipment in a table (every structural engineer I’ve known). A vanishingly small percentage of any engineer (software or otherwise) are actually doing what most people think as “engineering”.
    - bdangubic 10mo ago
      this type of comment will get you downvoted here faaaast… ;) bunch of “engineers” here engineering and shit
- s5300 10mo ago
  [dead]
10mo ago

therobots927 10mo ago

This reads like a pickme LinkedIn post.

divbzero 10mo ago

> It is just a plain fact that software engineers are not the movers and shakers in large tech organizations. They do not set the direction of the company. To the extent that they have political influence, it’s in how they translate the direction of the company into specific technical changes. But that is actually quite a lot of influence! I don’t know if you’d label this view “cynical” or “idealist” but it feels balanced and I think there is a lot of truth in it. As a software engineer, you’re not a mindless automaton “just doing your job”. Your judgment about the proper way to do things—or whether a thing should be done like that at all—makes a difference in how useful and beneficial a product is for end users and for our society more broadly.

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

burnto 10mo ago

I appreciate that the author looks specifically at what elements of a given viewpoint are idealistic vs cynical. Idealism about one’s own behavior vs idealism about others’ behavior is an interesting tension to explore further.

elliotto 10mo ago

The author seems like a nice guy, but perhaps a bit naive regarding the efforts big tech companies go to to crush employees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...). They appear to be a staff level engineer at a big tech company - I don't know how much money they make, but I suspect it's an ungodly amount. The organisation he works for is implicated in surveillance, monopoly exploitation, and current military action involving particularly unpopular wars. No one forced him into this role - he could have made less money elsewhere but decided not to. He has decided to be a cog in a larger, poorly functioning machine, and is handsomely rewarded for it. This sacrifice is, for many, a worthwhile trade. If you don't want to engage with the moral ramifications of your profession, you are generally socially allowed to do so, provided the profession is above board. Unfortunately, you cannot then write a post trying to defend your position, saying that what I do is good, actually, meanwhile cashing your high 6-7 figure check. This is incoherent. It is financially profitable to be a political actor within a decaying monopolist apparatus, but I don't need to accept that it's also a pathway to a well-lived life.

conception 10mo ago
Evergreen: It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. Upton Sinclair
- bdangubic 10mo ago
  except they do understand it of course but choose not to accept it :)
stanfordkid 10mo ago
The dude works for GitHub. I don’t doubt there is some rotten code on there, but what you’re saying seems like a stretch and exactly what he’s describing.
- rrdharan 10mo ago
  GitHub is owned by Microsoft which covers most of what GP is alluding to…

29athrowaway 10mo ago

> "you should do things that make your manager happy" If doing things ethically (not defrauding investors and customers) keeps your manager happy, then do it. If not, do it fucking anyways.

black_13 10mo ago

[dead]

KaiserPro 10mo ago

Being british, I am cynical by default. Its baffling to see US engineers repeatedly being shat on by the company, and yet still retain belief in the chain of command. But, to be a good cynic, you need a rich information network to draw on to see what the wider business is doing and thinking. You must understand the motivations of the business, so that you can be correctly cynical.

simianwords 10mo ago
>Its baffling to see US engineers repeatedly being shat on by the company, and yet still retain belief in the chain of command. But they are the best paid and everyone wants to move to the US.
- KaiserPro 10mo ago
  But thats different. I was paid exceptionally well when I was at a FAANG, but that didn't extend to me blindly following my leadership team into the same obvious bear trap every 6 months.
  - Muromec 10mo ago
    Blindly following or just paying lip service to keep being paid? How do you know somebody is a cynic if they dont express open their contempt openly?
    - achenet 10mo ago
      I'd argue that expressing one's contempt openly is probably a sign of optimism more than anything - it shows you believe that your words might actually affect the direction of the organization rather than just getting you fired for disagreeing with your pointy-haired boss.
    - swiftcoder 10mo ago
      A lot of us expressed our contempt pretty damn openly in FAANG. It didn't seem like a barrier to getting paid

kayo_20211030 10mo ago

A very good piece. Balance always. Ultimately, everything is politics, and always will be - that's reality; it's always people. Pick your poison, idealism or cynicism; in any organization you'll have to deal with the people. That's the balance. It's not easy.

the_cat_kittles 10mo ago

i genuinely believe the correct response to a post like this is: "shut the fuck up"

why-o-why 10mo ago

>> Cynical writing is like most medicines: the dose makes the poison. A healthy amount of cynicism can serve as an inoculation from being overly cynical. I disagree. Cynicism is a toxicity and will fester. Anecdata: I only know people that are either 0% cynical or 100% cynical (kinda like how people feel about Geddy Lee's voice). >> Tech companies have a normal mix of strong and weak engineers. Yes, that's not "a little cynical" that's a healthy perspective. I think OP is really trying to tell people to be stoic, not cynical, and is confused on the vocabulary.

asadotzler 10mo ago
>Anecdata: I only know people that are either 0% cynical or 100% cynical I must have a more diverse group of friends and colleagues because I see and experience the whole spectrum. Perhaps it's worth considering why your bubble is so black and white and maybe even how to change that.
- why-o-why 10mo ago
  Well, I -do- only know two people, so I got that going for me.
  - asadotzler 10mo ago
    :D You may actually have the winning strategy. Tombstone (1993) Doc Holliday: Wyatt is my friend. Turkey Creek Jack Johnson: Friend? Hell, I got lots of friends. Doc Holliday: I don't.

biglyburrito 10mo ago

A little bit?

justatdotin 10mo ago

I too am an aussie swe (just 3700km up the road) who likes lots of things about working (on a much lower rung) in big (well, mid) tech. I have learned so much more in large orgs than startups, and I'm not done with it. However: We DO live in a late-stage-capitalist hellscape. Large companies ARE run by aspiring robber barons who have no serious convictions beyond desiring power. I have compromised my principles by giving them (or anyone) my labor. but I don't lie to myself or anyone else about it. I don't find any need to rehabilitate the structural and personal failings I encounter. When my friends call me out for working at EvilCorp, I don't argue. I know it's like any job: it's all dirty money. Instead, I deal with reality: weigh up pros and cons. I judge each year just how much Corporate I'm willing to swallow to support my dependents. I enjoy the author's redefinition of cynicism and optimism. These are useful ideas to consider and I've given it some thought, arriving at an attitude of Becoming that I guess some would call idealism. PS OMFG I just realised its MS. I believe this is what the kids call cringe.

mschuster91 10mo ago

> There are very few problems that you can solve entirely on your own. Software engineers encounter more of these problems than average, because the nature of software means that a single engineer can have huge leverage by sitting down and making a single code change. But in order to make changes to large products - for instance, to make it possible for GitHub’s 150M users to use LaTeX in markdown - you need to coordinate with many other people at the company, which means you need to be involved in politics. Maybe, just maybe, when any single individual is unable to propose a product improvement due to the requirement of ass-kissing and favor-dealings involved... the company is too big and should (be) split up. Corporate inertia is what is killing many a Western company against the competition from China.

neilv 10mo ago

> > We live in a late-stage-capitalist hellscape, where large companies are run by aspiring robber barons who have no serious convictions beyond desiring power. All those companies want is for obedient engineering drones to churn out bad code fast, [...] This morning's aspiring robber baron fun (I think it's OK mention this, under the circumstances, so long as I don't say anything identifying)... Responding to a cold outreach from a new startup, for which I happened to also have unusual experience in their product domain (no, you won't guess which). They wanted me to relocate to SF, as a founding engineer, and do a startup incubator with them. Me: if you haven't even done the incubator, just to clarify, you want a founding engineer, not a co-founder? Them: it will be good experience for you, to work alongside me to develop the product, and to see how the incubator works from the inside. (This isn't really their fault. The incubator has started telling kids that they should work for one of the incubator's portfolio startups for the experience (certainly not for the salary and stock options), and then maybe one day they can be the Glorious Founder. And then new Glorious Founders, who might not yet know any better, simply regurgitate that.) (I previously tried to talk with that same incubator about this message that they were using, after they included it in a broadcast that also invited connecting with a particular person there. When I found a way to contact that named person, they ignored my question, and instead offered to delete my account on their thing, if I didn't like what they were saying. So I deleted my account myself. I'm not sure we really developed a collegial rapport and constructive shared understanding about the concern...)

AttentionBlock 10mo ago

> It’s a cynical way to view the C-staff of a company. I think it’s also inaccurate: from my limited experience, the people who run large tech companies really do want to deliver good software to users. I strongly disagree with this statement. What C-staff cares about is share-holder value. What middle management care about is empire building and promotions. > for instance, to make it possible for GitHub’s 150M users to use LaTeX in markdown - you need to coordinate with many other people at the company, which means you need to be involved in politics. You presented your point in a misleading way. I would classify this as collaboration/communication rather than politics. Politics is when you need to tick off a useless boxes for your promo, when you try to to take credits for work you haven't helped with, when you throw your colleague under the bus, when you get undeserved performance rating because the manager thinks you are his good boy. There's a lot more, I didn't read any of your previous blogs, but all of these things are what engineers dread when we refer to politics.

rainonmoon 10mo ago
It's always worth being skeptical when someone appeals with the term "good". I'm sure there are people who run large tech companies who want to deliver "good software", but it's such a meaninglessly vague designation that it being true doesn't matter. I can't speak to the motivations of C-suites I've never met, but I can say for sure that my idea of "good software" is very different to theirs.
imiric 10mo ago
> You presented your point in a misleading way. I would classify this as collaboration/communication rather than politics. Collaboration and communication are key parts of politics, though. At its core, politics is simply the dynamics within a group of people. Since we innately organize into hierarchies, and power/wealth/fame are appealing to many, this inevitably leads to mind games, tension, and conflict. But in order to accomplish anything within an organization, a certain level of politics must be involved. It's fine to find this abhorring and to try to avoid it, but that's just the reality of our society. People who play this game the best have the largest impact and are rewarded; those who don't usually have less impact and are often overlooked.
10mo ago

siliconc0w 10mo ago

If we're doing cynicism - even if you write lovingly hand crafted free range OSS code - EvilCorp can still come along and use it as part of the EvilCorp backend. Your just working for them for free rather than getting paid.

nzeid 10mo ago
Nah. Healthy cynicism is using your contributions to gain leverage while interviewing with said EvilCorp. It's not like the OSS is anonymous.

skeptrune 10mo ago

We're all just trying to do a good job. I think it's very rare for someone to be earnestly malicious attempting to block the company from doing well.

fullshark 10mo ago

They should at least understand why they are getting paid and basic business logic instead of thinking they are above it because they are 10x or whatever. You are a cost center unless you are making that line go up.

skeptrune 10mo ago

plain and minimally styled UI is going to make a huge comeback in 2026. i think people are tired of all the maximalism in web dev

tormeh 10mo ago
Maximalism? Go to a japanese or chinese website. Those are maximalist. Western web design is all mobile-first minimalism.

alexwennerberg 10mo ago

Lol thanks for reading my blog post! (Alex here) Your statement of my position: > We live in a late-stage-capitalist hellscape, where large companies are run by aspiring robber barons who have no serious convictions beyond desiring power. All those companies want is for obedient engineering drones to churn out bad code fast, so they can goose the (largely fictional) stock price. Meanwhile, end-users are left holding the bag: paying more for worse software, being hassled by advertisements, and dealing with bugs that are unprofitable to fix. The only thing an ethical software engineer can do is to try and find some temporary niche where they can defy their bosses and do real, good engineering work, or to retire to a hobby farm and write elegant open-source software in their free time. Let me re-state this in another way, which says functionally the same thing: > Companies are hierarchical organizations where you sell your specialized labor for money. You should do what they expect of you in order to collect a paycheck, cultivate as enjoyable of a working environment as you can, then go home and enjoy the rest of your free time and your nice big tech salary. Is this cynical? In some sense, sure, but I don't think it's inaccurate or even toxic, and I think it's probably how something like 90% of big tech employees operate. Sometimes your writing makes it seem like this is actually what you think. If your "objective description" of big tech companies were in service of this goal -- getting along better and not fighting the organization to preserve your own sanity and career -- I don't think people would take issue with it. But you make the analogy of public service and seem in some sense to believe in values that are fundamentally at odds with these organizations. Is your position that, through successful maneuvering, and engineer can make a big tech organization serve the public in spite of internal political and economic pressures? This seems far more idealistic than what I believe. To quote Kurt Vonnegut, "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."

senshan 10mo ago

Indeed: “The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.” George Bernard Shaw

senshan 10mo ago

I do not understand the dilemma. The sole reason I am hired for my position as an engineer is that I am expected to make the life of my hiring manager easier. Not to save the world, not to do "the right thing" (whatever this means), but help my manager. During the interview, I had a chance to a get a rough idea what I am going to be responsible for. If the organization or the mission changes to the extent that it is no longer consistent with my values, I start pinging my former colleagues working elsewhere. So where is the intrigue?

SoftTalker 10mo ago
Exactly, and this is what the deal has always been when you are an employee in a for-profit corporation. You do what the company asks you to do, and they pay you for your time. This is not "late-stage" anything it's the way it's always been. If you want to save the world, join the Peace Corps or at least a non-profit.
zwnow 10mo ago
Tldr: Yes my lord, I'll build the concentration camps as you desired, as its not my business to question thy authority. As long as I get paid, I wont question the effects my work has. What an ignorant way of working. Guess that's who they hire to build the software spying on Amazon drivers so they have to piss into bottles to make deliveries on time.
- senshan 10mo ago
  Not quite. I do not think it was implied. This is why the interview was mentioned and the criterion for quitting. What is your approach?
fcantournet 10mo ago
Unless you are a personal assistant, your job probably is not to "make the life of your hiring manager easier". You have responsibilities, which ideally should be stipulated in some form in a contract, and if you are vaguely senior they hopefully go beyond "do whatever steeve needs to feel good". I would argue that it is in fact your manager whose job entails making your (and your peers) professional life easier, by identifying the roadblocks, escalating problems if need be, etc...

Animats 10mo ago

This is a consequence of late-stage technology. When few people could make it work at all, the people who could were left alone to make it work. Once it was a routine job, management and political priorities began to control. This has happened with other technologies as they matured. Bridges. Electrical power. Radio. (The story of Roebling, the Tweed Ring, and the Brooklyn Bridge is worth knowing. Tweed tried to steal too early in the history of the technology, and it backfired on him big-time.) This happened to software a while back. Semiconductors had it less because keeping up with Moore's Law dominated the politics. Learn more about the history of technology and this pattern reappears.

alehlopeh 10mo ago

I have a somewhat tangential question. If this is late stage capitalism, and tech CEOs are compared to robber barons to show how rich and greedy they’ve become, then what stage was capitalism in when the actual robber barons were doing their thing a hundred years ago?

alphazard 10mo ago

I don't know who this kind of cynic vs. idealist vs. optimist thinking works on/for, but it doesn't seem to give me any kind of conceptual edge. Instead of trying to frame things in terms of a mood or a feeling, it's better to try to understand things in terms of what is likely and unlikely to happen. Large corporations are just groups of people with conflicting incentives, and that means they are basically incapable of performing certain kinds of tasks. It also means that when the incentives do align, some tasks are very likely to be completed, even with other corporations or governments working in opposition. Some of those tasks might be things you care about, like making a product of a certain quality, or furthering some other goal you have. In all those cases, it is best to to first think about what is most likely to happen and what is unlikely to happen. You have to think of the organization as just another phenomenon that you could exploit if you properly understood it. Unfortunately, how to manipulate complex systems of humans is an open problem, and if anyone had effective, repeatable solutions, then investors would demand that they be implemented. As it is, most corporations don't act in the interest of the investors a significant amount of the time, even though they are supposed to. The only thing we can reliably bet on is: all organizations tend towards dysfunctional bureaucracies, the longer they live, and the bigger they get.

atmosx 10mo ago
I believe the terminology is off. The author seems to confuse cynicism with realism. Cynicism is specific trait and has only negative connotations. It cannot be “good” for a social structure by definition. Realism is neutral. But we often assume that realism implies cynicism which is not true. Parrhesia (tact) is the only worthwhile, long term goal in terms of attitude. And that doesn’t include cynicism. It’s about being honest without feeling like betraying yourself. “Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." - (supposedly) Isaac Newton
- kelnos 10mo ago
  I don't really agree. The dictionary definition of cynical is "believing the worst of human nature and motives; having a sneering disbelief in e.g. selflessness of others". That's certainly very extreme, but a tempered, measured belief in the negative aspects of human nature is necessary, I think. You might say, "that's just realism", but I think they are just separate axes: some amount of cynicism (and idealism) is necessary in order to be realistic. Possibly different amounts in different contexts, depending on the other people involved.

moezd 10mo ago

This is just a coping mechanism. We know that C-level doesn't understand the tech they are evangelizing at all, and we know that at some point, they end up approving a lot of new middle management hires that are just as power hungry as they are, so the feedback loop from the shop to the top is sealed off. These two catastrophes seal the fate of any company. If your company is still not infected with these, you can still call plausible deniability or oversight or whatever excuse for them, and true, they are human. But if I look into their eyes and see nothing but desire for power, that's a toxic company and no amount of "healthy cynicism" will help me with that.

rramadass 10mo ago

Everybody (and not just Software Engineers) should keep this quote from Francesco Guicciardini (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Guicciardini https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Guicciardini) always in mind when dealing with people/companies/world; To get a reputation for being suspicious and distrustful is certainly not desirable. Nevertheless, men are so false, so insidious, so deceitful and cunning in their wiles, so avid in their own interest, and so oblivious to other's interests, that you cannot go wrong if you believe little and trust less. -- No. 157, Maxims and Reflections (Ricordi)

khana 10mo ago

[dead]

mos87 10mo ago

In 2026 everyone could do worse than become a little bit more cynical

not_that_d 10mo ago

What the post fails to understand is that a lot of the "top" people if big companies just doesn't understand the regular user because, well, they do not live a life like the regular users.

closewith 10mo ago
The same is true of most software developers.
- Muromec 10mo ago
  One can argue that an appropriate response of the regulator for failing a11y audit is making sure that regulated entity does in fact have a certain percent blind people among it's ranks with increasing the number for each repeated failure
  - DerArzt 10mo ago
    What would we do when we ran out of blind people?

Jgoauh 10mo ago

I would have rather read an article about the best ways to create positive change in a capitalist system, a critique of socialism, Marxism, or anarchism, even if it was filled with words i didn't understand, than an article arguing about individual intent, and ignoring systemic design.

KolibriFly 10mo ago

A lot of "anti-cynical" takes are actually built on a deeply cynical view of how change happens

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

m0llusk 10mo ago

Cynical, indeed! I'm not good enough with leetcode exercises to worry about coding for a large organization. And I hardly use LLMs at all in my coding. Guess I'm back to focusing on value from my own perspective.

roschdal 10mo ago

Tech companies have become pure evil

swiftcoder 10mo ago

> To the extent they have any control, they try to make their employees happy so they’ll work for less money and not leave. I think this is definitely overly charitable to corporations. Meta and Amazon both had pretty explicit policies that a modest level of employee churn was desirable, particularly when it involved folks leaving large quantities of unvested stock on the table.

spongebobstoes 10mo ago
some people are happier in a high performance environment with employee churn, when it means having more talented coworkers
- swiftcoder 10mo ago
  > when it means having more talented coworkers I'm not sure it is really correlated? It causes a lot of the high-performers to jump ship pretty regularly too - the company is perfectly happy replacing an expensive veteran with a college hire
  - mpyne 10mo ago
    If the net inflow of talented coworkers to the company with churn (including hi-po churn) still exceeds the level of talent you'd get at the company with stagnant workforce levels, then maybe you'd still find it preferable. High churn doesn't necessarily mean low average talent, especially if the skills you need to be a high-performer are not specific to any one company.
- alexwennerberg 10mo ago
  > some people are happier in a high performance environment with employee churn, when it means having more talented coworkers It means having coworkers who are constantly in competition with you for survival. It's a nightmare.
  - ketzo 10mo ago

dfilppi 10mo ago

[dead]

fennecbutt 10mo ago

I have always worked this way professionally. But unfortunately it often bleeds over into real life; it's so hard to see the good in things. :(

lisbbb 10mo ago

I spent nearly 2 years at a major pharmacy chain trying to implement various solutions for them and going in circles. Meanwhile, the entire construction of Epic Universe in Orlando took place. I've moved from realist to cynic. In fact, I'm not even working and may just be retired at this point. I just couldn't get past certain things about how these gigs have gone for the most part--so much waste.

sfpotter 10mo ago

I made a conscious choice to work at a small company rather than a large company because of this. The politics are smaller, but that doesn't mean the stakes are.

lazarus01 10mo ago

Cynicism is something I was curious about, particularly what drives people to feel this way. It’s such a powerful emotion that tilts someone’s worldview. It comes from negative experience and not dealing with the effects of that experience. The weight of that negativity is what tilts your views to be overtly cynical. You don’t just choose to be cynical, it’s part of your predisposition. Idealism comes when you are younger in age and as you get older, you become more cynical about things, because you have been through many more experiences. Young people should not be overtly cynical. They should look at the world with bright eyes and try to change things for the better. A young person who is overly cynical is a tragedy. In regard to playing politics, I think that is just intellectual laziness. Getting people on board with your ideas requires thoughtfulness. Try to find common ground on something you both believe in is a challenge, that requires effort. Treating people as individuals, showing genuine curiosity in their beliefs and exchanging direct feedback in a respectful way, is how you get people on board with your ideas.

ls612 10mo ago
Cynicism in younger people is merely operationalizing the adage “prepare for the worst and hope for the best”. Hope just isn’t a great foundation for basing decisions on if you have any other foundation available.
- lazarus01 10mo ago
  Hope is a great foundation, especially if you’re in a negative environment. It’s important to deal directly with reality, but sometimes reality is harsh and you need a break from the present moment. Hope is that break.
  - ls612 10mo ago
    If you have nothing else sure. Otherwise build your life on reality not on sandcastles in the clouds.
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]

crawfordcomeaux 10mo ago

Any analysis of corporations without contextualizing them within systems generating/maintaining genocides is going to be too reductive to be about the real world, like most economic models. The result will always be too idealistic & artificially limiting the scope of potentially meaningful work (as well as the creativity needed to move past such limits). Passively contributing to genocide is still contributing to genocide. Complicity/apathy toward genocide is still contributing to genocide.

lo_zamoyski 10mo ago

Humility and prudence. Humility involves accurate assessment of self and one's situation. A humble person is not a lowly person, as our contemporary use of the term would suggest. We all know the image of the hunched over, pitiable creature. No, a humble person is someone who has a rationally founded sense of his own strengths and weaknesses, the features of the situation, a sound sense of what he knows about it, and where discernment is needed, how the first combines with the latter. So, a humble person is neither arrogant nor small-souled. Prudence is the ability to recognize what ought to be done given the circumstances, and what means ought to be used. This presupposes humility, because without accurate self-knowledge and knowledge of circumstances, you cannot determine the correct course of action. You cannot even determine what the true good is that you ought to be pursuing in the first place. Words like "cynic", "optimist", "idealist", "realist", or "pessimist" are fairly useless here. They describe willful and emotional dispositions. Sometimes, people will paint a thin veneer of "rationality" over these. They will rationalize their small-mindedness and mediocrity, or their grandiosity. Now, you need to recognize the state of world as it is. That is not the same as recognizing how it ought to be. And the truth is that the world is a mixed bag. Each of us is a mixed bag. Let's say the Nazis performed medical experiments on people to develop a cure (which they did). Let's say you have the disease for which that cure would work. Do you use the cure? Is it morally licit? It certainly can be (the key term here is "remote cooperation with evil"). Making use of the good effect of an evil of another's actions is not the same as committing the evil action itself. In this world, there is nothing that has not in some way benefited from an injustice. Nothing. Benefiting from these things downstream is not categorically evil. What matters are that the reasons are proportionate to the gravity of the evil, and the proximity of the act. And participating in imperfect institutions is not necessarily evil, either. It depends on what you are contributing to and how. The principle of double effect [0] is an excellent guide here. It's not cynical to recognize that people are morally flawed. We are. We do good things and bad things, and some people are worse than others. That's just an obvious fact. But that's not an excuse to commit moral evils. That's the old defense children use: "But everyone else is doing it!" You need prudence to help you determine what you ought to pursue and how. You need prudence to be just. And you need justice to have the courage to do the right thing. [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/

jasonm23 10mo ago

more than we already are?!

nacozarina 10mo ago
is the cynicism of saying we’re not cynical enough, not enough?