7 ms·

While I can understand the frustration and the author makes some good points, a lot of the anger feels oddly misplaced. Yes, engineer types want to solve probl

• watwut 2mo ago
  Many "engineer types" will gladly care about doorknobs and infrastructure details. There is ideological opposition against from business types and some other tech types. > it's not the tech companies' fault that it's perennially underfunded, it's politicians and the voters who put them there. Tech companies pushed for exactly that outcome and spent a lot on lobbying and convincing. We totally can blame them for it.
  • thereisnospork 2mo ago
    How are Tech companies fighting public transit? At least in these parts a relatively high fraction of their employees commute by (private) bus. I can only presume that Tech companies would prefer the government provide safe, clean, and timely bussing for the public to save the company the cost and effort.
    • TulliusCicero 2mo ago
      They generally would, though for the most part I imagine they're just ambivalent here. As long as workers can get to work, that's most of what they care about.
    • hamdingers 2mo ago
      Hyperloop and Boring Company were both created as distractions from real proven transit technologies, and the latter has been quite successful at getting rail projects cancelled or at least confusing politicians enough to delay them.
      • TulliusCicero 2mo ago
        So it's basically just Tesla/Musk here, when people say "tech companies"? Musk is an asshole, no argument there, but most tech company CEOs aren't nearly that crazy.
        • hamdingers 2mo ago
          No, I provided one particularly eggregious example. Uber/Lyft have also lobbied against transit. The Google shuttles OP alludes to interfered with real transit operations.
    • roughly 2mo ago
      Every time a tech company lobbies against taxes, they’re fighting public transit. Every time they spend the exact same money they just argued shouldn’t go to the state on privatized busses, they’re fighting public transit.
  • TulliusCicero 2mo ago
    > Many "engineer types" will gladly care about doorknobs and infrastructure details. Some will, and that's great, but as the blog post accurately points out, the invention of these things isn't the primary issue, it's the lack of implementation. And that isn't the fault of the engineers designing better doorknobs or ramps. > Tech companies pushed for exactly that outcome and spent a lot on lobbying and convincing. We totally can blame them for it. Bullshit. The US has had underfunded transit for near a century now because of our obsession with cars. Trying to blame this on tech companies is a lame excuse.
    • bluefirebrand 2mo ago
      > Trying to blame this on tech companies is a lame excuse. Depends. Do car manufacturers count as tech companies? The obsession with cars and car infrastructure isn't accidental either, it's been manufactured and pushed heavily by car companies over decades. Same with the opposition to public transit. None of this stuff is happening 100% organically, it's being pushed by corporate interests via lobbying with government and funding advertising at individuals
      • SpicyLemonZest 2mo ago
        If someone watched a press video for the RAV4, and responded by saying "Toyota Motor Corporation Hates Me and You" and demanding that Toyota fix the bus routes in their city, I would think that's pretty silly. Everything's interrelated, and no consumer demand is 100% organic, but the linkage is just too remote to make sense.
        • inigyou 2mo ago
          It's literal, direct linkage. About a century ago, when cars were starting to become popular, car makers spent a shitload of money on bribes to city governments to make the cities only usable by car.
        • 8note 2mo ago
          toyota is a late comer though. "jaywalking" is a term made up by car companies because they hate you, as a better example
  • threatofrain 2mo ago
    Better doorknobs? Better civil infrastructure? A lot of those companies in that space aren't even tech companies, even if they deal with tech. The companies he talks about have a Very different business culture, and thus a very different response to if an in-house tech person wanted to do anything, really.
• nancyminusone 2mo ago
  I quite enjoy playing with robots, but I'd rather coordinate the design and installation of 1000 ramps than be involved with one walking liability sedan chair. If you care about results and reliability, no shit a competent engineer will be picking the one that has no moving parts and a 10,000 year track record.
  • TulliusCicero 2mo ago
    The fact that this is or isn't happening is basically unrelated to inventing new stuff. It's almost entirely a political issue, not one of engineering.
    • thatmf 2mo ago
      The two are not unrelated, and perhaps the inventiveness and energy of the latter could be applied to affecting the outcomes of the former.
    • masfuerte 2mo ago
      It's very much related because the technology provides an excuse to ignore the infrastructure problems even when it isn't good enough.
    • 8note 2mo ago
      land use and design issue more than anything. ramps have been around for a long time, and are well known to take up a ton of space. especially if every propery gets its own ramp rather than all the properties on a block sharing the same ramp system and having a common porch
  • SpicyLemonZest 2mo ago
    I just don't know what it means to prefer to be involved with the design and installation of ramps. There's a lot of ramps around, and the knowledge of how to build them is widely distributed. Is there some phenomenon I'm not aware of, where lots of people want to have ramps if only they could find a way to design and install them?
• munk-a 2mo ago
  > Sure, spending more on transit is a good idea, but it's not the tech companies' fault that it's perennially underfunded I think your overall point is relatively sound but that example is just terrible... Elon Musk has repeatedly lobbied against transit expansion and his Hyperloop pitch arguably derailed HSR talks in California for half a decade while the Las Vegas teslertube prevented the expansion of a monorail to actually service the strip airport corridor.
  • TulliusCicero 2mo ago
    I'll grant you Musk being terrible, no argument there, but that's not tech companies as a whole. And California hardly needed any help to sabotage its HSR, the state's whole process for that kind of development is incredibly backwards and broken, sadly.
    • nemomarx 2mo ago
      it's not really tech companies fault on this either but it sucks to see large amounts of investor money going to them when it could go to solving the issue more efficiently. (although obviously it would be less profitable for the investors so it won't happen) I think thats the core frustration
      • s1artibartfast 2mo ago
        It all depends on the counterfactual. Could the money solve the problem, if the issues with transportation arent funding? It seems like an institutionally made black hole that will simply consume anything put into it. I dont think flooding it with more money will fix that problem. Investors have poured about 10 billion into waymo prior to 2026. That could only have paid for about 5 to 7 miles of urban light rail given recent project costs in Seattle, San Francisco, or New York. And that's if you completely ignore the challenge around who has the money and assume the state can just collect extra taxes without discontent or impacts
        • inigyou 2mo ago
• croes 2mo ago
  Changing infrastructure would cost way less than buying hardware for all disabled people. So you don’t solve the problem, you just solve it for a tiny group of wealthy people
  • spigottoday 2mo ago
    Yes,and...? /s
  • spigottoday 2mo ago
    Yes, and...? /s
• the_other 2mo ago
  It's both "the entire nation's infrastructure." and not that. What I mean is... many cases are individual: the ramp for that library; the door knobs/handles in that office; the floor indicators in this lift/elevator; the audio announcements (or lack of) on the busses/trains; the small print on contracts; live subtitling at the theatre; the checkout button on this web site; the checkout button on that website. You get the idea. The vast majority of cases are individual; owned by myriad businesses, charities, foundations. The problem the OP is circling is the same as that proposed by the Social Model of disability. Most systems present obstacles to disabled users which could have been avoided if those systems' owners and designers and included disabled people in the design phase. Instead, no-one does this claiming it's too expensive, forgetting they themselves will be disabled in the future (most people become disabled in one way or another, with age). We all kick the can down the road, rather than deal with it today. Dealing with it is hard. The "national level infrastructure" aspect is a mixture of cultural praxis/expectation and, potentially, government carrot to go with the (existing) government stick (regulation; that most people try to ignore). (I'm not saying the Social Model of Disability is 100% right. I feel it's viewpoint is hugely instructive it's not the whole story.)
  • deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  • SpicyLemonZest 2mo ago
    But don't you see how the fact that many cases are individual makes it harder? You mention doorknobs, and it's easy to declare (which is why the US government has declared) that lever style door handles are more accessible and should be preferred. It's hard, impossibly so, to construct a world where nobody with wrist mobility problems will ever encounter a round doorknob they'd like to open.
    • jnovek 2mo ago
      It seems like the implication here is “if we can’t do anything, we shouldn’t do anything at all” under the social model. Not every doorknob will be disability friendly. If pressure from the social model fixes 20% of doorknobs, now there is a group of people can open 20% of doors where they could open 0% before.
• shemtay 2mo ago
  > perennially underfunded I remember voting to fund high speed rail, and the funding was quite generous...
• HoldOnAMinute 2mo ago
  You haven't addressed the grift problem. Without support for traditional nepotism/cronyism grift, how do you expect to motivate politicians? You won't always be able to count on the threat of exposing their sexual habits, which has been working for decades.
• antonvs 2mo ago
  > Maybe, just maybe, that's because inventing something is actually within their grasp The problem is that inventing a solution that no-one needs or wants and then using venture money to hype it up feels like rubbing salt in a wound for the very people they're claiming to try to help. The point is they're not actually trying to help those people. They're using them as a marketing tool to further their own ambition to make money. The anger is understandable.
  • threatofrain 2mo ago
    These nameless people could very well want to help people. A device that costs as much as a Honda Civic? Yes, that's exactly the kind of stuff that happens as you attempt to mature a product. I was working on a drone automation system at another company. The initial prototypes were also in the Honda Civic multiplier range. The companies that bought into us knew the price tag. The customers who wanted conventional products with conventional pricing... ignored us! Once you develop an actual manufacturing line the costs go away down, but first you must develop that maturity.
    • antonvs 2mo ago
      > These nameless people could very well want to help people. The criticism is that what they’re choosing to work on is misguided, if the goal is truly to help people. The cost is just one of several factors, and one point about it is that the cost will never come down far enough to make sense, if the fundamental nature of the product isn’t in fact beneficial to the intended users. It seems that there’s a sizable group who just want their ego stroked about how they’re “making the world a better place,” and other such drivel. Whether that’s actually true doesn’t matter to them, and they’re not going to think about it deeply enough to make any difference.
• stevenfoster 2mo ago
  "...the author makes some good points, a lot of the anger feels oddly misplaced." a significant portion of my internet experience could be boiled down to this single sentence.
• bevr1337 2mo ago
  This doesn't hold up to scrutiny because tech companies _do_ provide input at policy level. Sticking to transportation, auto groups and manufacturers were able to popularize "jay walking" a century ago. Tech leadership and politics mingle at the highest levels too. For ex, Trump took Huang, Cook, and Musk with him on a recent trip to China.
  • nitwit005 2mo ago
    > I need better doorknobs and or a ramp. I'm not aware of any tech company lobbying against doorknobs or ramps, and I don't see any particular reason for them to care. There's been some general corporate push back against the expense of some ADA fixes.
    • deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
• ashleyn 2mo ago
  The US has been institutionally dysfunctional for quite some time, so that puts us in an interesting position where it's easier to imagine inventing our way out of social problems with $30,000 servo-filled boxes than it is to imagine ever getting a cheaper and easier solution moved through Congress. Congress rarely seems to pass disruptive changes to law these days. Statehouses are less sclerotic, but not by much. Many of the civil rights gains touted 10+ years ago came from hacks shoved through the supreme court exploiting a partisan lean. If you really read between the lines, much of the fuss about Mayor Mamdani in NYC has been a curious rediscovery that the government can in fact Just Do Things for people who elected it.
  • bluGill 2mo ago
    Congress passed the ADA in 1990. There isn't much more they can do - they have limited power. (there were a few updates since then, and I'm sure there are more tweaks they can make, but the majority of their work is done). Most of the authors rant are not things the government does or should do, government buildings generally are ADA compliant these days. The rant is about non-government things.
    • harimau777 2mo ago
      The biggest thing that I want is a way for ADA to realistically apply to invisible disabilities like autism. Although in theory people with invisible disabilities can get accomodations, in practice the accomodation that they really need is "stop being a shitty employer".
  • perpetuallunch 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    • harimau777 2mo ago
      Yet even if we accept your premise, he is still worlds better than the alternatives.
• hannahstrawbrry 2mo ago
  It also feels like a failure to understand the motivations and mechanisms behind these projects- those "misguided" college students are usually doing these projects to further their studies, as capstone or research projects that they may not be concerned with the funding for. Accessible product development is a side effect of the process, not the goal, and that's why they aren't developing scalable solutions.
• ElProlactin 2mo ago
  This is why raising well-rounded children is so important. Intelligent young people today are too often encouraged/forced to specialize and while it makes sense for them economically given the structure of our society, it produces lots of young, intelligent adults who can't see the forest for the trees. They can be brilliant in one area but unable to see the big picture, which is a real loss to society when they have the ambition to contribute.
• make3 2mo ago
  this type of individualist responsibility diffusion is exactly why nothing happens in the US, & why France has protests the second the govt does anything bad. no one is asking you to solve the whole problem, just be part of fighting for the real solution
• asdff 2mo ago
  >but it's not the tech companies' fault that it's perennially underfunded I mean, it kind of is when the tech company is spending a lot of money lobbying against transit in favor of expanding their product's market share.
• why_at 2mo ago
  I think their anger is justified. Yes there's not a lot that individual engineers can do to help, but a big part of the problem is that they don't even understand the people they're "helping". These tech gadgets are the annoying experience we've all had of someone taking a look at a problem from the outside and proposing unhelpful "solutions" that won't work because they don't fully understand it. It reminds me of conversations I've had with people who suffer from insomnia. They say that everyone has some suggestion to just try melatonin, or not use screens before bed, or whatever. As though they haven't tried these things. Yes they're just trying to be helpful, but it comes off as patronizing.
  • serf 2mo ago
    'Help me but don't patronize' is a tall order without some real linguistic gymnastics.
    • clcaev 2mo ago
      > 'Help me but don't patronize' is a tall order without some real linguistic gymnastics. Not at all. Just don't start by guessing what a disabled person's concerns are, or presume that an unsolicited suggestion is helpful. A respectful start is letting them know you will be responsive and let them lead the conversation.
      • keybrd-intrrpt 2mo ago
        And you are presuming they _aren't_ talking with disabled people. https://www.xbox.com/en-US/accessories/controllers/xbox-adaptive-controller https://www.xbox.com/en-US/accessories/controllers/xbox-adap... Received high praise if I recall correctly. Sure, we've all known engineers and product managers that don't consult the target audience, but don't assume that of everyone.
  • mhurron 2mo ago
    > Yes they're just trying to be helpful Experience says they're not, they're being dismissive. They don't understand because they don't care to and it's beneath them to learn, because the solution is to 'just' do this simple thing everyone knows to do. It now becomes the sufferers fault they continue to suffer and it's not longer required for anyone else to care.
• pavel_lishin 2mo ago
  > but it's not the tech companies' fault that it's perennially underfunded I mean, it's certainly a factor: https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/uber-lyft-proposition-l-transit-19797995.php https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/uber-lyft-proposition-l-...
• dumberquestions 2mo ago
  Ride hailing apps promised to decrease traffic and social media apps promised to make people more social, in both cases the opposite happened and this is just off the top of my head.
• 8note 2mo ago
  > Sure, spending more on transit is a good idea, but it's not the tech companies' fault that it's perennially underfunded, it's politicians and the voters who put them there. mind you, tech companies are also lobbyists with money, and are happy to pay politicians to not build infrastructure that would make the self driving or electric cars less useful
  • keybrd-intrrpt 2mo ago
    [dead]
• zaptheimpaler 2mo ago
  This is so true and I see this pattern constantly all over the west: There is some horrible problem that was created by the government or needs government intervention to fundamentally solve. The idea of the government being effective or useful in any way is so distant that it doesn't even register as a possibility. The government doesn't even register as a valid target to blame or locus of change anymore, so it never even enters the conversation. Instead, the next proximate cause is blamed and the anger is directed to them. Recently - a teacher made a private joke on Snapchat expressing frustration about her workday. Snapchat automatically sent the message to the police and the police pulled up an hour later to the school and arrested her. She wasn't charged thankfully. The response on reddit is "FUCK SNAPCHAT" even though we know all communication platforms are being monitored by the government and are no doubt strong-armed into doing this by the government. Even the potential solutions being discussed are only finding and using E2EE communication platforms not policy change, because that's not in the window of possibility.
• rurp 2mo ago
  > it's not the tech companies' fault that it's perennially underfunded This is simply wrong in a lot of cases. Tech companies absolutely use their immense wealth and influence to alter public policy and spending. Regulation and budget decisions happen all the time to benefit a specific company or industry, at the expense of the overall public. Tech is hardly alone in this, but that industry has more money and mind share than most, and correspondingly more ability to change policies to their benefit. The more money and hype a Disability Dongle company gets, the more interest and ability it will have to degrade less shiny but more effective alternatives.
• blks 2mo ago
  The author gave a quite clear example what any web/mobile developer can be doing without turning into architect or construction worker.
• dualvariable 2mo ago
  > but it's not the tech companies' fault that it's perennially underfunded, it's politicians and the voters who put them there. Disagree there. Tech companies and their owners are part of the system of monied interests that have entirely captured our government, and that's why we don't have the funding to fix all our infrastructure.
• BrenBarn 2mo ago
  > Maybe, just maybe, that's because inventing something is actually within their grasp, whereas wholesale replacing every civil engineer and architect in the country isn't? That is like the old joke about the drunk who lost his keys in the dark alley but is looking for them by the lamppost because the light's better there. If what's "in your grasp" isn't going to make things better, then just don't do it. Virtually every "engineer type" working for a large tech company is making the world worse simply by participating in that large tech company's activities, and it would be more ethical for them to simply quit than continue to do anything within that context.