4 ms·

>Programming is an inherently constructivist discipline. A constructivist is like the archetypal Missourian: “Show me!” Many "hackers" are unable to apply this

>Programming is an inherently constructivist discipline. A constructivist is like the archetypal Missourian: “Show me!” Many "hackers" are unable to apply this principle to the field of business. They don't understand business, they aren't good at it, and therefore they see it as nothing more than empty headed self-promoters jockeying for social status, just like those "cool kids" who picked on them in high school. They do not understand that the prime directive of a business is to make money, and that doing so is always more important than quality engineering. Given that most hackers work for businesses, I think this is a large blind spot that leads to a lot of bitterness and feelings of exclusion.

dragonwriter 12y ago
The prime directive of a business is to serve the interests of its owners. That usually requires making money at some level, but making money itself may not be the prime directive. It's true that if a company is publicly traded, widely held, or principally owned by investors who choose it based on potential financial returns, the shared interests of its owners are likely to be limited to making money, but that isn't true of all businesses.
- EdwardDiego 12y ago
  > The prime directive of a business is to serve the interests of its owners. That usually requires making money at some level, but making money itself may not be the prime directive. And this is certainly true of some businesses. A few businesses. And they're fantastic to work for. But they're very rare in my (admittedly) limited experience.
whybroke 12y ago
If it seem the coding practices are inappropriately heaping on technical debt then there are two disagreements: 1. It looks like it will loose money in the long term and is therefore a poor decision even from a money stand point. This would create an impression empty-headed-ness. 2. Creating technical debt looks like at way to make a company appear superficially more valuable than it is by delivering a nonviable product whose real cost won't be realized until later (when the technical debt has to be paid). If this corresponds with funding raising, it creates an impression of dishonesty. Likely as not these are miss-impressions. But they are deeper problems than "I didn't know companies were supposed to make money".
Lawtonfogle 12y ago
I get the business value of making money. What I have through with is that I have a big disagreement with business people how much technical debt costs in the long term. Also, I don't 'get' making money being such a big desire in and of itself. As they say, greed squared is evil.
TeMPOraL 12y ago
It isn't such a blind spot. They may understand the "prime directive" pretty well and see how bullshit it is. It's a system of redistribution of scarce resources that most people got confused about and now play it as a game of its own. It's not the profit that should matter, but the value that is produced, the improvement of human condition.
- LordHumungous 12y ago
  Let's face it, 90% of companies in this industry produce nothing but meaningless bullshit. If you work at one of the few companies that is making the world a better place and not just selling ads, social media, games, or other diversions for rich people then my advice may not apply to you. I don't work for one of those companies, and I prefer to dispense with the notion that anything I'm doing is for the improvement of the human condition. It's about money, period, full stop.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    > If you work at one of the few companies that is making the world a better place and not just selling ads, social media, games, or other diversions for rich people then my advice may not apply to you. Unfortunately, I don't (and it depresses me). But then again, I treat my work as a neccessary evil, and I (try to) care about the product's face value, not underlying notion of it making money. That's for sales people to do; the best I can do is to make sure that what we build has at least some value to the end-user. It's about the attitude - when tasked to design a widget, do you primarily care about building a good widget, or performing a ritual of work that will bring the cash in?
    - LordHumungous 12y ago
      That's a good point. Being a craftsman means caring about the quality of your work.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
Cthulhu_ 12y ago
I don't think they're unable to - after all, high-volume trading algorithms were made by some of the brightest minds around. What I think is that at least for hacker culture, ethics plays a large part. Linus didn't make Linux because he wanted to make money (he could've been as rich as Bill Gates by now if he played it right - his OS certainly grew much larger than Gates'). Phil Zimmerman didn't make PGP to make money, or maintain it for the past 25 years for that, he did it purely out of idealistic standpoints - and it required a mention in an interview and an internet donation drive for him to finally get some recognition for his work. Snowden didn't release secrets to the public because he wanted to make money - he could've made a pretty penny selling them to Russia or the media or whoever, he didn't not release them because of loyalty to their country, ge released them because he thought it was the right thing to do, that mass surveillance was inherently wrong.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

dragonwriter 12y ago

The prime directive of a business is to serve the interests of its owners. That usually requires making money at some level, but making money itself may not be the prime directive. It's true that if a company is publicly traded, widely held, or principally owned by investors who choose it based on potential financial returns, the shared interests of its owners are likely to be limited to making money, but that isn't true of all businesses.

EdwardDiego 12y ago
> The prime directive of a business is to serve the interests of its owners. That usually requires making money at some level, but making money itself may not be the prime directive. And this is certainly true of some businesses. A few businesses. And they're fantastic to work for. But they're very rare in my (admittedly) limited experience.

whybroke 12y ago

If it seem the coding practices are inappropriately heaping on technical debt then there are two disagreements: 1. It looks like it will loose money in the long term and is therefore a poor decision even from a money stand point. This would create an impression empty-headed-ness. 2. Creating technical debt looks like at way to make a company appear superficially more valuable than it is by delivering a nonviable product whose real cost won't be realized until later (when the technical debt has to be paid). If this corresponds with funding raising, it creates an impression of dishonesty. Likely as not these are miss-impressions. But they are deeper problems than "I didn't know companies were supposed to make money".

Lawtonfogle 12y ago

I get the business value of making money. What I have through with is that I have a big disagreement with business people how much technical debt costs in the long term. Also, I don't 'get' making money being such a big desire in and of itself. As they say, greed squared is evil.

TeMPOraL 12y ago

It isn't such a blind spot. They may understand the "prime directive" pretty well and see how bullshit it is. It's a system of redistribution of scarce resources that most people got confused about and now play it as a game of its own. It's not the profit that should matter, but the value that is produced, the improvement of human condition.

LordHumungous 12y ago
Let's face it, 90% of companies in this industry produce nothing but meaningless bullshit. If you work at one of the few companies that is making the world a better place and not just selling ads, social media, games, or other diversions for rich people then my advice may not apply to you. I don't work for one of those companies, and I prefer to dispense with the notion that anything I'm doing is for the improvement of the human condition. It's about money, period, full stop.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  > If you work at one of the few companies that is making the world a better place and not just selling ads, social media, games, or other diversions for rich people then my advice may not apply to you. Unfortunately, I don't (and it depresses me). But then again, I treat my work as a neccessary evil, and I (try to) care about the product's face value, not underlying notion of it making money. That's for sales people to do; the best I can do is to make sure that what we build has at least some value to the end-user. It's about the attitude - when tasked to design a widget, do you primarily care about building a good widget, or performing a ritual of work that will bring the cash in?
  - LordHumungous 12y ago
    That's a good point. Being a craftsman means caring about the quality of your work.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

Cthulhu_ 12y ago

I don't think they're unable to - after all, high-volume trading algorithms were made by some of the brightest minds around. What I think is that at least for hacker culture, ethics plays a large part. Linus didn't make Linux because he wanted to make money (he could've been as rich as Bill Gates by now if he played it right - his OS certainly grew much larger than Gates'). Phil Zimmerman didn't make PGP to make money, or maintain it for the past 25 years for that, he did it purely out of idealistic standpoints - and it required a mention in an interview and an internet donation drive for him to finally get some recognition for his work. Snowden didn't release secrets to the public because he wanted to make money - he could've made a pretty penny selling them to Russia or the media or whoever, he didn't not release them because of loyalty to their country, ge released them because he thought it was the right thing to do, that mass surveillance was inherently wrong.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]