Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tech Workers Now Want to Know: What Are We Building This For?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 354 posts

Re: Tech Workers Now Want to Know: What Are We Building This For?

#101

Post by mbesto »

bilbo0s wrote: post #83
netcan wrote: post #36

At least to some extent, this is a "Hegelian pendulum." In the beginning there where black suited corporate drones. They coded black and white "calculation solutions" for the enterprising enterprise. Then came colour. Gates wanted cheap computers on every desk. Jobs wanted colour computers for every artist. Mission. Meaning. This worked better, especially if you needed employees to invent things. Can't invent the iPh…

> Google (and "SV") have spent 2 decades telling everyone about their open and selfless ideologies. People bought it. They went to work for Google instead of a bank... Let's inject a little honesty into this discussion. People didn't flock to google et al in droves because of google's selfless ideology. That was coincidental. People flocked to google because they wanted to get rich. Especially in the early days when…

> Most of us understood what google and facebook were going in.

It's also revisionist to interject your own thoughts and represent them to a party as whole.

People may have been cognizant that there are ills to Google/Facebook's model, but these are mostly externalities and not necessarily related to the direct impact. The point is - it's in our nature to ignore externalities, as long as the immediate goal is achieved.

Re: Tech Workers Now Want to Know: What Are We Building This For?

#102

Post by manigandham »

wool_gather wrote: post #68
sokoloff wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't work in the field and don't know exactly how I'd personally feel about it, but I can see a very strong argument that even one of the most heinous weapons every deployed on Earth likely saved a net million-plus lives. If that is the case, is it moral to refuse to work on the Manhattan Project if asked? (I also agree that working on the next generation of the atomic bomb or the next revision of the M16/AK47 doe…

Framed like that, it's basically the trolley problem[0]. For which I don't think there's a good answer. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

There is. It's a solved problem. The only issue is lack of info (many evil people vs 1 good) but most people get stuck because of a "no compromises" attitude and lack of will to make that decision.

Modern society has already made the choice though. We sacrifice a few for the many all the time, and they are called heros and duly celebrated.

Re: Tech Workers Now Want to Know: What Are We Building This For?

#103

Post by mbesto »

ryandrake wrote: post #99
bilbo0s wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google (and "SV") have spent 2 decades telling everyone about their open and selfless ideologies. People bought it. They went to work for Google instead of a bank... Let's inject a little honesty into this discussion. People didn't flock to google et al in droves because of google's selfless ideology. That was coincidental. People flocked to google because they wanted to get rich. Especially in the early days when…

> For the techies going to work for google, it was never about not being evil. It was about getting rich. Most "techies going to work for google" or any other tech firm, are not going to get rich, in the Bill Gates or Larry Ellison sense. Sure, techies (currently) have a good shot at an above average lifestyle, but that's it. Working as third engineer from the left is not going to provide generational wealth for thei…

> Most "techies going to work for google" or any other tech firm, are not going to get rich, in the Bill Gates or Larry Ellison sense.

I can't speak for the OP, but there is absolutely a sense of getting rich working early at a tech company. The market for startup options is a direct indication of this. Google and Facebook both made, what..1000 millionaires each when they IPO'd? Point is, yes if you get in early to a world dominating technology company, you can absolutely become rich and be set for life.

> Everything about how good techies have it could be negated during the next tech downturn.

Disagree. Downturns force productivity and technology fuels productivity. If anything it's going to force more investment in technology to replace humans so businesses can maintain profitability. It's the sales & marketing folks that are usually in trouble, because many of these high growth companies will simply turn those functions off while we wait for the economy to swing back.

Re: Tech Workers Now Want to Know: What Are We Building This For?

#104

Post by [deleted] »

abledon wrote: post #38
pleasecalllater wrote: post #3

For money, my dear, for money. Is there any other reason for a company to exist? The stuff like "do no evil" or "we are green" is just a smoke screen. At the end they will do everything for money.

The point of business should be for the betterment of humanity, not money

[deleted]

Re: Tech Workers Now Want to Know: What Are We Building This For?

#105

Post by castlecrasher2 »

wool_gather wrote: post #68
sokoloff wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't work in the field and don't know exactly how I'd personally feel about it, but I can see a very strong argument that even one of the most heinous weapons every deployed on Earth likely saved a net million-plus lives. If that is the case, is it moral to refuse to work on the Manhattan Project if asked? (I also agree that working on the next generation of the atomic bomb or the next revision of the M16/AK47 doe…

Framed like that, it's basically the trolley problem[0]. For which I don't think there's a good answer. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Thus the problem with the philosophical masturbation that goes on in threads like these; the moral busybodies come out of the woodwork to drop wisdom like "business should be about the betterment of humanity." I mean, sure, that would be great, but it's painfully vague.

Re: Tech Workers Now Want to Know: What Are We Building This For?

#106

Post by rhodysurf »

fsloth wrote: post #33

For the over the decade I've been a software engineer I've always strived to work in products with a value proposition for the end user that I can understand. I can't understand how anyone could work without this understanding and not get their soul crushed. Maybe I'm just sensitive or underpaid.

I enjoy my job (a lot), but I work to live, not live to work. As long as my job pays me well enough and I am only work ~40 hours a week with a flexible schedule I could care less what I am programming most of the time.

My passions can live in my free time.

Re: Tech Workers Now Want to Know: What Are We Building This For?

#108

Post by mc32 »

Some tech workers. Not all, not most. This is more or less an editorial trying to get tech workers to think about implications, presumably to make them susceptible to politization so they can be more manipulated by news.

China presents a quandary, no doubt. On the one hand we have self determination and sovereignty, on the other hand we have “western values” and so forth. Not long ago “internationalists” argued for the former, but given that that would result in something contra, they now prefer “western values” which they used to argue against (i.e. relativism).

Re: Tech Workers Now Want to Know: What Are We Building This For?

#109

Post by bilbo0s »

mistrial9 wrote: post #88
bilbo0s wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google (and "SV") have spent 2 decades telling everyone about their open and selfless ideologies. People bought it. They went to work for Google instead of a bank... Let's inject a little honesty into this discussion. People didn't flock to google et al in droves because of google's selfless ideology. That was coincidental. People flocked to google because they wanted to get rich. Especially in the early days when…

good try but.. the Google'rs originally wanted to "index the worlds information" .. very, very smart engineers are motivated by that alone. They were competitive and highly-achieving coders from Berkeley-Stanford-MIT-CalTech-thatOtherOneIForget in an elite team environment.. There were ten other well-funded companies trying to be search engines with lots of publicity.. Google outperformed them.. In hindsight, after t…

That techies were motivated by riches is not hindsight.

Google, pre-ipo, sucked in so much intellectual capital that other startups, my own included, were having trouble getting access to the elite techies at prices we could afford. Their salaries were well above market, and their options were clearly going to be worth more than everyone else' at the time.

And don't even get me started on Facebook. That one of facebook's early investors was the VC wing of the CIA was an open secret. Yet techies still flocked to them for the big paychecks and the options.

And good for those guys. For the vast majority of them, it worked out REALLY well. I don't fault them for any of it.

I just think that you're putting on rose colored glasses here. It was clear long before Google IPO'd, that there was a lot of money to be made. (That much was even clear before keyword auctions as a matter of fact.) And everyone wanted to be in on it. Everyone still wants to get in on the hot startups. Whether those startups are profitable or not. That's just the nature of this business.

Now again, I'm not complaining. That's just how the tech startup industry works. I get that. My issue is with everyone trying to turn it all around and act like a giant gold rush never blinded everyone. As if all those techies flocked to SV because it was all just about making the world a better place. That's just not true.

Re: Tech Workers Now Want to Know: What Are We Building This For?

#110

Post by j7ake »

justinclift wrote: post #87
j7ake wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cure for cancer involves molecular biology and filtering pollution involves heterogeneous catalysis. Where does programming come into play in any direct way to these solutions? I understand that tech is involved indirectly, but so is the coffee that is served in laboratories to keep scientists working.

> Where does programming come into play in any direct way to these solutions? * Literally every piece of lab equipment that uses any kind of controller/control board (most of them)... has needed programming of one sort of another. Hmmm, with the exception of older analog gear maybe (decades ago?). * Every single piece of data collection, storage, analysis, and control software is created through programming. * Even c…

I agree programming is involved with all solutions that will come from sciences. But considering how many people use macs, powerpoints, and word in those industries, I think those who are working at companies like Apple and Microsoft are contributing just as much as somebody who works as programmer at start-up involving heterogeneous catalysis.
Post reply on HN