141–150 of 354 posts
They sure have strong opinions about working on Government projects but none of them have any issues creating tech that intrusively monitors and manipulates people for the purposes of serving them advertisements. What heroes they are...
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…
* You tell Google what you are looking for.
* Google returns a handful of ads, alongside world-class organic search results.
* Merchants bid to have their ads returned for specific search intents.
None of this requires the 24/7 surveillance machine Google has ended up building.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How would you like people to square this with providing for their families? With a capable human brain, like we all have! Just because a decision is hard doesn’t absolve you of the responsibility to make the right one—all people making decisions have been faced with this, including many people commonly considered evil. Computers are levers, and developers are the fulcrum. We have quite a bit of negotiation power. F…
You're still begging the question. How does one choose between doing something supports a questionably moral company (and what isn't a company without any moral baggage?) and keeping your family fed and warm? > Just because a decision is hard doesn’t absolve you of the responsibility to make the right [choice] I think this is telling: you believe there is a correct choice in all situations, from all points of view. I…
It all comes down to a very simple (although fundamental) question about your morality and character: do you believe ends justify the means?
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…
You are totally right, I am oversimplifying it. Do you know of any text, interviews or discussions with any of the scientists on the Manhattan project on the morality of their work?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're still begging the question. How does one choose between doing something supports a questionably moral company (and what isn't a company without any moral baggage?) and keeping your family fed and warm? > Just because a decision is hard doesn’t absolve you of the responsibility to make the right [choice] I think this is telling: you believe there is a correct choice in all situations, from all points of view. I…
The decisions we make in life, and our difficulty making them, defines us. I can’t help you define your morality here.
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.
Sometimes your don't have the luxury to choose your work.
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…
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…
You're describing 2 of the 10 richest billionaires in the world. Most people in general are not going to get that rich, most rich people are not going to get that rich, and nobody is going to get that rich by joining a company that has 100 or more employees already.
Gates, Ellison, Allen, Ballmer, Bezos, etc. are the richest 1% of the richest 1% of the richest 1%, and then some. There is tons of room in the category of "rich" that doesn't involve being particularly close to their level. Sure, you won't be able to single-handedly afford a professional sports franchise, but you'll be rich.
In the words of Jerry McGuire: Show me the $$$!
Unpopular opinion: this is why the "dudebros" and their like keep getting hired. They are more than happy to do their work, accept their salary, and move on, and not have to turn everything into "changing the world"