451–460 of 560 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same reason you'd work for any startup - because startups are fun and interesting? You get a level of autonomy you can never have at an established company, with freedom to experiment and work creatively.
The (in?)famous article Don't Call Yourself a Programmer [0] argues otherwise. The author warns against working for a startup, unless you're the founder or committed to what he calls a lifestyle. Instead, he argues you can work for a hi-tech big corp, enjoying autonomy and fun projects as well as a good work-life balance. Not that I agree with everything in that essay -- some pretty cynical and controversial statemen…
The big companies I have worked with have always had legacy software and slow moving projects. (Edit: 2 out of 3 of the big companies I have worked for. One was very cool, but the location was absolutely terrible).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My assumption with mission statements was that they were always bullshit made up by a marketing team or some exec and I wouldn't expect them to have much relation to reality. Was I in the minority?
Mostly, but not always. Patagonia seems to genuinely follow their mission statement: "Build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis." https://www.patagonia.com/company-info.html
> Ms. Brown said a lot of students criticize Facebook and talk about how they would not work there, but ultimately join. “Everyone cares about ethics in tech before they get a contract,” she said. This describes my what I've observed perfectly. There are very few companies that make new grad offers comparable to Facebook's, and career advancement opportunities and working conditions at Facebook tend to be better than…
> Ms. Brown said a lot of students criticize Facebook and talk about how they would not work there, but ultimately join. “Everyone cares about ethics in tech before they get a contract,” she said. This describes my what I've observed perfectly. There are very few companies that make new grad offers comparable to Facebook's, and career advancement opportunities and working conditions at Facebook tend to be better than…
It's not unusual for people to compromise their morals for pay. Actions speak louder than words.
Most people aren't bad inherently they just do what they are told and then alter their world view to justify what they've done because internally we generally don't think of ourselves as bad people.
So if you do nasty things to someone because someone else in authority tells you to, you tend to dehumanise them after the fact not before. Next time you have to do something nasty you'll find it easier because you've dehumanised the victim previously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironically I think Facebook is one example that (at least in the early days) had values that actually had teeth. "Move fast and break things" isn't just a feel-good truism like most values that companies come up with are. It's something that at least some people are going to disagree with, and it's something that can actually be instructive when making a decision at that company. I don't personally agree with it, but…
"Break things" like democracy, I guess.
> Ms. Brown said a lot of students criticize Facebook and talk about how they would not work there, but ultimately join. “Everyone cares about ethics in tech before they get a contract,” she said. This describes my what I've observed perfectly. There are very few companies that make new grad offers comparable to Facebook's, and career advancement opportunities and working conditions at Facebook tend to be better than…
Right, as long as there is still prestige associated with the company name, people will still try and work there. We as a society encourage it. You can get social clout from working at Exxon-Mobil or any of the big banks -- likewise the social capital you get from working at Facebook/Google/etc. is large, regardless of the privacy and ethics implications in working there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my experience, most of this negativity just appears on HN or on channels who have some strong bias (usually business related) against Facebook. All my acquaintances working in tech, which includes people from very wide sociodemographics ranges, consider Facebook an absolutely prestigious employer, with top talent, top challenges, top compensation and top name for building a personal brand. Hell, I interviewed at…
As a Googler, Facebook would certainly be a place I would consider if I wasn’t at google. You’re right, of course, that it is a better than fine employer.
A lot of us software engineering types lack integrity and are perfectly happy to work on socially harmful projects as long as the pay's right and there's opportunity to grow one's skills.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think it's funny that you mention $50/hr for delivering papers as if we should be aghast at the mere thought. $50/hr for delivering papers would most likely cause the prompt and total collapse of the local economy. If you think otherwise, why stop at merely $50/hour? I'm only aghast that the proposed cure is actually much worse than the disease! > But as a society, at some point it would be prudent to look around…
So it's okay for banks and large corporations to collapse the national economy, but not for paperboys to collapse the local economy? Can you expand further on the logical basis for that belief?
I don't think this weak "gotcha" rhetoric is conducive to good discussion. You're trying to disarm their point by putting words in their mouth. And you're taking it off topic.
For example, since you only mention banks and large corporations, can we assume you're okay with every other possible way economies can be collapsed? No, that would have no "logical basis."