Live data from Hacker News

Darpa: US Geek Shortage Is National Security Risk

wired.com

81–90 of 109 posts

Re: Darpa: US Geek Shortage Is National Security Risk

#81
post #76

If you go into computer science, you will: * Work with a lot of socially underdeveloped people. Hey, they spend their time fighting compilers, not reaching consensus. Soft skills are largely irrelevant. * Probably work in one of a very few technology hubs around the world. This is all the more painful when you realize how little interaction you actually need with your team, and you could be doing your job from a shac…

Social interactions are trivial compared to computer science. Truly smart people have no difficulty talking to others, because their knowledge propelled them to understand how little sense it makes to be impolite in face of all that is to know. I would wager that it's others who have difficulty talking to us programmers in a clear, calm and efficient way, not the other way around. If you care about how others perceiv…

"Doctors know nothing of how their medications actually work. They are glorified nurses."

My wife is a doctor, still in residency, so I know the kind of training doctors go through. She has taken in an inhuman amount of information during her training. No, she hasn't retained it all, but that's impossible.

Geeks understand that we're working with a very deep stack, and for nearly all of us, there are parts of the stack we don't understand. Say you're making a web app. Complete understanding would include include psychology and user interaction theory, color theory and screen resolutions and graphic design, the inner workings of browsers, markup, CSS and Javascript, the whole networking stack from electrical pulses up to HTTP, public/private key encryption, the many nuances of well-factored code, compilers and interpreters, databases, operating systems, memory managent, and chip logic down to the logical gates and the low-level physics of electricity. What parts can go wrong and how? What security risks exist in this stack?

There is too much for one person to know it all, and that's in a system that people designed, where there are specialists who can fully understand at least part of it. Doctors have an even deeper stack, from chemistry and DNA and cell biology up to organs and systems and disease processes, all the way up to the psychology of patient interactions. Nobody understands the parts of this stack. People spend their whole lives studying things like cellular metabolic processes and immune system biochemical cascades and don't fully understand them. How can a doctor know more than all the specialists combined?

Clearly there are good doctors and bad ones. But it's ludicrous to say that they "retain little to nothing of what they learned" or "their knowledge is useless trivia." It's arrogance.

If someone tells you their monitor doesn't work and they think it's because they have a computer virus, you could hardly begin to tell them how wrongly they understand their computer. You would not appreciate having your objections dismissed by this person who does not know your field at all. Please don't do the same to people who are experts in other highly complex fields.

Re: Darpa: US Geek Shortage Is National Security Risk

#82
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example, think of all the software people go go to school, learn java, and then build big ugly enterprise bank, insurance, whatever software inside some megacorp that nobody cares about. For what it's worth, nothing requires Enterprise software to be big, ugly, boring, hard to use, etc. Maybe I'm biased, since I'm working on an Enterprise Software startup, but I think this stuff can be damn interesting. Then agai…

This definitely seems interesting. Are you guys hiring?

Not in the sense of looking for "employees", no. Looking for (a) co-founder(s), yes. A co-founder would need to be (or be able/willing to re-locate to) somewhere pretty close to Raleigh/Durham, NC. If you're interested, shoot me an email.

Note that this is still in self-funded, bootstrap", "nights and weekends" mode. :-)

Re: Darpa: US Geek Shortage Is National Security Risk

#83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is a terrible post on several levels. first none of the apps are magical, they are all sites that are fun. Time wasters as some people may call it. There is a huge difference between apps for productivity and having fun. In the end being productive is not always fun. Claiming some languages are not geeky enough is super ignorant. As long as the person is coding out of some level of enjoyment is all that matters.…

I'm down for hacking on kernel code and learning the guts of an OS! I do think the grandparent has a valid point though. Most enterprise corporations do treat IT / development as plug and play instead of "engineers." I think enterprise coding would be fascinating, but they are stuck in a language and platform rut (PHP/Java/C# and something else whose name escapes me) and don't let the engineers explore other solution…

In the end, its the hardware that counts. As in, the real physical hardware.

A number like "how many active installations of hardware X", which represents actual real-life users in realtime, is a very important thing for an application developer to keep track of .. if you've got one machine that is serving 10,000 people over lunch-time, something, then you better know how that machine is working.

If the lawn-humping teenage generation of programmers aren't being taught one thing, its that hardware in use is all that matters. Count that as your primary professional consideration, and things go very well from there, usually.

If students were coming away from US Computer education establishments with very strong hardware capabilities and focuses, rather than 'doctrine and taxonomy' as a focus, there would be a positive change in the industry. Many 'old school' programmers got that way because they had to build their own hardware; if you are a Java coder, there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't also know how to wire up a chip. Its totally arbitrary.

Re: Darpa: US Geek Shortage Is National Security Risk

#84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that there's anything wrong with internationals, but rather that when a team of 12 has 11 internationals you know that our country is having issues sustaining it's own tech sector. We may not always be able to ship in brilliant minds from Moscow and Berlin and Bombay to save our butts.

It's simple. We're not short of "brilliant minds", not at all. Instead, the employers want to have a shortage of a simple word, a common, single, two syllable word, MONEY. It's not about brilliant minds but about money, just the money.

So, why don't we see this in other professions?

Re: Darpa: US Geek Shortage Is National Security Risk

#85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was mainly responding to the, "Pay people to go to college for CS" statement. My point: Disqus has been hiring for QUITE a while, very vigorously. I know for certain they are getting a ton of applications. I'm really quite sure they're offering market value for the kind of talent they're looking for. So, what's the problem? I'd wager they're having trouble finding people talented enough and who make a good culture…

Aren't they by definition not offering market value if they're having a hard time finding people?

No.

Re: Darpa: US Geek Shortage Is National Security Risk

#87
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social interactions are trivial compared to computer science. Truly smart people have no difficulty talking to others, because their knowledge propelled them to understand how little sense it makes to be impolite in face of all that is to know. I would wager that it's others who have difficulty talking to us programmers in a clear, calm and efficient way, not the other way around. If you care about how others perceiv…

"Doctors know nothing of how their medications actually work. They are glorified nurses." My wife is a doctor, still in residency, so I know the kind of training doctors go through. She has taken in an inhuman amount of information during her training. No, she hasn't retained it all, but that's impossible. Geeks understand that we're working with a very deep stack, and for nearly all of us, there are parts of the sta…

Thank you, I didn't think of it this way. You are right.

Re: Darpa: US Geek Shortage Is National Security Risk

#88

I think that part of the problem is in how geeks are trained and what they work on. For example, think of all the software people go go to school, learn java, and then build big ugly enterprise bank, insurance, whatever software inside some megacorp that nobody cares about. Most end users of said software don't like it and have zero appreciation for the people who made it. Outside of Silicon Valley being a geek isn't…

A quibble: Silicon Valley isn't the only place where being a geek is cool, the Northwest is a perfect example (especially Portland and Seattle).

Boston, or rather, Cambridge... we have a certain school here.

Re: Darpa: US Geek Shortage Is National Security Risk

#89
I got a BA in Computer Science (with mediocre grades) in college because I wasn't mature enough to apply myself in the difficult mathematics courses. I'm not sure if I can manage to do interesting/valuable things without going back to school.

My entire career has consisted of making and maintaining more or less the same applications for 10 years. I know I could just self-teach it all, but I do much better with a peer group and a little structure.

Sad, but I don't see a way out of it.

Re: Darpa: US Geek Shortage Is National Security Risk

#90
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's simple. We're not short of "brilliant minds", not at all. Instead, the employers want to have a shortage of a simple word, a common, single, two syllable word, MONEY. It's not about brilliant minds but about money, just the money.

So, why don't we see this in other professions?

The answer is dirty: First, computing is relatively new. So, the 'old power structure' was surprised when people in computing started getting paid well enough to buy a house and more than some not very well paid low level managers.

But the start of this was not computing but math, physical science, and engineering during the sudden high demands in such fields in the 1960s due to both the Cold War and the Space Race. There, too, the old power structure was surprised and angry. Technical people were called 'The New Mandarins'. The old power structure, say, Ivy League history majors, were torqued.

Part of the situation is somewhat general: The 'suits' still want to be like in a Ford plant, say, 80 years ago when the suits knew more and the subordinates were there just to add labor, muscle, and sweat to the work of the suits. Then in the technical fields, suddenly the subordinates knew more than the suits, e.g., about Maxwell's equations for battlefield or satellite communications, about the fast Fourier transform and digital filtering, about orbit determination for navigation satellites, and about computers.

Yes, people in law and medicine also know more, but they are in recognized professions set apart from the hierarchy of an old Ford plant, but computing was not, was, say, in the CFO's group or the manufacturing group. Bummer.

So, some suit had a bright idea, "To keep people from wasting so much time learning higher level languages, we will use only assembler and, thus, save lots of money.". Right! "Also, programmers get paid much more than typists. So, we will hire typists for the typing and won't let programmers type.". With the ROFL, soon the suits saw that they were in deep, fuming, smelly, sticky stuff.

So, how can a suit survive? Sure: For each technical job, hire about three technical people. Then none of the technical people can have 'leverage' over the suit. Of course, for this, need MANY more technical people.

Second, the US DoD actually believed that for national security, the US should increase the supply of labor in technical fields and got Congress to agree. Then the NSF started throwing money around to this end and with considerable success.

By the 1970s, US citizens began to see that there was no pot of gold at the end of the picture of a rainbow drawn by the NSF and heavily quit going for those technical fields.

Third, but the NSF kept trying. Their next semi-bright idea was to write into academic research grant contracts that students must be supported. When US citizens wouldn't come, the universities got the students from other countries, at first, heavily Taiwan and India.

Fourth, when the computer industry caught wind of all this, they pushed for the H1-B visa program and got a big supply of essentially 'indentured labor' they could, and did, exploit.

Net, fields such as law, medicine, pharmacy, roofing, carpentry, pizza making, machine tool making, auto repair, accounting, etc. don't get the attention from all of the DoD, big employers, Congress, the NSF, and the universities.

So, net, computing is heavily 'targeted' by all of the DoD, ..., the universities.

E.g,, the targeting pushes for more in, say, electronic engineering. Thus, often there is a better career as an electrician than with a Ph.D. in electronic engineering:

At least in some states, the electrician needs a license and, likely, has liability, and the Ph.D. nearly never has either. So, the electrician is closer to having a 'profession'.

As an employee in industry, the Ph.D. will likely discover that before 40 he has to move into management or get fired. Yes, Virginia, they fire Ph.D. EEs. So, by age 40, only about 1 in 100 is in management.

Fired, the Ph.D. will discover that the electrician of the same age can have a nice business, several employees, a nice house, and take off Friday-Sunday, even if he doesn't bother to have his name in the Yellow Pages, really can't be fired, and isn't vulneable to age discrimination, office politics, industry M&A, Toshiba beating GE, etc.

Really, more generally, with 'globalization', the US citizens who get rich are okay but most of the others need a geographical barrier to entry. E.g., an electrician is not in competition with anyone more than, say, 100 miles away. So, if he does okay in a radius of 100 miles, then he can do okay.

In business, the Ph.D. hss only a very narrow list of candidate employers, heavily the US 'military-industrial complex', while the electrician has a huge range of candidate clients and can do okay as long as the whole economy is not in the tank. E.g., if there is new construction, then he does that. If not, then he does renovations.

Seeing such things, many US citizens are avoiding the fields targeted by the Federal government and, also, fields vulnerable to globalization. Net, at present, for nearly everyone in high school now, they better plan on a career as a Main Street sole proprietor.

Thank you NSF for 'targeting' technical fields and driving out US citizens and Foggy Bottom for 'globalization' as a source economic carrots to try to make nasty foreign countries 'behave' -- e.g,, give away much of the US bath towel market to Pukistan to make them 'behave'. How well are they 'behaving'?

Mo big gumment, Ma!

The less big gumment does, the fewer really big mistakes they make.

But the flip side of this disaster is an historic opportunity and right in the center of HN: Be an entrepreneur much as for a Main Street business but also technical. Maybe get venture funding and maybe not, but in any event be a technical CEO. Then can beat the pants off any competitors run by non-technical suits.

Post reply on HN