Aging programmer

Not only that but the younger are more maleable and gullible in some aspects but also have the better capacity (and willingness) to adapt to the tower of babel du jour.

I learned to code at 12 in 1986 in 65C02 assembly language. By the time I graduated from college in 1996, I had done hobby programming in assembly in four processors. I didn’t do a single side project from 1996 to present unless it was just to learn a new to me technology for my next job.

During that time, I was a part time fitness instructor as a hobby, I trained for half marathons with friends, dabbled in real estate until around 2009 (guess how that worked out), got remarried, raised two (step) sons and now my wife and I are making plans to live a digital nomad life flying across the US. Our free time will be spent sightseeing and learning Spanish well enough to have a different experience when we stay in Mexico for a few weeks later this year.

> ageism in tech

Several reasons for ageism sometimes missed. This from someone whose been discriminated against, who has hired, who now owns a company & who was also a recruiter.

__I don't agree with this__ just laying the reasons out for clarity sake:

- Hiring managers don't consider themselves ageist, but opt for younger employees whom they think make a better cultural fit. You can blame the 'work is my social life' culture that emerged in the 2000's and that persists today.

- Hiring managers don't want to be ageist, but they've had or heard of bad experiences where disgruntled or non-performing employees abuse the EEOC process for financial gain and retribution. Very well intentioned rules, designed to protect certain cohorts of employees, doing the exact opposite as is often the case with Gov regs.

- Hiring managers (usually fixated on 'new tech') who fear diminished learning, adoption or performance capacity in older employees.

- Money. The perception that older employees cost more in wages and benefits, without much thought to efficiency gains that accompanies gray hair.

I was age discriminated against by a well known SAAS provider, who used a 2014 interview process to extract a detailed roadmap and ideas for product growth from me, and then ghosted me. I've watched as they've (badly) implemented the specific of my roadmap the past few years, and I chuckle. 100% my fault for giving up too much value in the interview process, but it was tough time and I thought I really needed that job.

Is it the hiring manager's objective to hire easily controllable apes that can type, or human beings that can grasp the product and business goals, shape the culture, translate technical jargon into easily understandable concepts for the uninitiated and make the employer a shit load of money by architecting and programming their vision?

The old industry joke: "if your succeed... you will end up in marketing".

Senior staff tend to get better at spotting the standard industry cons, but I find it amazing people often think they are somehow going to outsmart company contract/IP lawyers. Legal encumbrances are often a necessary evil, but some of the agreements fresh grads eagerly sign read like a Faustian bargain.

One finds many people tend to disbelieve anyone that contradicts their personal biases, and some get indignant when told how the churn-rate for large firms will affect them personally. It is like wishful thinking bypasses years of statistics training, and basic numeracy. Many industries simply rely or a steady stream of gullible STEM kids to keep their Youth Employment Tax credits, externalize training costs, and provide stock bumps from a symbolic layoff for year-end investor reports.

I wish the Tech industry treated people better, but "it is what it is". =)