Don't Take the Black Pill [video]

A thing you might want to consider is that how "good" a person is is largely independent from their level of religious faith.

It is common for religious people to assume they are linked and that a religious person does good deeds because they are faithful while somebody who does bad deeds has less faith.

Which leads to an assumption by some that atheists are have no morals and priest are exception good.

I think Andrew Kelly is just a rockstar. Honestly, I find a lot of his overall perspective hard to understand. I get that he's an idealist.

He talks about developers not standing up to management's unreasonable demands, but doesn't he himself receive donations from wealthy people at his foundation? Everything seems contradictory.

The concept of 'pure will' is also really hard for me to grasp. It feels like trying to bring Plato's Forms into reality.

I always feel like the purity advocates on HN are contradictory. They just try to package their own superiority as purity. Honestly, in what sense are they pure? I don't really get it. Is not using AI somehow superior? Is using a hand drill instead of an electric drill more admirable?

I also know that dark patterns undermine user autonomy. But that has clear limits. It's like Prohibition. I understand the criticism of A/B testing in context, but shouldn't we be criticizing Goodhart's law, trying to hit metrics without understanding user behavior, rather than demonizing the tool itself?

The younger generation never experienced the open web or software sovereignty. How can they give up system convenience and choose free software?

I understand that there are problems arising from the nature of capitalism. And I agree that the world needs ethical brakes. But honestly, what I find hard to understand about this person's argument reminds me of a line from Russian literary criticism: 'Those who praise the land are those who do not farm it.

I acknowledge Andrew Kelly's technical achievements are impressive. But honestly, I find it hard to understand the people on HN who keep echoing his words. The Zig foundation runs on sponsorships from big tech companies.

The development cost of 'free software' paradoxically comes from the 'excessive profits of monopolistic big tech' that they despise.

Kelly's uncompromising will is not actually built on pure individual will alone—it rests on the autonomy provided by a very unique sponsorship structure. Can that really be presented as a universal developer ethic?

Ordinary developers don't get $300,000 in sponsorship from anyone. If they refuse a Jira ticket, they could be kicked out of their room next month.

I wish he wouldn't speak while erasing his own economic conditions. It's not that developers are evil—they're just working within the system as a condition of survival.

Honestly, the fact that he achieved that life through his abilities is admirable. But whether it's right to generalize his own minority experience and insist that everyone should follow it is a different matter.

How is that any different from a high-class courtesan telling a cheap one, 'I'm different'?

Andrew Kelly's words are just a symbol of vicarious satisfaction for cogs in the machine. Not just me, but the vast majority of programmers live as cogs—solving Jira tickets, chasing deadlines and KPIs. To them, Kelly appears as an icon of rebellion, refusing to compromise with reality and preserving his purity. But the irony of rockstars is always that they are the most devoted to capitalism.

When I strip away the halo effect around Andrew Kelly, I can't make sense of the contradictions inside.

I once had an argument with a close friend of mine while earning her PHD in a non-computer engineering field. It was about the semantics of "Computer Engineering" and "Software Engineering", or any variant involving computers. Her argument was that every (virtually, I think?) other engineering discipline requires a certificate after graduation to ensure their competency. Every since then I've also argued for similar industry standard certifications for Computer and Software Engineers. I was a hiring manager for over a decade at a well known MNC, so I can attest that this doesn't, or didn't exist (since the global mass-layoff). I tried to improve interview standards in the past and help establish some forward momentum, but pulling-the-ladder-up and biased-hiring-practices have made this even more elusive.

Edit: I know there are some certifications that may be required by some software engineers, computer engineers, etc. But this is limited to critical/near-failure-proof systems. Which I willing to wager is less than 1% of those employed in these fields.

I think a much better metric is the results of the compensation, not the peak dollars earned for some narrow window of time. The differences in the cost of living and local economic inflation can become that significant in the long run.

I'm not sure I would call an appetite for risk a "talent", or even a natural consequence of talent.

If we look at the average case, there are plenty of millennials now turning 40 who have higher net worth and a better work-life balance precisely because they never worked for a FAANG. Can't argue with the results of sticking around somewhere and climbing the ladder the traditional way versus enduring all the job hopping, glass ceilings, and layoffs.