191–200 of 369 posts
Software developers should sign a code of ethics, like other professions do and then cite it when asked to do unscrupulous things. This would work for activities that aren't illegal but still unethical, like defaulting user privacy choices to open/public. Citing professional organizations like ACM or IEEE would deter retaliation.
> If you take one lesson from this, it’s that you can always say no. I fully understand why this is true, but it seems to ignore any retaliative measures that the management could take against the person who says no. With the benefit of hindsight, any such retaliation would be weaker than ending up in an orange suit. But the person has to find the guts to say "no" without that hindsight.
I would argue that you have a moral and ethical responsibility to say no when your manager asks you to do something illegal, even if it does cost you your job. The law is the law, and there is no excuse for breaking it. Your manager is certainly culpable, but if you act against the law, you are culpable as well. The exception is if you fear literal physical violence against you or others, or are being blackmailed or…
For a junior engineer it may not be that hard to fly under the radar, but senior/staff level folks tend to be well known by the execs. And execs talk, they call their friends to vet future hires... burn your execs, and maybe you don't work in that town again
Software developers should sign a code of ethics, like other professions do and then cite it when asked to do unscrupulous things. This would work for activities that aren't illegal but still unethical, like defaulting user privacy choices to open/public. Citing professional organizations like ACM or IEEE would deter retaliation.
Yes, the Hippocratic Oath works quite well even if it has no legal underpinnings, so why not use the same idea for developers? Indeed ACM and IEEE could draft one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might want to think about why Petersen wants you to think you’re the Nazi. What change is he trying to effect in our culture, and how does that belief support his desire? Rhetoric always aims to effect some change in the attitude of the listener, and never without some benefit of the speaker.
> You might want to think about why Petersen wants you to think ... What's your take on that?
I don't necessarily agree. I think he is pointing out that people morally grandstand and the majority will not act out how they say they would.
I wish I could tell a story. Alas, I can't. It turns out that large corporations are excellent at hiding evidence of wrongdoing, and will do everything to cover the backside of high-level execs, because stock price matters. When it's bad, the exec leaves for a "better opportunity", and none will be wiser. The stress of the honest, serious engineer(s) remain, and the exec gets a free ride to their next big beautiful s…
It depends on the country. It’s not possible to operate large companies in Hungary without paying to the prime minister’s family. When I lived there, I signed a paper at a large multinational company as a simple developer. The paper’s only purpose was to channel EU funds to the family. I was naive, and I thought that it’s a real project, with real work. It wasn’t. Later I realised why some of my coworkers were agains…
Another recent classic case of this is the revelations that Uber were targeting law enforcement based on user behaviour, and refusing to offer them rides in areas where they were breaking regulations. I mentioned this at some point last year, and someone replied saying that they'd enthusiastically volunteer to take part in that project (assuming no personal risk). People's ethics are not always what you'd expect (or…
I used to work for Uber, but not on this feature or anything related. Apropos to the article, as a programmer for this feature, what you are actually asked to do is write a greybanning engine. It can take various features (geofence, denylist of phone numbers/emails/device identifiers/payment, etc.) and use it to calculate a score that applies a greybanning policy. The policy may be that the cars in the app are now fa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue that you have a moral and ethical responsibility to say no when your manager asks you to do something illegal, even if it does cost you your job. The law is the law, and there is no excuse for breaking it. Your manager is certainly culpable, but if you act against the law, you are culpable as well. The exception is if you fear literal physical violence against you or others, or are being blackmailed or…
I think the risk is somewhat higher than just losing your job - you are potentially burning your whole referral network in the process (especially if you end up with your name in the press during any resulting prosecution). For a junior engineer it may not be that hard to fly under the radar, but senior/staff level folks tend to be well known by the execs. And execs talk, they call their friends to vet future hires..…
Like, anyone who would work with some of my previous employers, are places I wouldn't want to work anyway. It's a big wide world out there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
380k homeless in UK. 262k in Germany. 122k Australia. 650k in USA. The per capita math is left for the reader but I don't believe there is much distinction here .
You're right, the numbers are very close to recent official figures. I looked them up to calculate the per capita rates. So USA is actually better than other countries? Kind of defeats these arguments here - interesting. (By the way I’m not from us) Based on the latest available data (mostly 2023) and current population estimates: * *UK:* ~56.0 per 10,000 people (1 in 178) * *Australia:* ~45.4 per 10,000 people (1 in…
More research shows the U.S. rate looks lower largely because it uses a narrow, one-night "Point In Time" measure that excludes many precarious living situations other countries intentionally count. If you harmonise definitions, the U.S. does not outperform high-safety-net countries; on unsheltered homelessness in particular, it fares worse.
In UK official usage, being legally homeless often includes people the state is actively accommodating; it is not limited to street homelessness like the US PIT figure. In Australia, their figures include couch surfing (staying temporarily with other households and those in “severely crowded” dwellings). In Germany, apart from again having a more expansive definition of homelessness, their figures also include ~130k Ukrainian refugees.
Just one example: the US figures should at least include >1.2 million students experiencing homelessness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends on the country. It’s not possible to operate large companies in Hungary without paying to the prime minister’s family. When I lived there, I signed a paper at a large multinational company as a simple developer. The paper’s only purpose was to channel EU funds to the family. I was naive, and I thought that it’s a real project, with real work. It wasn’t. Later I realised why some of my coworkers were agains…
Looks like Trump has taken a leaf out of Orban's notebook. What a depressing situation to be in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you’re claiming they have a spending issue, with the typical judgemental holier-than-thou undertone. My example is not that. And I’m talking about my SWE neighbors in SV who have a desire to buy their own house just like almost everybody else. It’s just wrong to claim they have a spending issue. They may be highly paid, but the house prices are commensurately higher too. It is nearly impossible in the US in gener…
If you make say $400k a year and you buy a $2.5M house, at some level you do have a spending issue.