Live data from Hacker News

Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

ludic.mataroa.blog

201–210 of 482 posts

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#201

Blog posts like these are a staple on HN and I’m always mildly offended by them. It seems to me that there’s a class of programmer that will take an overpaid job at a terrible BigCo, spend their evenings writing ranty blog posts about how terrible it all is, culminating in the inevitable “I quit” article, only subsequently to accept a job at a different terrible BigCo. At no point does this article, or most articles…

> But there’s this super prevalent idea that keeps getting pumped around the blogosphere that it’s absolutely impossible to not work at a terrible huge company and therefore you cannot possibly escape, and I quote, “going home and despairing”. Behind all such writing is an unspoken piece of context: those terrible huge companies pay software devs better than small ones. It's not that they can't work at a smaller comp…

Also work life balance is usually better in big corp you actually can clock that 9:5 and go home.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#202
post #7

That article was a very nice surprise and apart from how crushingly accurate it is (before somebody jumps in to defend all the corporate chaos, of course) it also had me giggling several times while reading it. The answer of course is financial incentives. It is the answer 99% of the time, I know quite a few high-profile managers at this point and they are all very smart and get stuff done people and yet they allow t…

This is why I'm thinking we need a new system. Not capitalism, not communism, not anything that's already been talked about for 200 years. It seems to me that our real problem is that we are wired to demand everybody contributes. Both righties and lefties actually agree on this, they just have different views on how to get it done theoretically, and in practice have also come up with various schemes to make this happ…

Capitalism in theory doesn't support jobs that produce no value. Shareholders would have demanded that waste be optimized out of the company.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#203
post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need"? I hate to tell you this, but you've very much missed your target of "not something that's already been talked about for 200 years." Who does the selecting? Who says, "You, there! You shall devote your time to programming robots, so your neighbors can 'be good friends' and have meaningful relationships. Buck up, comrade. Look how good it will…

I'll admit this isn't fully fleshed out. I've yet to design the gulags. But the core of it is a change of focus away from "everyone must contribute as much as they can" which the lefties also support. It's more the recognition that actually we could (maybe!) get more done if we didn't insist on everyone doing something.

What you're trying to create needs to deal with this now simple fact:

Creation of a thing costs a lot of time and resource.

Copying said thing is trivial to the point of free.

(This is the biggest difference between our current culture, and previous years. Copying is effectively free.)

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#205
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel the same way, been in that occupation for over a decade now, have worked with over a dozen companies in that timeframe (consulting or full time)… I have never experienced a sane environment where a psychopath isn’t in charge. I sincerely don’t think it exists. I haven’t found the solution you’re looking for. I’ve refused to go back to the grindstone for about two years now. Exploring other avenues such as bizd…

> I don’t think I’m physically capable of remaining healthy and being an employee software engineer anymore I'm sorry to hear that, and that makes me worry about my future in this industry. However > If you can’t do that (I can’t), pick another occupation and keep the programming as a side gig thing because it’ll drive you insane and shave years off your life. Won't this just apply to any career? Or do you think ther…

> Won't this just apply to any career?

To some extent, yes. I think SE is a little special in the sense that our job is very taxing mentally but we get very little respect for it. We are considered and managed like assembly line workers, expected to hit absurd deadlines or objectives while being given absolutely no control over the factors influencing these (must work fast, quality be damned; strategy and roadmaps are decided for us instead of with us; we tend to be pushovers and not stand for ourselves). We’re also expected to work like cogs in noisy open space environments with interruptions all day when our work requires intense focus.

Most of us (at least on here) wanted to become SE because we enjoy writing code, finding elegant solutions to difficult problems, and delivering reasonably robust software. The big mismatch is that it’s not what the industry wants: instead the industry wants cheap and fast, nevermind the resulting dumpster fire and constant panic. As a SE you’re at the bottom of the food chain, anything that goes wrong is your responsibility but you’re not allowed to address the root cause for it not to reoccur.

We basically do a very abstract, intellectual job but are managed and considered as if we were just laying bricks in an assembly line.

The cognitive dissonance and low grade permanent stress is what makes so many of us burnt out so badly after 10–15 years in the industry.

Of course this is a generalization. You can be insanely lucky and have amazing management, at a company that’s not so dysfunctional, and have a happy 30–40 years career. But that’s very very rare in my experience. I’ve worked across North America and Europe, had many jobs at many companies, and I’ve never come across such a work environment. However, I have dozens of burnt out SEs in my network of all skill levels, backgrounds, company size, etc.

> bizdev

This is more sales oriented. The earning potential is high because it’s partly commission based so the more you sell the more you make as the company makes 10x more. Having a technical background helps because you can talk shop with technical people on the client’s side and better understand what they need and if your company can provide it at all.

I’m sure it has downsides as well, but the thought of being a salaried SE again makes me physically sick and I don’t want to throw away my decade + of tech experience. So that’s the avenue I’m exploring at the moment to see if it suits me better.

Overall, and whatever you end up doing, know that burn out is prevalent in our industry. Keep your costs very low so you can save 70–80% of your paycheck and retire early and/or afford to not work for a long while if you need to.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I'm thinking we need a new system. Not capitalism, not communism, not anything that's already been talked about for 200 years. It seems to me that our real problem is that we are wired to demand everybody contributes. Both righties and lefties actually agree on this, they just have different views on how to get it done theoretically, and in practice have also come up with various schemes to make this happ…

Capitalism in theory doesn't support jobs that produce no value. Shareholders would have demanded that waste be optimized out of the company.

And yet everyone can think of someone who has been handsomely paid for producing no value.

The theory is wrong, basically, if that's what it says.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#207

I'd like to see a post like this on HN where someone revisits their organization 10 years later and decides if they were right or not. It's not that all organizations don't have disfunction, but as a younger person I was very fixated on everything I saw that was wrong and ignored either the problems I myself was introducing which were (and probably still are) numerous or the systems and programs that made the organiz…

There must now be projects like the one the author describes that are at least 5-10 years old now, I’d love to see a comparison of ones that delivered their promises and ones that keep delusionally lumbering on.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#208
post #7

That article was a very nice surprise and apart from how crushingly accurate it is (before somebody jumps in to defend all the corporate chaos, of course) it also had me giggling several times while reading it. The answer of course is financial incentives. It is the answer 99% of the time, I know quite a few high-profile managers at this point and they are all very smart and get stuff done people and yet they allow t…

This is why I'm thinking we need a new system. Not capitalism, not communism, not anything that's already been talked about for 200 years. It seems to me that our real problem is that we are wired to demand everybody contributes. Both righties and lefties actually agree on this, they just have different views on how to get it done theoretically, and in practice have also come up with various schemes to make this happ…

You're describing https://www.thevenusproject.com/

Are you aware of that or you just came up with the same basic idea (a resource-based economy)?

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism in theory doesn't support jobs that produce no value. Shareholders would have demanded that waste be optimized out of the company.

And yet everyone can think of someone who has been handsomely paid for producing no value. The theory is wrong, basically, if that's what it says.

Just because you don’t see the value doesn’t mean there is none.

Granted bad deals get made from time to time.

Re: Organization probably doesn't want to improve things

#210

Blog posts like these are a staple on HN and I’m always mildly offended by them. It seems to me that there’s a class of programmer that will take an overpaid job at a terrible BigCo, spend their evenings writing ranty blog posts about how terrible it all is, culminating in the inevitable “I quit” article, only subsequently to accept a job at a different terrible BigCo. At no point does this article, or most articles…

God points but:

1) For someone in BigCo it is fun to read.

2) BigCo is not a bad place for most people. Management should just shut up about efficiency and data driven. No one believes them, not even themselves.

Post reply on HN