Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tech Workers Now Want to Know: What Are We Building This For?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 354 posts

Re: Tech Workers Now Want to Know: What Are We Building This For?

#61

Post by JustSomeNobody »

artellectual wrote: post #7
pleasecalllater wrote: post #3

For money, my dear, for money. Is there any other reason for a company to exist? The stuff like "do no evil" or "we are green" is just a smoke screen. At the end they will do everything for money.

That has been the answer for last era. I think that’s why tech workers are starting to ask what we’re building it for. Because we’re here at this point because building “for money” is no longer good enough. Because what’s the point of having money when we’re cancer ridden and polluting our planet, and despite living in a rich planet people are starving, and the very resources that feed us are being destroyed. What’s…

While I agree we should be asking, "what are we building this for", it is a two edge sword. There are a LOT of BS tech jobs that may go away because people are asking this question.

Re: Tech Workers Now Want to Know: What Are We Building This For?

#62

Post by djrobstep »

taneq wrote: post #55
djrobstep wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, poverty is not decreasing everywhere. The graph shows absolute poverty decreasing.* Meanwhile in most developed countries, inequality is grotesque and the consequent poverty is on the rise. *Absolute poverty would decrease much faster if we exploited and expropriated from developing countries a little less.

Absolute poverty is the important measure. If I'm hungry, I'm hungry, no matter what my neighbours have. But if I have a 50" flat screen TV, and my neighbours have a 100" flat screen TV, that inequality does not make me poor. I can still watch TV.

Wrong. If you do not have have what the average person in your society has, you'll struggle to participate in your society (in an absolute sense) and you'll be treated as an inferior, which does all kinds of harm (in an absolute sense).

If I live aboard a ship, I am not in poverty because I do not own a car, because in my society, you do not need a car. But if I live in a city with no public transport where you need a car to get around, but I can't afford one, I absolutely am.

Poverty apologists always bring up TV as an example, as if poverty is about optional extras rather than basic dignity, respect and participation.

Re: Tech Workers Now Want to Know: What Are We Building This For?

#63

Post by JustSomeNobody »

gms wrote: post #8
michaelt wrote: post #4

I think this makes a good deal of sense. The tech job market is extremely buoyant in the present age, meaning very few programmers are in a position where they have to settle for a job they dislike just to make ends meet. I mean, every tech company talks about wanting engaged, passionate, proud employees - so why settle for doing work you can't take pride in when you could switch to work you could be proud of, and pr…

Because you can’t get a raise - the big companies pay the most money.

This really needs to change. Do we all need to negotiate raises into our salary requirements? Tell them we expect no less than X% increase each year? Otherwise, what should have been my raise is going straight back to shareholders.

Re: Tech Workers Now Want to Know: What Are We Building This For?

#64

Post by fjsolwmv »

j7ake wrote: post #27
tiredwired wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like an opportunity for someone to build the tech to cure cancer and filter pollution.

Cure for cancer involves molecular biology and filtering pollution involves heterogeneous catalysis. Where does programming come into play in any direct way to these solutions? I understand that tech is involved indirectly, but so is the coffee that is served in laboratories to keep scientists working.

Human Genome Project? Tunmmor detecting AI? Global weather simulations?

Re: Tech Workers Now Want to Know: What Are We Building This For?

#65

Post by fjsolwmv »

swiley wrote: post #5
pleasecalllater wrote: post #3

For money, my dear, for money. Is there any other reason for a company to exist? The stuff like "do no evil" or "we are green" is just a smoke screen. At the end they will do everything for money.

I was under the impression that pre 20th century companies just existed as a legal and organizational convenience in order to help collect a number of people with similar goals rather than to solely make a profit.

That's not right. USA Antitrust law was invented around 1900 to fight excesses is service of profile.

A corporation could be chartered for any reason. What is true is that in the early 19th century there was a legal pretense that corporations had to justify their charter to the government in order to be approved and renewed.

One of the very first corporations in USA was Alexander Hamilton's bank, that ran a water utility as a front operation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manhattan_Company

The old days weren't as honorable as the stories whitewash.

But not-just-for-profit corporations have existed for a long time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_Corporation_(certification... is a modern trend.

Re: Tech Workers Now Want to Know: What Are We Building This For?

#66

Post by naveen99 »

djrobstep wrote: post #62
taneq wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolute poverty is the important measure. If I'm hungry, I'm hungry, no matter what my neighbours have. But if I have a 50" flat screen TV, and my neighbours have a 100" flat screen TV, that inequality does not make me poor. I can still watch TV.

Wrong. If you do not have have what the average person in your society has, you'll struggle to participate in your society (in an absolute sense) and you'll be treated as an inferior, which does all kinds of harm (in an absolute sense). If I live aboard a ship, I am not in poverty because I do not own a car, because in my society, you do not need a car. But if I live in a city with no public transport where you need…

I think you mean absolutely relatively poor.

Re: Tech Workers Now Want to Know: What Are We Building This For?

#67

Post by taneq »

djrobstep wrote: post #62
taneq wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolute poverty is the important measure. If I'm hungry, I'm hungry, no matter what my neighbours have. But if I have a 50" flat screen TV, and my neighbours have a 100" flat screen TV, that inequality does not make me poor. I can still watch TV.

Wrong. If you do not have have what the average person in your society has, you'll struggle to participate in your society (in an absolute sense) and you'll be treated as an inferior, which does all kinds of harm (in an absolute sense). If I live aboard a ship, I am not in poverty because I do not own a car, because in my society, you do not need a car. But if I live in a city with no public transport where you need…

You seem here to be asserting that "not feeling/being inferior to the people around you" is some kind of intrinsic human right?

Re: Tech Workers Now Want to Know: What Are We Building This For?

#68

Post by wool_gather »

sokoloff wrote: post #59
yitchelle wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, it should not negatively impact lives. For example, I can't see myself saying "I will take this job for the money, and the gun I help engineered is used to kill humans during combat".

I don't work in the field and don't know exactly how I'd personally feel about it, but I can see a very strong argument that even one of the most heinous weapons every deployed on Earth likely saved a net million-plus lives. If that is the case, is it moral to refuse to work on the Manhattan Project if asked? (I also agree that working on the next generation of the atomic bomb or the next revision of the M16/AK47 doe…

Framed like that, it's basically the trolley problem[0]. For which I don't think there's a good answer.

[0]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Re: Tech Workers Now Want to Know: What Are We Building This For?

#69

Post by cableshaft »

ageek123 wrote: post #44

The article gives no measure of how many tech workers have adopted this mindset. It seems to largely be a narrative driven by journalists and a relatively small number of activists in some of the more high-profile tech companies (who are simultaneously pushing a number of unrelated issues like unionization, diversity, deplatforming conservatives, #resisting, and introducing identity politics into hiring and promotion…

Yeah, that seems to be how the media writes stories now. They overhear a friend of theirs mention something (or maybe somehow dream up the idea on their own), say "gee, that'd make a good article!", find 2 or 3 individual examples, preferably anecdotes, so they can pad the article length and make it seem legitimate, don't bother trying to show evidence for their hypothesis with any facts (or find some tangential fact about something else that they can invent some sort of bridge between that and their idea), and write the article. If the headline can be more salacious, the better.

I keep seeing more and more articles written this way nowadays. It gets really annoying to see an interesting headline, click it hoping to read a good argument for their case, and then feeling I just wasted my time.

Re: Tech Workers Now Want to Know: What Are We Building This For?

#70

Post by michaelt »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #18
michaelt wrote: post #4

I think this makes a good deal of sense. The tech job market is extremely buoyant in the present age, meaning very few programmers are in a position where they have to settle for a job they dislike just to make ends meet. I mean, every tech company talks about wanting engaged, passionate, proud employees - so why settle for doing work you can't take pride in when you could switch to work you could be proud of, and pr…

That you probably won't get a raise (rather, a huge pay cut) is one thing; another problem is, when you start looking for positive impact in the world, the list of companies to work for starts to rapidly diminish. I tried that, and for now I had to settle for companies that are not actively trying to make the world a worse place.

In my experience, there's loads of businesses that aren't doing ethically questionable stuff.

No doubt it depends on the range of things you could take pride in doing, which varies from person to person!

Post reply on HN