this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2024
240 points (98.0% liked)

Asklemmy

44149 readers
1186 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Short disclosure, I work as a Software Developer in the US, and often have to keep my negative opinions about the tech industry to myself. I often post podcasts and articles critical of the tech industry here in order to vent and, in a way, commiserate over the current state of tech and its negative effects on our environment and the Global/American sociopolitical landscape.

I'm generally reluctant to express these opinions IRL as I'm afraid of burning certain bridges in the tech industry that could one day lead to further employment opportunities. I also don't want to get into these kinds of discussions except with my closest friends and family, as I could foresee them getting quite heated and lengthy with certain people in my social circles.

Some of these negative opinions include:

  • I think that the industries based around cryptocurrencies and other blockchain technologies have always been, and have repeatedly proven themselves to be, nothing more or less than scams run and perpetuated by scam artists.
  • I think that the AI industry is particularly harmful to writers, journalists, actors, artists, and others. This is not because AI produces better pieces of work, but rather due to misanthropic viewpoints of particularly toxic and powerful individuals at the top of the tech industry hierarchy pushing AI as the next big thing due to their general misunderstanding or outright dislike of the general public.
  • I think that capitalism will ultimately doom the tech industry as it reinforces poor system design that deemphasizes maintenance and maintainability in preference of a move fast and break things mentality that still pervades many parts of tech.
  • I think we've squeezed as much capital out of advertising as is possible without completely alienating the modern user, and we risk creating strong anti tech sentiments among the general population if we don't figure out a less intrusive way of monetizing software.

You can agree or disagree with me, but in this thread I'd prefer not to get into arguments over the particular details of why any one of our opinions are wrong or right. Rather, I'd hope you could list what opinions on the tech industry you hold that you feel comfortable expressing here, but are, for whatever reason, reluctant to express in public or at work. I'd also welcome an elaboration of said reason, should you feel comfortable to give it.

I doubt we can completely avoid disagreements, but I'll humbly ask that we all attempt to keep this as civil as possible. Thanks in advance for all thoughtful responses.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 5 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

rabbits in skinner boxes pressing two buttons for a treat is not a far cry from tech workers sitting in cublices pressing 104 buttons for paycheck nor internet users doing it for imaginary internet points.

[–] JakenVeina@lemm.ee 117 points 1 day ago (5 children)

A very large portion (maybe not quite a majority) of software developers are not very good at their jobs. Just good enough to get by.

And that is entirely okay! Applies to most jobs, honestly. But there is really NO appropriate way to express that to a coworker.

I've seen way too much "just keep trying random things without really knowing what you're doing, and hope you eventually stumble into something that works" attitude from coworkers.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 59 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I actually would go further and say that collectively, we are terrible at what we do. Not every individual, but the combination of individuals, teams, management, and business requirements mean that collectively we produce terrible results. If bridges failed at anywhere near the rate that software does, processes would be changed to fix the problem. But bugs, glitches, vulnerabilities etc. are rife in the software industry. And it just gets accepted as normal.

It is possible to do better. We know this, from things like the stuff that sent us to the moon. But we've collectively decided not to do better.

[–] folkrav@lemmy.ca 27 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Main difference is, a bridge that fails physically breaks, takes months to repair, and risks killing people. Your average CRUD app... maybe a dev loses a couple or hours figuring out how to fix live data for the affected client, bug gets fixed, and everybody goes on with their day.

Remember that we almost all code to make products that will make a company money. There's just no financial upside to doing better in most cases, so we don't. The financial consequences of most bugs just aren't great enough to make the industry care. It's always about maximizing revenue.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 24 points 1 day ago (3 children)

maybe a dev loses a couple or hours figuring out how to fix live data for the affected client, bug gets fixed, and everybody goes on with their day.

Or thousands of people get stranded at airports as the ticketing system goes down or there is a data breach that exposes millions of people's private data.

Some companies have been able to implement robust systems that can take major attacks, but that is generally because they are more sensitive to revenue loss when these systems go down.

[–] folkrav@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

I'm not sure if you're agreeing or trying to disprove my previous comment - IMHO, we are saying the exact same thing. As long as those stranded travelers or data breaches cost less than the missed business from not getting the product out in the first place, from a purely financial point of view, it makes no sense to withhold the product's release.

Let's be real here, most developers are not working on airport ticketing systems or handling millions of users' private data, and the cost of those systems failing isn't nearly as dramatic. Those rigid procedures civil engineers have to follow come from somewhere, and it's usually not from any individual engineer's good will, but from regulations and procedures written from the blood of previous failures. If companies really had to feel the cost of data breaches, I'd be willing to wager we'd suddenly see a lot more traction over good development practices.

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 day ago

... If companies really had to feel the cost of data breaches, I’d be willing to wager we’d suddenly see a lot more traction over good development practices.

that's probably why downtime clauses are a thing in contracts between corporations; it sets a cap at the amount of losses a corporation can suffer and it's always significantly less than getting slapped by the gov't if it ever went to court.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Bldck@beehaw.org 5 points 1 day ago

That’s why I don’t work on mission critical stuff.

If my apps fail, some Business Person doesn’t get to move some bits around.

A friend of mine worked in software at NASA. If her apps failed, some astronaut was careening through space 😬

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 5 points 1 day ago

Yup, this is exactly it. There are very few software systems whose failure does not impact people. Sure, it's rare for it to kill them, but they cause people to lose large amounts of money, valuable time, or sensitive information. That money loss is always, ultimately, paid by end consumers. Even in B2B software, there are human customers of the company that bought/uses the software.

[–] 1984@lemmy.today 18 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Managers decided that by forcing people to deliver before it's ready. It's better for the company to have something that works but with bugs, rather than delaying projects until they are actually ready.

In most fields where people write code, writing code is just about gluing stuff together, and code quality doesn't matter (simplicity does though).

Game programmers and other serious large app programmers are probably the only ones where it matters a lot how you write the code.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] w3dd1e@lemm.ee 15 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I read somewhere that everyone is bad at their job. When you’re good at your job you get promoted until you stop being good at your job. When you get good again, you get promoted.

I know it’s not exactly true but I like the idea.

[–] Eril@feddit.org 7 points 1 day ago

I don't want to get promoted... Once my job isn't mainly about programming anymore (in a pretty wide sense though), I took a wrong turn in life 😅

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] locuester@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 day ago

maybe not quite a majority

VAST majority. This is 80-90% of devs.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 6 points 21 hours ago

Luckily, as I work for the local govt, I can talk all the shit I want about the tech sector and technologies as a whole. My colleagues obviously don't agree with every opinion I share (some 3 even think Amazon is "actually good" and one networking guy is a cryptobro), but none of us are at any risk from talking shit about companies and their leaders, or tech shenanigans in general. Now, talking about our higher ups is trouble.

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago

Please stop with the AI pushing. It's a solution looking for a problem, it's a waste in 90% of the cases.

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 28 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think companies that use unethically trained AI (read: basically all gen AI) should be subject to massive litigation, or at least severely damaging boycotts.

Have mentioned it to a lawyer at work, and he was like “I get it, but uh… fat chance, lol”. Would not dare mention it to the AI-hungry folks in leadership.

[–] granolabar@kbin.melroy.org 19 points 1 day ago

You can't litigate against owner class as working class. Federal government is sold out their asses so they won't do it.

Litigation is a dispute resolution tool for the owners, between owners.

There is NOT a viable way forward within the courts or political processes.

Things will get worse before anything changes.

Source: Dead CEO and how they treat luigi

[–] d00phy@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago

Not a software dev, but for me it’s the constant leap from today’s “next best thing” to tomorrow’s. Behind the Bastards did an episode on AI, and his take resonated with me. Particularly his Q&A session with some AI leaders at, I think, CES not long ago. When the new hotness gets popular, an obscene amount of money is paired with the “move fast and break things” attitude in a rush to profit. This often creates massive opportunities for grifters as legislators are mind numbing slow to react to these new technologies. And when regulations are finally passed (or more recently, allowed by the oligarchs), they’re often written to protect the billionaires (read: “job creators”) more than the common customer. Everyone’s bought into the idea that slow and methodical stifles innovation. At least the people funding and regulating these things have.

[–] Brodysseus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

On a bright note I'm optimistic that ai bloated garbage and advertising will eventually push a critical mass of people to using decentralized and open source tools, or possibly that non-profits and co-ops will start to spring up to manage more ethical services that could potentially replace the mainstream ones.

When you're not trying to make some dude disgustingly richer, you don't need a ton of advertising (imo).

I also think tech workers should unionize. On a darker note, I think outsourcing/offshoring post-covid is going to kill any unions viability. You need bargaining power (withhold your labor) and I'm not sure that will exist for this trade because of how easy it will be to find workers.

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I also think tech workers should unionize. On a darker note, I think outsourcing/offshoring post-covid is going to kill any unions viability.

Quite possibly, but that's just another part of the onshore/offshore cycle. And having worked for a company that utilized offshore for coverage reasons, I'm not that worried about my position. Offshore techs are decent, but I have to clean up after them more than my onshore coworkers.

You need bargaining power (withhold your labor) and I'm not sure that will exist for this trade because of how easy it will be to find workers.

Offshore may work as scabs, but much like scabs, the work quality is noticeably worse. Ultimately, I think tech workers are a bigger hindrance to a tech union than the threat of offshoring is. Mainly because of the house cat like "rugged individualism" they're sure they have and a lack of overall understanding of the system we work in.

[–] Brodysseus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 22 hours ago

What do you think would help overcome that obstacle to unionization?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ziggurat@sh.itjust.works 43 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The whole "tech industry" naming is bulllshit, there is more technology let's say in composite used to build an aircraft wing or in a surgerical robots, than in yet another mobile app showing you ads

The whole tech sector also tend to be over evaluated on the stock market. In no world Apple is worth 3 trillion while coca cola or airbus are worth around 200 billions

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

More people own an iPhone than an Airbus plane.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world 43 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think most people who actually work in software development will agree with you on those things. The problem is that it's the marketing people and investors who disagree with you, but it's also them who get to make the decisions.

[–] treadful@lemmy.zip 5 points 22 hours ago

I took some VC money to build some bullshit and I'll do it again!

like pretty much all industries there are holding companies buying up anything profitable that is not to big to aquire consolidating a hold on the industry. this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vista_Equity_Partners bought out my company. I was let go and I don't think that came from vista but the separation agreement they put in front of me Im pretty sure was. Needless to say I did not sign it as it was crazy.

[–] LenielJerron@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

When I was in undergrad I did debate, and a term that was used to describe the debate topics was "a solution in need of a problem". I think that that very often characterizes the tech industry as a whole.

There is legitimately interesting math going on behind the scenes with AI, and it has a number of legitimate, if specialized, use-cases - sifting through large amounts of data, etc. However, if you're an AI company, there's more money to be made marketing to the general public and trying to sell AI to everyone on everything, rather than keeping it within its lane and letting it do the thing that it does well, well.

Even something like blockchain and cryptocurrency is built on top of somewhat novel and interesting math. What makes it a scam isn't the underlying technology, but rather the speculation bubbles that pop up around it, and the fact that the technology isn't being used for applications other than pushing a ponzi scheme.

For my own opinions - I don't really have anything I don't say out loud, but I definitely have some unorthodox opinions.

  • I think that the ultra-convenient mobile telephone, always on your person at all times, has been a net detriment societally speaking. That is to say, the average iPhone user would be living a happier, more fulfilling, more authentic life if iPhones had not become massively popular. Modern tech too often substitutes genuine real-in-person interactions for online interactions that only approximate it. The instant gratification of always having access to all these opinions at all times has created addictions to social media that are harder to quit than cocaine (source: I have a friend who successfully quit cocaine, and she said that she could never quit instagram). The constantly-on GPS results in people not knowing how to navigate their own towns; if you automate something without learning how to do it, you will never learn how to do it. While that's fine most of the time, there are emergency situations where it just results in people being generally less competent than they otherwise would have been.

  • For the same reason, I don't like using IDEs. For example when I code in java, the ritual of typing "import javafx.application.Application;" or whatever helps make me consciously aware that I'm using that specific package, and gets me in the headspace. Plus, being constantly reminded of what every single little thing does makes it much easier for me at least to read and parse code quickly. (But I also haven't done extensive coding since I was in undergrad).

  • Microsoft Office Excel needs to remove February 29th 1900. I get that they have it so that it's backwards compatible with some archaic software from the 1990s; it's an annoying pet peeve.

  • Technology is not the solution to every problem, and technology can make things worse as much as it can make things better. Society seems to have a cult around technological progress, where any new tech is intrinsically a net good for society, and where given any problem the first attempted solution should be a technological one. But for example things like the hyperloop and tesla self-driving cars and so forth are just new modern technology that doesn't come anywhere near as close to solving transportation problems as just implementing a robust public transit network with tech that's existed for 200 years (trains, trolleys, busses) would.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Zexks@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

You’re becoming an old man yelling at clouds. People sad all the same shit about websites back in the 90s. They said the same shit about personal computers in offices in general over the mainframe systems. Unless your software is going to be responsible for actual lives it’s better to get something buggy out on time then drag things out like star citizen soaking up money for no returns.

[–] rbn@sopuli.xyz 15 points 1 day ago

'Using cloud software will lead to lower costs and a better overall service quality'

[–] nnullzz@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Software dev tools and process are so convoluted and unnecessary. We need to find a happy medium between sites being published via FTP uploads like before and the CI/CD madness of today. And there’s too many tooling options available. It’s caused a huge amount of disparity between options. Look at the JavaScript ecosystem for example.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] stsquad@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 day ago

It's one of the reasons I enjoy working on open source. Sure the companies that pay the bills for that maintenance might not be the ones you would work for directly but I satisfy myself that we are improving a commons that everyone can take advantage of.

[–] lzfm@lemmus.org 8 points 1 day ago

Commercial freebie tech turns us into short-sighted muppets and pulls apart the fabric of society

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›