I think one of the problems is that software developers are focused on domains that you can do with just software (and just expertise in software). Domains where something can be prototyped in a weekend, with no research or regulatory hurdles or real-world knowledge. Something you can just put on the internet and let it go. This leads to a huge number of business ideas that are either a) for developers, or b) really superficial like "X but with software".
I think there's a huge market opportunity for programmers who are willing to dive deep into other fields, and coordinate closely with people who don't work or think the same way that they do. Domains where the point isn't the software. Governance, energy, industrial design, scientific research, etc. These are areas that seem ripe for software-based improvements, but have gotten orders of magnitude less attention than, say, cloud hosting.
I don't think the blame lies with a single party: software developers are biased by a desire for agility and being in control, but members of the above domains are probably also not taking the initiative they should be to solicit these kinds of solutions.
What if there were a conference that specifically paired software developers with these other hard-to-penetrate industries, as a cross-pollenation exercise? I wonder what would come of it.
I've seen positions for "scientific programmers" that seem pretty interesting and I imagine a lot of those fields could be helped with software, but always want a PhD in the domain field.
That sounds like more of a "you're a scientist but you write bespoke code as an effort-multiplier". What I'm talking about is, you go and talk with people in those fields and figure out what they waste their time doing, and build generalized tools that can amplify effort and improve process at a much grander scale.
At one time I thought that would be my dream job, which is why I got a minor in Physics. I ultimately went and got a job at a normal tech company because I realized:
1. Working in that field, funding is often tied to government grants, so I would have been making a lot less money, and likely working harder.
2. Little to no opportunities for advancement, or even having your ideas heard, because you'll be the only one in the room without a PhD, in an industry where those 3 letters are literally everything that matters.
3. Even people with PhD are treated like crap in the hard sciences. I have a friend that has a PhD in biology, makes less than 1/3rd of what I do, and works longer hours.
If we as a society want the best minds to go into those fields, we need to pay those people more.
I haven't looked into that, but in my anecdotal experience the problems are:
1. There is simply less money in that line of work because it's tied to government grants.
2. The Physics field (which I have direct experience in) is dominated by old people with PhDs. They're very smart people, but also tend to be stubborn, and (again generalizing) are not too keen on listening to the opinions of people who don't have a PhD.
There is the flip-side of that. The other domains don't get software and tend to resist the incursion of software generally in spite of obvious benefits. Notice that the model has historically been disruption as opposed to 'integration' - despite the existing interests being in a prime position to leverage. Taxi companies didn't even contract out a half-assed cellphone app when there were obvious benefits to GPS and computerized dispatching.
It has been a 'science advances one funeral at a time' thing in practice unfortunately. Although there are a few who do integrate and reap the benefits. I recall an article about one unusual young city council making good use of social media live streaming for meetings and text chat to make their governance more accessible, transparent, and responsive.
Given the issues involved with either trying to build up an expertise to reproduce the field of knowledge or trying to get them to cooperate it is no wonder from a business standpoint why software developers are biased to 'just software'. It has the least number of additional complications in what is already a risky business.
I think the worst part of Silicon Valley is this idea that everything is a technical problem.
Traffic issue? Let's not solve the political problems to make public infrastructure, uber, self driving cars, (even tunnels underground) will save the day!
Education? we need iPads in schools delivering "personalized" education.
Every issue across the board is like this.
Its all B.S. and somehow they have convinced "educated" people that their vision is only correct one. They have co-opted the imagination of elite Americans and that is their biggest crime.
Elite Americans have an imagination as a whole? I thought they were essentially self-advancement at all costs in their sphere of society as a result of the tautology of self-perpetuation. Those who work to self advance will be more likely to stay at the top compared to those who prioritize other things. It may be a shallow and an unhealthy 'top' like abusing steroids to win races or unsustainable business models but it does keep them at the top.
That is one of the known dark-sides of power or elites in absolutely any form. Down to the tribal elders who insist upon keeping to 'traditional ways' not out of a fear of side effects of the new but because it would undermine their power and control.
Now Silicon Valley certainly does have its sins but lets not make them a scapegoat for long preexisting conditions. That approach just gives a short-lived catharsis while failing to address the fundamental problems.
Viewing everything as a technical problem isn't even technically wrong - although in practice a given approach may be doomed to failure. It is the execution which is the issue really and that is in no way unique to them, nor is trying to choose the wrong tool for the job leading to a foregone failure.
>Traffic issue? Let's not solve the political problems to make public infrastructure, uber, self driving cars, (even tunnels underground) will save the day!
If you follow the politics of the Bay Area, you would know that tech companies do lobby for infrastructure and housing improvements, and are even willing to put up their own money to fund it.
These proposals are generally DOA because the most powerful voting block, property owners, will aggressively oppose anything that may threaten the appreciation of their "investment".
It’s time for Georgism. We’re all victims, even the corporations and the mega-rich. Capitalists and socialists alike ought to be able to get behind it at least as a vast improvement over the status quo.
I love the idea of a land value tax, but it has about as much chance of being approved by the landed gentry (let’s call them what they really are) as any of the other measures that threaten their “investment.”
I also like the idea and there should be a way to phase it in slowly so that it does not tank property values. Referendums that increase property taxes do get passed regularly.
A big issue with LVT is that it seems it can easily result in displacement of residents. Long-time homeowners, especially those on fixed income may not be able to keep up with the increasing tax and will be forced to sell.
To be fair though Uber did sort of save the day. Transportation is nothing like it was 15 years ago. Drinking and driving is down, I can actually get a ride with a GPS enabled app, I don't have to fight taxi drivers to pay with a card every trip...
I imagine self-driving cars will alter society for the better even more.
iPads in schools may be a good example of what you're talking about but Uber and self-driving cars actually did (or will) enact significant societal change for the better.
The first article you cite does not show that Uber and Lyft made traffic worse. The study simply states that they account for 14% of traffic. Fewer personal cars, less cruising for parking, and ability to reliably use Uber/Lyft for the last mile in conjunction with public transit could easily make traffic better overall.
The second link is also not as clear as you make it seem. The growth in car-free and car-light households is exceeding the growth of the general population. Those cities are notable as they were the first to get Uber/Lyft.
the elites seem to be throwing money at anything they are told will make them more money, i dont think they can claim a higher moral ground. and to be fair, software is still the most impactful tool, for any sector. It's unfortunate that the major companies make money from a trivial sector (ads), because that leaves little incentive to work on harder problems.
> We could focus, as journalists tend to do, on the depredations of the connected life. As Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have devoured the online world, they have undermined traditional media, empowered propagandists, and widened America’s political divides.
At least they lead with this so you know that it's going to be another mainstream media piece lamenting their lack of influence in the world.
what if the extrapolations from the past are wrong? Perhaps people don't work on faster airplanes because they don't need faster airplanes, but instead they want to avoid traveling altogether. sci fi ideas from the past are nice, but they were based on linear extrapolations from their contemporary reality -- faster horses indeed. imho the primary focus of innovation at this time should be biotech for life extension , eradication of disease and hunger.
Faster roads in an increasingly remotely-connected world does not seem very forward-looking, instead the world needs faster networks , cleaner cities, the ability to become independent from megacorps, and decent communities that can be enjoyable to live in. economists or technologists often claim to know what people want, but maybe they 're not being observant of what makes people unhappy
While there are plenty of problems with Silicon Valley, I'm not sure that we should lay slow growth and widening inequality in the US at tech's doorstep. For one, the timelines don't even align: inequality has been growing (and growth slowing) since the 70s and 80s, not only in the United States but also in most other developed countries. Neither is the author particularly well-versed on the economics of inequality - during much of the 19th century (i.e., the Industrial Revolution), inequality continued to increase even though there was an upturn in certain indicators such as real wage growth and health outcomes. The author even seems to admit this at one point, so at the end of the day the piece simply boils down to "Tech is bad, so we should figure out a higher-growth industry to make bets on."
23 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 52.2 ms ] threadAn incredible statement from the Atlantic. The lack of self awareness is astonishing.
I think there's a huge market opportunity for programmers who are willing to dive deep into other fields, and coordinate closely with people who don't work or think the same way that they do. Domains where the point isn't the software. Governance, energy, industrial design, scientific research, etc. These are areas that seem ripe for software-based improvements, but have gotten orders of magnitude less attention than, say, cloud hosting.
I don't think the blame lies with a single party: software developers are biased by a desire for agility and being in control, but members of the above domains are probably also not taking the initiative they should be to solicit these kinds of solutions.
What if there were a conference that specifically paired software developers with these other hard-to-penetrate industries, as a cross-pollenation exercise? I wonder what would come of it.
1. Working in that field, funding is often tied to government grants, so I would have been making a lot less money, and likely working harder.
2. Little to no opportunities for advancement, or even having your ideas heard, because you'll be the only one in the room without a PhD, in an industry where those 3 letters are literally everything that matters.
3. Even people with PhD are treated like crap in the hard sciences. I have a friend that has a PhD in biology, makes less than 1/3rd of what I do, and works longer hours.
If we as a society want the best minds to go into those fields, we need to pay those people more.
1. There is simply less money in that line of work because it's tied to government grants.
2. The Physics field (which I have direct experience in) is dominated by old people with PhDs. They're very smart people, but also tend to be stubborn, and (again generalizing) are not too keen on listening to the opinions of people who don't have a PhD.
It has been a 'science advances one funeral at a time' thing in practice unfortunately. Although there are a few who do integrate and reap the benefits. I recall an article about one unusual young city council making good use of social media live streaming for meetings and text chat to make their governance more accessible, transparent, and responsive.
Given the issues involved with either trying to build up an expertise to reproduce the field of knowledge or trying to get them to cooperate it is no wonder from a business standpoint why software developers are biased to 'just software'. It has the least number of additional complications in what is already a risky business.
Traffic issue? Let's not solve the political problems to make public infrastructure, uber, self driving cars, (even tunnels underground) will save the day!
Education? we need iPads in schools delivering "personalized" education.
Every issue across the board is like this.
Its all B.S. and somehow they have convinced "educated" people that their vision is only correct one. They have co-opted the imagination of elite Americans and that is their biggest crime.
That is one of the known dark-sides of power or elites in absolutely any form. Down to the tribal elders who insist upon keeping to 'traditional ways' not out of a fear of side effects of the new but because it would undermine their power and control.
Now Silicon Valley certainly does have its sins but lets not make them a scapegoat for long preexisting conditions. That approach just gives a short-lived catharsis while failing to address the fundamental problems.
Viewing everything as a technical problem isn't even technically wrong - although in practice a given approach may be doomed to failure. It is the execution which is the issue really and that is in no way unique to them, nor is trying to choose the wrong tool for the job leading to a foregone failure.
If you follow the politics of the Bay Area, you would know that tech companies do lobby for infrastructure and housing improvements, and are even willing to put up their own money to fund it.
These proposals are generally DOA because the most powerful voting block, property owners, will aggressively oppose anything that may threaten the appreciation of their "investment".
A big issue with LVT is that it seems it can easily result in displacement of residents. Long-time homeowners, especially those on fixed income may not be able to keep up with the increasing tax and will be forced to sell.
I imagine self-driving cars will alter society for the better even more.
iPads in schools may be a good example of what you're talking about but Uber and self-driving cars actually did (or will) enact significant societal change for the better.
It didn't it literally did the opposite of everything promised.
It made traffic in cities worse: https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/6/20756945/uber-lyft-tnc-vmt...
It made car ownership in cities even greater: https://www.citylab.com/perspective/2019/01/uber-lyft-make-t...
The second link is also not as clear as you make it seem. The growth in car-free and car-light households is exceeding the growth of the general population. Those cities are notable as they were the first to get Uber/Lyft.
At least they lead with this so you know that it's going to be another mainstream media piece lamenting their lack of influence in the world.
Faster roads in an increasingly remotely-connected world does not seem very forward-looking, instead the world needs faster networks , cleaner cities, the ability to become independent from megacorps, and decent communities that can be enjoyable to live in. economists or technologists often claim to know what people want, but maybe they 're not being observant of what makes people unhappy