Tech won't save anyone and won't do any more "good" to this society, quite the contrary. The best that we can do, as programmers, is to do the most boring jobs that bring a decent paycheck home (enough to pay mortgage/rent and to put food on the table) and then to call it a day, whoever still thinks that tech is a "force for good" is still living in the 2000s. Yes, taking boring jobs will also probably mean that 600k yearly comps (at least) are out of the question, but that's part of life and taking decisions.
Also, Ellul and uncle Ted were right on all of this, a long (comparatively speaking) time ago.
Thank you. "I just want to program for money because I have no other marketable skills and I am surprised I get so much money for the easy nonsense I am doing." programmers need more visibility.
Nah, I'd rather give more visibility to programmers who are actually doing a social good. Mercenary programmers - which describes most of us - are boring.
>Mercenary programmers - which describes most of us - are boring.
No, mercenaries like me get to have fun, I don't have to constantly evaluate whether my actions violate a niche doctrinal tenant of some political ideology.
None of us is "marketable" because we're humans, we're not companies, nor services nor other such thing. Also, good luck switching careers when you're past 35 years of age or even 40.
Granted, back in my 20s I did genuinely think that tech was potentially a force for good, hence why I mentioned the 2000s (and, incidentally, why this forum came into existence back then and why a lot of people like me joined it back in the day, we were not on places like this one for the money)
one word: fascism. instead of doing the most boring job, you can just get into competition with most of these bacterial infections for companies and take them out, doing things the right way.
Proper competition & proper ways of doing things ensure a proper evolution of the species & inspire and stimulate to do other things the right way.
The article seems verbose, my rules are simpler... No adtech, no gambling, no cryptocurrency, no stealing people's content to regurgitate it (LLM/genai), no killing people with my code...
This is interesting. How does AI stuff fit in this list? All AI stuff uses data that has been gathered without conscious consent and the resulting models may be used in malicious ways. How should we stand on that?
Talked to some CNE boys about that many years ago. They were remarkably conscious about it. They took specific steps and deliberate care to avoid that some poor sysadmin in their target country would be thrown in jail or worse for their access. Sounded almost like the technical equivalent of WW2 resistance fighters in France, Norway etc., using British uniforms to avoid reprisals against the civpop.
Well, trade benefits both parties by definition, so I'd wager just doing your work is already pretty good in and of itself.
I guess if you discover your work has large, hidden externalities, you are morally obliged to quit, at the very least. But it would be surprising to claim that most programming work is like that.
I feel like the article falls apart because it keeps referencing this central argument that the defense industry is an unmitigated evil, and it's just a given truth that the author doesn't need to defend. I don't like weapons spending and I'm a pacifist at heart, but realistically having no defense industry is impossible. There's some amount of money which needs to go into researching the weaponization of space, because other hostile nations are spending on it. Do I wish this weren't true? Of course. Do I pretend it's not true and there really are no gray areas in the world because I'm naive, or because my priors being accurate is irrelevant to the virtue signaling I'm trying to do? No I don't but it looks like this author does.
I'm sick of these proclamations on the Internet that are the total opposite of realism and really just amount to virtue signaling into the vacuum by their author. It's no surprise that this lady works for Mozilla which has been grazing on Google money for years to watch Firefox decay, I guess. Anyone at Mozilla seems to be light years away from the reality based world the rest of us are in these days.
Well you must read a different article, since whenever it mentions defense, its pretty damning from some made up virtual higher ground. Have to agree with the others, that person lives in naive fairy tale world, she should probably travel hard ie backpacking in 3rd world countries to understand it better.
I come from Europe, actually eastern part of it, having Ukraine as a neighbor. My country, my parents and grandparents, just like literally everybody else, were enslaved by soviets cough cough russians for over 40 years. Their military bases everywhere, people being regularly shot/electrocuted/torn apart by dogs on the border with Austria/Germany for the horrible crime wanting to escape that communist paradise. Non-conforming were put into gulags, uranium mines etc to die slowly. Those more visible were squished by regime ie by forced manual working (if you didn't have a job thats a straight ticket to long jail), and so were their whole families including children.
What russia is currently doing is an outright attack on whole western world and they don't even hide it, just listen to them, and only its lack of real military capabilities prevent them to steamroll across whole Europe.
Thats a naivety thats outright dangerous these days, and caused more stupid European leaders like Merkel to basically give up on army, so current Wehrmacht is a proper joke, ie current Polish armed forces would steam-roll them in a weekend. Why Polish? Well they have a wonderful history of persecution and murder from both russians and germans. Some nations learn from history and watch whats happening around them, some don't...
In my opinion its likely not naivety at all but a campaign following standard socialist ploys in subversion (cultural contagion).
They hit most of the common rhetoric talking points, and its common knowledge in some circles that these types promote narratives that attempt or build support for various stages of divide and conquer under communism.
Be it, demoralization, destabilization, crisis, or re-normalization (genocide).
The article promotes cancel culture, which is just another derivation of marxism. Reads like some of the more skilled propaganda pieces I've seen.
Knowing this, I wouldn't trust the author for anything that requires credibility.
Well, I'm struggling with this myself. Should we be cynical because the world around us has been cynical historically? I prefer not to be cynical - to be blunt I don't mean to belittle anyone, but being cynical is just boring. I am an empathical being so I understand that some people might think "boring" is inapropriate, but I try to elevate the discussion. Sadly Russia often through history has chosen to be cynical and the war in Urkaine is of course no exception. Cynism is a yoke that enslaves and prevents innovation. Humans are able to follwo different patterns of behavior, lets call one pattern the "clan vs clan" pattern. In the "clan vs clan" pattern hierarchies are created through violience and groups fight against each other for power. This pattern is what runs the matrix that criminal gangs operate in. The pattern is "self balancing" since its basically the people with most violence capital that calls the shots. However, this pattern fails to provide for the many, abundance flows to those with power and there's not so much cause for innovating for your own sake since your work will just end up in the hands of the powerful. I beleive you can see in Russia and in countries where cartels run the business that they are less effective in providing for the many. In Russia the answer to this is to work with spirituality - the Russian orthodox church has been tied into the power structures and Russia tries to promote its orthodoxy abroad in attempts to gain influence, but just like the rest of the power structures it is corrupt.
I beleive that Europe deserves a better future than falling into cynicism, not least the eastern parts. Its like resuming the dark ages. Its hard to predict the future and I don't know what will happen. Sadly weapons and armed conflict will most likely play a role, but I think that we must reason more broadly to really solve the conflict. Beating cynicism with cynicism is just cynical. People have an abillity, even if it may be suppressed in some people, to be reasonable.
Sure but the article wasn't focus on defence, it was talking more broadly. If you wanted it to somehow rationalise building weapons for warmongering nations i think it would be a hard job.
Perfectly put. I only disagree with the "hostile nations" part of it, which is more along the lines of "there are zero sum games in this world; and we don't want to be on the losing side of it."
The whole framing for miltech in the article is infantilizing. The billions of defense R&D spending over decades are right now defending people in the most morally unambiguous war of the recent times. Every dusty Cold War piece of gear developed under the much derided motto of "protecting the free world" is now out there doing exactly that.
I recently switched jobs and one refreshing attitude of my current employeer is that unlike my previous one they are happy to let us work on defense projects.
Indeed, where would the Ukraine, Taiwan, or even South Korea be today if it weren't for the defense industry? Unfortunately the only way to achieve peace is to prepare for war.
What I think what poisons the whole thing is a cultural attitude which poisons all of capitalism: the mantra that any company's job is to maximize shareholder value in any way that's legal (or worse, that they can get away with).
Suppose there are two defense contacting companies. One has the attitude of, "War is terrible, and all of us should do everything we can to minimize it; but in the unfortunate event that war should become necessary, we want to be prepared to win it."
The other has the attitude of, "Our job is to maximize shareholder value. We do that by selling more equipment and better equipment. We sell more equipment when that equipment is being used and/or destroyed, and we sell better equipment when there's a pressing need, like an ongoing war. So to maximize shareholder value, we should by any means we can get away with, encourage war, or at least or the threat of war."
It's the unfortunate way that capitalism works that the second company will probably make more profit, which will give them more power and influence, which will then feed into more war, and will also put financial pressure on the first company to follow suit, and be more hawkish than they would perhaps otherwise be.
So what do you do if you believe in pursuing peace but being prepared for war? Work with a company that is hawkish, and actually encourages war? Or refuse to work for any defense contractor at all?
> Indeed, where would the Ukraine, Taiwan, or even South Korea be today if it weren't for the defense industry?
Are you aware of what's happening in Ukraine today, or the history of South Korea [1] or Taiwan [2]? These aren't fairy tale stories where the "defense" industry came, brought democracy, and everybody lived happily ever after. South Korea went through decades of dictatorial and often brutal rule that only really ended, and turned into the sort of democratic Korea that we know in the 5th republic - formed in 1989! [1] The same is true of Taiwan, which was under martial law from 1949 to 1987! Both nations also engaged in absolute brutality against opposition interests, as a means of pursuing compliance, with things like the Bodo League Massacre in South Korea [3], or the White Terror [4] in Taiwan.
By contrast we completely lost in Vietnam. And what awaited them? Well not much. There were no mass killings of collaborators or anything like that - that the West had predicted, though there were brutal "reeducation camps". But in general Vietnam just developed as its own independent nation. They were in no way whatsoever a e.g. Chinese puppet. They're the country that got rid of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, which had been supported by China. It's a great place to visit, and I'd recommend it to anybody.
Also I think it's increasingly obvious that fertility rates are one of the most critical factors in society today. South Korea and Taiwan will not exist in the future simply because they are not even close to replacing themselves. Their fertility rates (0.55 and 0.85 respectively) make Japan, at 1.3, look like a nation of rabbits, by contrast. In other words South Korea and Taiwan are not sustainable nations, or people, unless something radically changes. Vietnam is struggling at 1.94, but that's a slow bleed decline - as opposed to the self decapitation path that Taiwan and South Korea are on. If these results are a consequence of the cultural shift that resulted from these countries "defense", then all we've done is sign a post-dated death warrant for these nations.
I am very much a pro-capitalist person, but I'm also in no way whatsoever jingoistic about such. Not only is there room for many systems in this world, but many systems must be trialed. Because if it turns out that one system, which sounds good on paper, just leads to collapse - then a world with many different systems ensures that the overall impact is relatively minimal.
> Are you aware of what's happening in Ukraine today, or the history of South Korea [1] or Taiwan [2]?
Nonetheless:
1. South Korea, and Taiwan right now are democracies (though flawed to varying degrees), and enjoy a higher standard of living and more freedoms than the neighbor who wants to "unify" with them; and that was true of the Ukraine before Russia invaded. (War tends to reduce your standard of living somewhat.)
2. If every competent engineer in "the West" (including the US, Canada, and Europe) suddenly left the defense sector, those countries would soon be invaded by their neighbors, significantly reducing their standard of living and their freedoms.
> Also I think it's increasingly obvious that fertility rates are one of the most critical factors in society today.
Not sure what this has to do with the proposition that "Preparing for war is necessary to achieve peace".
> I am very much a pro-capitalist person
Personally I think capitalism is pretty terrible: there are constant forces pushing power into the hands of fewer and fewer people, leaving more and more people wage slaves, and it takes Sisyphean effort and vigilance to prevent it. But so far everything else has been worse.
"Right now" came decades after the "defense" industry was brought to these countries. So associating one with the other is not reasonable, even though that's what everybody does.
What followed the "defense" interventions of these countries was decades of dictatorships, repressions, and purges. Of course you'd argue that the same is still happening in North Korea and I'd agree. But why? What is different in those countries? I think one interesting nuance is that the US has spent decades essentially trying to destroy North Korea, but all these decades of sanctions and economic/diplomatic warfare have done is weaken the people of North Korea. At some point I'm sure the idea was that suffering people would then revolt, but it should be obvious by now that instead suffering people tend to be more focused on just feeding themselves, and are far more inclined to rally around their government rather than side with the group working to starve them. Bringing wealth to North Korea would probably do far more to end the tyranny there than another century of sanctions would.
And no, the idea that the "West" is going to be invaded is absurd. There's a reason since 1945 there's been zero major unrestrained wars between nuclear powers. As that era passes beyond conscious memory of our society, I think people forget how truly awful nuclear weapons are. One bomb in Hiroshima killed hundreds of thousands - instantly. And that was a tiny little bomb - 16kt. Modern tactical weapons (weapons intended for battlefield use) can have yields exceeding 100kt. Strategic weapons (weapons intended to end other civilizations) go into the thousands of kt. The strongest weapon ever tested being "Tsar Bomba" which had a yield of 55,000kt. You can't fight a war against an enemy with such weapons at their disposal. It simply doesn't work. For some modern contrast the "Mother of All Bombs / MOAB / GBU-43" that we detonated in Afghanistan was the largest conventional weapon ever fielded, weighed more than 20,000lbs and was 30+ft long. It had a yield of 0.01kt. Here [1] is what that looked like.
The point of the fertility comments was about the fate of nations. Nations with catastrophically low fertility rates are dying and will die unless something changes, fast. So speaking of the health, or desirability of these nations, is inappropriate. It's akin to speaking positively of the health of somebody who has been diagnosed with terminal cancer.
It might be a bit extreme, but I think if you actually have a high moral standard, you should join defense industry. This way you minimize the chance that someone with a lower moral standard taking that job.
I agree with this take. My issue is, I don’t want to deal with the knowledge of my contributions leading to the death of other people (unless of course, the enemy was pdf files).
I can be sure of my own moral standing but I’m part of a team. My boss, their boss, THEIR boss, &c, leading up to the president? I cannot speak for them and often disagree. It’s just a murky sea of gray.
Props to those who have the stomach for these dilemmas.
I've worked in defense, and I don't really see how it matters either way. If you're just a programmer, you have absolutely no control over how your creation is used, and really not much control over what project you work on even (aside from picking and choosing your employer). Your own moral standards aren't going to affect anything as far as I can tell. I suppose if you refuse to work on, for instance, land mines because you think they should all be banned due to the effects they have long after a conflict is over, they'll just find someone else to do that work. This could be bad for your continued employment, but more likely they'll just move you to some other project you don't have such moral qualms with, because skilled engineers with a security clearance are hard to find and expensive to get a clearance for. Anyway, your own moral standards aren't somehow going to magically make your weapons system only useful for just causes.
The parent is talking about the ability to affect change in the defense industry 'from within' as an individual whereas Snowden was a whistleblower which is quite a bit different.
Here is where I’d point out the other central point of the article which is that systemic problems need systemic change, not heroes - if it were possible to be an individual hero, you’d see a lot more change because there’s tons of good people who would absolutely take such opportunities.
Look at companies like Google. Their overall ethos has next to nothing to do with their employees' ethos. The same is true of the military. If you want to speak to some of the most anti-war and even anti-establishment people imaginable, then speak with vets. Their positioning doesn't change the military in any way, shape, or fashion. All it really does is stop them from being promoted to the levels where they actually could do something, so you're basically entering into a career where you must either sacrifice your values, or just play your role as a cog in a machine of destruction, far more for the sake of geopolitics than any notion of actual "defense."
As I say, as often as it is contextually appropriate to say, no one opposed to the US defense apparatus (and protected by it) would rather live under the counterfactual of an isolated, weak US. Other countries are not coming to liberate you, the world is not locked arm in arm singing kumbaya but for the US. You are going to be a shipbuilder for 100 hours a week under communism, not preaching theory on a soapbox in Dolores Park.
The article falls apart because its written for the communist heart.
The entire point of the article is promoting cancel culture in a roundabout way as if its justified, and suggesting inducements into frames of thinking that are not healthy (or rational), but still plausible. It has many structures commonly used in thought reform. Cancel culture is also just one more derivation of Marxism and other Critical Theory.
The problem with anything derived from these dubious origins is that it has no basis in reality, and doesn't follow rational thought. They lie more than they tell the truth; and who would bother wasting time on people that do that.
To them, its all about power dynamics, manipulative emotional ploys, dissembling opinions, and other deceits such as associative priming (relating unrelated things so you can't even carry a conversation without thinking the other thing) or the foregone conclusion (another fallacy), that and a formulaic mix of truth with fiction in about a 49-51% split.
This is clearly soft propaganda meant to entice those uneducated, and of weak heart and mind into supporting communism only without calling it that.
Its fairly obvious for anyone who has developed any significant measure of discernment. It hits all the common rhetoric talking points.
Calling a propaganda piece might be a stretch. I read this article and briefly skimmed the latest article on their site (about AI). My conclusion is that this person just enjoy making nothing-burger.
Not really. When the structures and elements are observable and present, it is fair to call something exactly what it is so long as it is from a rational basis.
Also, these types don't tell the truth often, and regularly seek to dissemble, mislead, and muddy the water. Noise is harmful to signals and communication systems in general.
There's only one way to deal with liars. You accept they have no credibility and stop paying attention, and you hold them to full account when they inevitably cross the line from free speech into traitorous action that is actually punishable.
There is no goodfaith presumption warranted in defense of destructive false ideologies.
One guy from a city hall in Latin America, told me: "if you want to change things, go _into_ authorities" [e.g. get elected, or become a public official] He insisted there's almost no chance to change cities for better if you are just an architect in a bureau, or do some tech tool for city planning. Inside "the power", there's little you can change, but any change lasts.
I'd also say, the ending part about reinventing the bus, is a very common thing, not only among the tech crowd. Every educated person has recipies that they suggest to copy&paste from abroad, think of how they'd solve a problem, etc. Often times the solution already exists, it's the matter of execution (e.g. buses need dedicated lanes, and lanes need enforcement, with fines for parking or driving by them).
Often times, the educated folks propose fighting for things that are happening already by themselves. E.g. in post-Soviet countries, you can hear people argue for suburbia like in America, express grief & sorrow for living in apartment buildings, suggest subsidies BUT the fact is cities are already rapidly sprawling in suburbia themselves!
Another, opposite trend, is to suggest to evacuate people from depopulating villages. People get so emotional about it. "Villages are money black hole!" "Budget leeches!" Yet, the migration is happening at rapid pace itself already! (Fun fact: these guys call themselves "liberals", and are pro-western.)
Some people can be both proponents of American suburbia, and evacuation of villages.
It’s one of the most common tropes throughout Latin America (and the US, and the world) that getting and holding onto power often requires significant betrayal of the principles on which change is originally sought.
What makes something good or evil? Who decides that? Why then?
Who or what is good and evil is assumed and it’s not things that are universally agreed to. Even in the “west” which is less than 1/4 the global population.
This is where I find the article lacking. How do we know what is good to spot what to invest in?
Teachers sare another example. I think many of us actually want to work for a bigger cause. Its just that the system is so to say rigged so that your attention flows in the direction of making money instead of trying to save the world. What doctor or teacher does teh best job? The one who only looks at the paycheck or someone who feels responsible?
It is one of the few professions where at least in theory you can create something that gets used by millions, with relatively few resources required. Few other professions are like this (being a celebrity, politician, power broker) and those require a lot more luck/work to get there.
This is a long winded “permission slip” to avoid any personal responsibility for our actions. The fact is whether it’s eating beef or writing code for Raytheon you actually do have free will. The HN and tech crowd is also far more educated and empowered (individually and collectively) than the author would have us believe.
"Why it is okay to enjoy every single benefit capitalism brings, although I am opposing capitalism", is one of the oldest tropes of anti-capitalist literature.
It would be so easy to admit that you are doing it because your own personal satisfaction outweighs some ultimately vague political position, but of course admitting that to yourself can be hard.
It’s to say we stress so much about avoiding actions to try to push for a society what we actually want, we don’t actually end up making any nudges towards that society.
HN is much more happy with the status quo because they on measure earn enough money to be comfortable at a much higher rate than the rest of society.
Yes, the eternal struggle of the hypocrite who needs to reconcile his own bizarre world view with the fact that most of his time is spent perpetuating the power of the people who he claims to be his opponents.
I can confess to you why I work as an engineer, because I love doing it. That is absolutely all there is to it, it's not for the money or some political program I need to reconcile with my daily activity.
I don't think it's particularly hypocritical. I even think you can do both, and, I think it's fine to do so if you need to reconcile what it is you work on with your personal morals. I spent a decade in public digitalisation in Denmark and I did a lot of good for the welfare of our country through that work. That was part of why I did it for a much lower pay than what I now earn in the private sector. Right now I work in what is essentially an investment bank. We use investor money to build or renovate solar plants for a nice profit. Both of these areas would likely be seen as "evil" by some people. But to me, they align with my personal morals. In the public service I tried to make sure as much of the budget went to people who actually provide welfare. In the investment bank I'm not motivated by making the rich, even richer. It is a place I get to work on green energy, however, and that's something I care about. I guess I could do that in other places, but as much as green NGO's have a good impact on our business, by things like opening financial incentives when companies like Meta "buy climate indulgence" it's not necessarily building the stuff. We've build over 600 solar plants around the globe, however, and that wouldn't have happened without the investor money. Is that hypocritical? Maybe it is to you, but it sure isn't to me. It's just how the world works.
I think I would take a similar stance on defense tech. On one hand I think it's sort of natural to feel bad about building something which might kill people. On the other hand the world has always sort of functioned on a "might makes right" principle, no matter how much we don't like to admit it. If whatever culture you're part of doesn't maintain it's "might" then it will likely be subdued by those who do. Is that great? No, and maybe it would be better to work on something that related to changing the status quo, but it would also be sort of naive to turn the blind eye to how the world is going to be for the foreseeable future. So I can certainly see how people can reconcile working in the defense industry with their personal morals without being hypocritical.
Feeling the need to write such an article already shows that there is an unresolved difference between action and beliefs.
I am not saying that someone's personal beliefs and occupation can't coincide. But the author, who views even Amazon as an obvious evil, is at total odds with basically all capitalist production.
An unresolved difference between action and belief isn't in itself hypocritical though. In fact the whole part of the article about dealing with rationalizations is basically an attempt to avoid being hypocritical by facing that conflict. Someone can be at odds with capitalist production but still have to live within that system.
>An unresolved difference between action and belief isn't in itself hypocritical though.
What? That is pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.
>In fact the whole part of the article about dealing with rationalizations is basically an attempt to avoid being hypocritical by facing that conflict.
Yes, but that attempt is a total failure and the author remains in a state of hypocrisy.
>Someone can be at odds with capitalist production but still have to live within that system.
Sure, but if he spends most of his working time supporting the power of capitalist production, but then bemoans how that is okay actually instead of challenging himself to find an alternative, that person is a hypocrite.
You're maybe thinking of cognitive dissonance rather than hypocrisy? The latter is pretending to be better than you are or acting differently to how you say you will. If you acknowledge that you're doing something that goes against your principles you are not pretending to anything or acting differently to how you say you will then the charge of hypocrisy doesn't fit.
We are about to lose that power, like Gunpowder it will be democratized.
Our special power was the full access to general purpose compute, which made us powerful gatekeepers to it. We dole it out in small, purpose bound chunks via interfaces.
And within a year from now, real time, purpose bound, personalized (“remember, bad eyesight”) and situational interfaces can be synthesized directly.
Not reliably it first but Claude is getting pretty damn good.
We won’t be extinct, but our main source of monopoly power is going to erode, massively.
I have long since disabused myself of the notion that programming is morally anything more than a job in finance, investment banking, or any other bullshit job.
Bullshit jobs, as opposed to real jobs, don’t benefit the community the way a doctor, a teacher, a plumber or a farmer does. Bullshit jobs are there to make the boss man rich by inventing mechanisms by which money is funneled from the general public to a few elite pockets.
I think this is also in part why dreaming of buying a farm and living off the grid is common among programmers.
Your comment is a bit of all or nothing and limits thinking. What about architects? They provide joy and housing, but also use natural land and benefit often investors. So, mixed. Car manufacturers? Move people from A to B at big cost for the environment. Police is usually helpful but not always. For all those necessary jobs, the how makes all the difference. Someone coding a website for a non profit is not the same as someone who codes a slotting machine.
Also, think about the state of the world if all code stopped working tomorrow. We'd be in a very fragile state, much less able to respond to tragedies and problems. Supply chains and power delivery would probably stop, as critical function like cars ABS.
Architects produce buildings. These buildings are useful and remain useful for decades. We build software that may be useful to the average joe at first, but it's only to acquire users. Then the enshittification cycle begins to extract as much value as possible from said users. It's not the same.
We can sit here and provide examples of software that is useful, safety-critical, etc. And you're right, there is a lot of software out there keeping people alive in automobiles, airplanes, medical equipment etc. But this software is not borne of the tech industry culture, but rather one engineering culture or the other. Not the programming that I or most programmers do.
Policing is definitely a real job. Though abusers are plentiful, the ones harming society are rightly called abusers. Programmers writing software that harms society are just regular tech industry professionals. Same as banks that invest in companies profiting from apartheid systems or from destroying the environment.
I don't think I'm being unfair when I compare the morality of your average tech industry professional with the morality of your average finance bro or investment banker.
Even in something boring as programming software for the british Post Office, a scandal that is STILL ongoing, you can mess up not just the software but other people's life if you act like a coward who doesn't own up to the software they write or manage. Gareth Jenkins has just been grilled in the Inquiry and in my eyes insane that courts did allow him as expert testimony on the very software he was working on and responsible for. In a case where the subpostmistress Seema Misra was wrongly jailed WHILE pregant! Other's weren't that luck and at least four committed suicide.
Adding to the stupidity of the scandal and continuous incompetence, just last month the Post Office accidentally published a document on its corporate website containing the names and addresses of 555 former sub-postmasters.
Courts have to level up quite a lot if they want to serve justice in cases where software is involved and those working on software need to be encourage to step back, let someone else assess the quality of the software and figure out bugs before courts can give a verdict.
The article was already bad enough, mentioning one of the worst outgrowths of "how we programmers will save the world", couldn't have done it any good.
A lot of programmers are annoyingly predisposed to view themselves as wizards wielding power that society cannot possibly comprehend. As a result of this delusion, they invent moral quandaries in which they, the heroes of their own stories, nobly agree to constrain their own limitless powers for the good of humanity.
"If I write this command line options parser, what if someone uses it to write a tool that configures a guided missile's running light firmware? How will I live with myself?"
Fucking get over yourselves guys. The good/evil stuff is usually handled way higher up in the org chart.
77 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 159 ms ] threadAlso, Ellul and uncle Ted were right on all of this, a long (comparatively speaking) time ago.
Just sayin’. I’ve been doing that kind of programming for almost 30 years. Done a couple of things that have Made A Difference.
There’s basically zero glory in helping people.
That’s OK, but you need to be comfortable with it.
No, mercenaries like me get to have fun, I don't have to constantly evaluate whether my actions violate a niche doctrinal tenant of some political ideology.
Granted, back in my 20s I did genuinely think that tech was potentially a force for good, hence why I mentioned the 2000s (and, incidentally, why this forum came into existence back then and why a lot of people like me joined it back in the day, we were not on places like this one for the money)
Some humans are capable of providing highly sought after services, these people are called "marketable" in the context of the labor market.
Proper competition & proper ways of doing things ensure a proper evolution of the species & inspire and stimulate to do other things the right way.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3514
Talked to some CNE boys about that many years ago. They were remarkably conscious about it. They took specific steps and deliberate care to avoid that some poor sysadmin in their target country would be thrown in jail or worse for their access. Sounded almost like the technical equivalent of WW2 resistance fighters in France, Norway etc., using British uniforms to avoid reprisals against the civpop.
I guess if you discover your work has large, hidden externalities, you are morally obliged to quit, at the very least. But it would be surprising to claim that most programming work is like that.
I'm sick of these proclamations on the Internet that are the total opposite of realism and really just amount to virtue signaling into the vacuum by their author. It's no surprise that this lady works for Mozilla which has been grazing on Google money for years to watch Firefox decay, I guess. Anyone at Mozilla seems to be light years away from the reality based world the rest of us are in these days.
I come from Europe, actually eastern part of it, having Ukraine as a neighbor. My country, my parents and grandparents, just like literally everybody else, were enslaved by soviets cough cough russians for over 40 years. Their military bases everywhere, people being regularly shot/electrocuted/torn apart by dogs on the border with Austria/Germany for the horrible crime wanting to escape that communist paradise. Non-conforming were put into gulags, uranium mines etc to die slowly. Those more visible were squished by regime ie by forced manual working (if you didn't have a job thats a straight ticket to long jail), and so were their whole families including children.
What russia is currently doing is an outright attack on whole western world and they don't even hide it, just listen to them, and only its lack of real military capabilities prevent them to steamroll across whole Europe.
Thats a naivety thats outright dangerous these days, and caused more stupid European leaders like Merkel to basically give up on army, so current Wehrmacht is a proper joke, ie current Polish armed forces would steam-roll them in a weekend. Why Polish? Well they have a wonderful history of persecution and murder from both russians and germans. Some nations learn from history and watch whats happening around them, some don't...
They hit most of the common rhetoric talking points, and its common knowledge in some circles that these types promote narratives that attempt or build support for various stages of divide and conquer under communism.
Be it, demoralization, destabilization, crisis, or re-normalization (genocide).
The article promotes cancel culture, which is just another derivation of marxism. Reads like some of the more skilled propaganda pieces I've seen.
Knowing this, I wouldn't trust the author for anything that requires credibility.
I recently switched jobs and one refreshing attitude of my current employeer is that unlike my previous one they are happy to let us work on defense projects.
That is refreshing in 2024.
What I think what poisons the whole thing is a cultural attitude which poisons all of capitalism: the mantra that any company's job is to maximize shareholder value in any way that's legal (or worse, that they can get away with).
Suppose there are two defense contacting companies. One has the attitude of, "War is terrible, and all of us should do everything we can to minimize it; but in the unfortunate event that war should become necessary, we want to be prepared to win it."
The other has the attitude of, "Our job is to maximize shareholder value. We do that by selling more equipment and better equipment. We sell more equipment when that equipment is being used and/or destroyed, and we sell better equipment when there's a pressing need, like an ongoing war. So to maximize shareholder value, we should by any means we can get away with, encourage war, or at least or the threat of war."
It's the unfortunate way that capitalism works that the second company will probably make more profit, which will give them more power and influence, which will then feed into more war, and will also put financial pressure on the first company to follow suit, and be more hawkish than they would perhaps otherwise be.
So what do you do if you believe in pursuing peace but being prepared for war? Work with a company that is hawkish, and actually encourages war? Or refuse to work for any defense contractor at all?
Are you aware of what's happening in Ukraine today, or the history of South Korea [1] or Taiwan [2]? These aren't fairy tale stories where the "defense" industry came, brought democracy, and everybody lived happily ever after. South Korea went through decades of dictatorial and often brutal rule that only really ended, and turned into the sort of democratic Korea that we know in the 5th republic - formed in 1989! [1] The same is true of Taiwan, which was under martial law from 1949 to 1987! Both nations also engaged in absolute brutality against opposition interests, as a means of pursuing compliance, with things like the Bodo League Massacre in South Korea [3], or the White Terror [4] in Taiwan.
By contrast we completely lost in Vietnam. And what awaited them? Well not much. There were no mass killings of collaborators or anything like that - that the West had predicted, though there were brutal "reeducation camps". But in general Vietnam just developed as its own independent nation. They were in no way whatsoever a e.g. Chinese puppet. They're the country that got rid of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, which had been supported by China. It's a great place to visit, and I'd recommend it to anybody.
Also I think it's increasingly obvious that fertility rates are one of the most critical factors in society today. South Korea and Taiwan will not exist in the future simply because they are not even close to replacing themselves. Their fertility rates (0.55 and 0.85 respectively) make Japan, at 1.3, look like a nation of rabbits, by contrast. In other words South Korea and Taiwan are not sustainable nations, or people, unless something radically changes. Vietnam is struggling at 1.94, but that's a slow bleed decline - as opposed to the self decapitation path that Taiwan and South Korea are on. If these results are a consequence of the cultural shift that resulted from these countries "defense", then all we've done is sign a post-dated death warrant for these nations.
I am very much a pro-capitalist person, but I'm also in no way whatsoever jingoistic about such. Not only is there room for many systems in this world, but many systems must be trialed. Because if it turns out that one system, which sounds good on paper, just leads to collapse - then a world with many different systems ensures that the overall impact is relatively minimal.
-----
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Korea
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan#Martial_law_era_(1949%E...
[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_League_massacre
[4] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Taiwan)
Nonetheless:
1. South Korea, and Taiwan right now are democracies (though flawed to varying degrees), and enjoy a higher standard of living and more freedoms than the neighbor who wants to "unify" with them; and that was true of the Ukraine before Russia invaded. (War tends to reduce your standard of living somewhat.)
2. If every competent engineer in "the West" (including the US, Canada, and Europe) suddenly left the defense sector, those countries would soon be invaded by their neighbors, significantly reducing their standard of living and their freedoms.
> Also I think it's increasingly obvious that fertility rates are one of the most critical factors in society today.
Not sure what this has to do with the proposition that "Preparing for war is necessary to achieve peace".
> I am very much a pro-capitalist person
Personally I think capitalism is pretty terrible: there are constant forces pushing power into the hands of fewer and fewer people, leaving more and more people wage slaves, and it takes Sisyphean effort and vigilance to prevent it. But so far everything else has been worse.
What followed the "defense" interventions of these countries was decades of dictatorships, repressions, and purges. Of course you'd argue that the same is still happening in North Korea and I'd agree. But why? What is different in those countries? I think one interesting nuance is that the US has spent decades essentially trying to destroy North Korea, but all these decades of sanctions and economic/diplomatic warfare have done is weaken the people of North Korea. At some point I'm sure the idea was that suffering people would then revolt, but it should be obvious by now that instead suffering people tend to be more focused on just feeding themselves, and are far more inclined to rally around their government rather than side with the group working to starve them. Bringing wealth to North Korea would probably do far more to end the tyranny there than another century of sanctions would.
And no, the idea that the "West" is going to be invaded is absurd. There's a reason since 1945 there's been zero major unrestrained wars between nuclear powers. As that era passes beyond conscious memory of our society, I think people forget how truly awful nuclear weapons are. One bomb in Hiroshima killed hundreds of thousands - instantly. And that was a tiny little bomb - 16kt. Modern tactical weapons (weapons intended for battlefield use) can have yields exceeding 100kt. Strategic weapons (weapons intended to end other civilizations) go into the thousands of kt. The strongest weapon ever tested being "Tsar Bomba" which had a yield of 55,000kt. You can't fight a war against an enemy with such weapons at their disposal. It simply doesn't work. For some modern contrast the "Mother of All Bombs / MOAB / GBU-43" that we detonated in Afghanistan was the largest conventional weapon ever fielded, weighed more than 20,000lbs and was 30+ft long. It had a yield of 0.01kt. Here [1] is what that looked like.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6rSxJnpGNg
---
The point of the fertility comments was about the fate of nations. Nations with catastrophically low fertility rates are dying and will die unless something changes, fast. So speaking of the health, or desirability of these nations, is inappropriate. It's akin to speaking positively of the health of somebody who has been diagnosed with terminal cancer.
I can be sure of my own moral standing but I’m part of a team. My boss, their boss, THEIR boss, &c, leading up to the president? I cannot speak for them and often disagree. It’s just a murky sea of gray.
Props to those who have the stomach for these dilemmas.
Did it actually make a difference to the grand scheme? Was it even worth it? Well I don't know.
The entire point of the article is promoting cancel culture in a roundabout way as if its justified, and suggesting inducements into frames of thinking that are not healthy (or rational), but still plausible. It has many structures commonly used in thought reform. Cancel culture is also just one more derivation of Marxism and other Critical Theory.
The problem with anything derived from these dubious origins is that it has no basis in reality, and doesn't follow rational thought. They lie more than they tell the truth; and who would bother wasting time on people that do that.
To them, its all about power dynamics, manipulative emotional ploys, dissembling opinions, and other deceits such as associative priming (relating unrelated things so you can't even carry a conversation without thinking the other thing) or the foregone conclusion (another fallacy), that and a formulaic mix of truth with fiction in about a 49-51% split.
This is clearly soft propaganda meant to entice those uneducated, and of weak heart and mind into supporting communism only without calling it that.
Its fairly obvious for anyone who has developed any significant measure of discernment. It hits all the common rhetoric talking points.
Also, these types don't tell the truth often, and regularly seek to dissemble, mislead, and muddy the water. Noise is harmful to signals and communication systems in general.
There's only one way to deal with liars. You accept they have no credibility and stop paying attention, and you hold them to full account when they inevitably cross the line from free speech into traitorous action that is actually punishable.
There is no goodfaith presumption warranted in defense of destructive false ideologies.
I'd also say, the ending part about reinventing the bus, is a very common thing, not only among the tech crowd. Every educated person has recipies that they suggest to copy&paste from abroad, think of how they'd solve a problem, etc. Often times the solution already exists, it's the matter of execution (e.g. buses need dedicated lanes, and lanes need enforcement, with fines for parking or driving by them).
Often times, the educated folks propose fighting for things that are happening already by themselves. E.g. in post-Soviet countries, you can hear people argue for suburbia like in America, express grief & sorrow for living in apartment buildings, suggest subsidies BUT the fact is cities are already rapidly sprawling in suburbia themselves!
Another, opposite trend, is to suggest to evacuate people from depopulating villages. People get so emotional about it. "Villages are money black hole!" "Budget leeches!" Yet, the migration is happening at rapid pace itself already! (Fun fact: these guys call themselves "liberals", and are pro-western.)
Some people can be both proponents of American suburbia, and evacuation of villages.
The world is littered with both corrupted reformers and problems of succession when power is concentrated
Who or what is good and evil is assumed and it’s not things that are universally agreed to. Even in the “west” which is less than 1/4 the global population.
This is where I find the article lacking. How do we know what is good to spot what to invest in?
Why do other professions not have the same hero complex?
To be honest it is very peculiar and not something you find even in closely related areas, such as engineering.
It would be so easy to admit that you are doing it because your own personal satisfaction outweighs some ultimately vague political position, but of course admitting that to yourself can be hard.
HN is much more happy with the status quo because they on measure earn enough money to be comfortable at a much higher rate than the rest of society.
I can confess to you why I work as an engineer, because I love doing it. That is absolutely all there is to it, it's not for the money or some political program I need to reconcile with my daily activity.
I think I would take a similar stance on defense tech. On one hand I think it's sort of natural to feel bad about building something which might kill people. On the other hand the world has always sort of functioned on a "might makes right" principle, no matter how much we don't like to admit it. If whatever culture you're part of doesn't maintain it's "might" then it will likely be subdued by those who do. Is that great? No, and maybe it would be better to work on something that related to changing the status quo, but it would also be sort of naive to turn the blind eye to how the world is going to be for the foreseeable future. So I can certainly see how people can reconcile working in the defense industry with their personal morals without being hypocritical.
Feeling the need to write such an article already shows that there is an unresolved difference between action and beliefs.
I am not saying that someone's personal beliefs and occupation can't coincide. But the author, who views even Amazon as an obvious evil, is at total odds with basically all capitalist production.
What? That is pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.
>In fact the whole part of the article about dealing with rationalizations is basically an attempt to avoid being hypocritical by facing that conflict.
Yes, but that attempt is a total failure and the author remains in a state of hypocrisy.
>Someone can be at odds with capitalist production but still have to live within that system.
Sure, but if he spends most of his working time supporting the power of capitalist production, but then bemoans how that is okay actually instead of challenging himself to find an alternative, that person is a hypocrite.
Our special power was the full access to general purpose compute, which made us powerful gatekeepers to it. We dole it out in small, purpose bound chunks via interfaces.
And within a year from now, real time, purpose bound, personalized (“remember, bad eyesight”) and situational interfaces can be synthesized directly.
Not reliably it first but Claude is getting pretty damn good.
We won’t be extinct, but our main source of monopoly power is going to erode, massively.
Bullshit jobs, as opposed to real jobs, don’t benefit the community the way a doctor, a teacher, a plumber or a farmer does. Bullshit jobs are there to make the boss man rich by inventing mechanisms by which money is funneled from the general public to a few elite pockets.
I think this is also in part why dreaming of buying a farm and living off the grid is common among programmers.
We can sit here and provide examples of software that is useful, safety-critical, etc. And you're right, there is a lot of software out there keeping people alive in automobiles, airplanes, medical equipment etc. But this software is not borne of the tech industry culture, but rather one engineering culture or the other. Not the programming that I or most programmers do.
Policing is definitely a real job. Though abusers are plentiful, the ones harming society are rightly called abusers. Programmers writing software that harms society are just regular tech industry professionals. Same as banks that invest in companies profiting from apartheid systems or from destroying the environment.
I don't think I'm being unfair when I compare the morality of your average tech industry professional with the morality of your average finance bro or investment banker.
Courts have to level up quite a lot if they want to serve justice in cases where software is involved and those working on software need to be encourage to step back, let someone else assess the quality of the software and figure out bugs before courts can give a verdict.
There is a clear effort within an ideological extreme in the "west" to push for unilateral disarmament since at least the beginning of the cold war.
Like, how do we find industries where can actually do good?
Maybe mention Effective Altruism?
I guess I'll have to write my own, eventually...
The article was already bad enough, mentioning one of the worst outgrowths of "how we programmers will save the world", couldn't have done it any good.
"If I write this command line options parser, what if someone uses it to write a tool that configures a guided missile's running light firmware? How will I live with myself?"
Fucking get over yourselves guys. The good/evil stuff is usually handled way higher up in the org chart.