> We've taught Big Tech that the only way to 'innovate' is to perform profane moneymaking rituals at the expense of the end user, and the shareholders are always asking for more.
> The evil comes from perverse bureaucratic incentive..
I think you're entirely right. I have nothing else to add, other than that I've always thought this, it's not a new change of opinion.
I guess I don't see any conflict between my comment and yours?
Yes, I know that "Their job isn't 'press the big evil switch on MV3', but rather 'MV3's staging branch is failing tests, go fix it" -- I've worked in software my whole career too. :)
> so it leaves me kinda ruffled to see people blaming the engineers on HN of all places.
I also know that it isn't some nebulous cloud above which is where designs come from, but other employees. I also know, from experience, that if you're a valuable enough engineer within an org or a project, and you significantly oppose a proposed feature or change coming from the suits, it's not gonna happen. What are they gonna do, code it themselves?
> I can imagine some pinstriped upper-management prick at FAANG reading this thread in their penthouse and laughing their ass off.
> I also know, from experience, that if you're a valuable enough engineer within an org or a project, and you significantly oppose a proposed feature or change coming from the suits, it's not gonna happen. What are they gonna do, code it themselves?
I’ve had high success rate effecting significant course changes in several roles, at several distinct jobs. One of the things I emphasize to mentees is that their word and will is powerful, more than in most IC roles. Even so, the error in your reasoning here is obvious to me, especially applied to such large companies. Your chance of success effecting a course change is high, but the company may value your contributions less than they value the course they want to keep. They may also be in a position to hire people whose talent and compliance are more valuable than your own.
What are they gonna do? They’re gonna find someone else among hordes of applicants to do what you won’t.
Holding out because you are the only person who can make a change doesn't work as well with a company like Google with many overlapping developers.
Those plans come from management layers above not from the co-worker beside you. Blaming the developers when it usually starts with a vp trying to increase some metric for bonus time missing the key point that it is the organizational culture that demands, forbids and sets the rules for how employees operate. It starts at the top because if the ceo did not promote based in metric scores increasing the vp wouldn't create projects developers work on that the end user hates.
> The evil comes from perverse bureaucratic incentive..
I think you're entirely right. I have nothing else to add, other than that I've always thought this, it's not a new change of opinion.
I guess I don't see any conflict between my comment and yours?
Yes, I know that "Their job isn't 'press the big evil switch on MV3', but rather 'MV3's staging branch is failing tests, go fix it" -- I've worked in software my whole career too. :)
> so it leaves me kinda ruffled to see people blaming the engineers on HN of all places.
I also know that it isn't some nebulous cloud above which is where designs come from, but other employees. I also know, from experience, that if you're a valuable enough engineer within an org or a project, and you significantly oppose a proposed feature or change coming from the suits, it's not gonna happen. What are they gonna do, code it themselves?
> I can imagine some pinstriped upper-management prick at FAANG reading this thread in their penthouse and laughing their ass off.
Agree.