This is such a non sequitur that I looked through the parent poster's comment history to see if he'd made some other post down thread that you were replying to. Do you mean "people who work in military research", "people who work at military contractors" or was there something else I didn't pick up on?

Edit: Am not a military researcher, military contractor, etc.

I don't understand your comment. What people are you speaking about?

His social circle. Apologies if I missed something, but I don't understand where that comes into the equation.

I cannot speak to the OPs social circle. To me it sounds pretty uninformed to think anybody working with the military is building bombs. The DOD (the US military) has about 2.8 million employees and there are about another 2 million people who work as defense contractors. I find it strange to think all those people could constantly be working on bombs.

By comparison the largest US commercial employer is WalMart with 1.5 million US employees. Imagine (for the sake of numbers) every WalMart employee and two of their kids constantly making bombs.

That's not a very charitable response. Obviously the OP's social circle will know better than that because they know him (or her) and what they actually work on.

Among the general public there's a real stereotype about DOD work. When I mention to strangers that I work for a defense contractor, they more often than not assume I'm working on bombs or something like that. Not every time, but often enough that I'm used to explaining that I only work on mapping software.

> they more often than not assume I'm working on bombs

> I only work on mapping software

In fairness, those maps are likely used to ensure the bombs go where they should.

Better that they go where they should, than that they go where they shouldn't. The more accurate the mapping, the smaller the bomb can be, and the less collateral damage (presuming that the targeting information is correct).

that assumes the bomber isn't intending to maximize collateral damage

> Better that they go where they should, than that they go where they shouldn't

True, at least when you're not the one being bombed.

This is a clever point. I think, even if I am being bombed, I don’t want my neighbors to die[1]. I would care very much about why. But if the hammer is coming down on me, it’s better for everyone if it’s only me.

[1] except maybe that one across the alley that starts loud parties at 3:00 am. If I’m going down you can too guy.

To be more fair, better maps means better targeting and less collateral damage. And the software can also used for logistics, base planning, humanitarian missions, rescue missions, etc.

> Obviously the OP's social circle will know better than that because they know him (or her) and what they actually work on.

If that were true then the OP would not have to explain himself/herself in any way that made him/her feel embarrassed in the first place.

I spent two years of my life working on a technology I really hope is never used.

I think it's very hard to think about making a technology you know is to killing someone. But at the same time, you know it is necessary. You really wish the world you live in would mean there's no reason to. But that isn't the world you live in.

> I think it's very hard to think about making a technology you know is to killing someone.

That does not appear to be related to this conversation. The OP does not have those worries and instead feels embarrassed when he/she must explain such.