Yes that's a fair perspective. They wanted fungible staff. The only way to add personal value is to be as non fungible as possible which means being an expert on niche things that the fungible folk aren't. That is usually domain specific concerns and intricacies.

But really I haven't changed the world. I've made it a lot worse. I caused the loss of thousands of jobs. I took money from bastards and con men in return to make things to make the world worse. I celebrated the demise of competitors and their staff going hungry.

And I only did this all because my official qualification didn't pay as much.

At least I'm honest.

You've obviously hit a sore spot for some people.

The system is built to capture value (not create it) while externalising as much damage and cost as possible.

The sooner one accepts that the less deluded one needs to be. There's no company 'mission'. The only mission is try to find a way to survive and prosper under hegemonic capitalism.

> The system is built to capture value (not create it) while externalising as much damage and cost as possible.

What system?

The System. US. We are MOLOCH.

It's worse than "the system". It's natural human behavior. Take as much as you can for yourself and your friends/family, push the costs onto everyone else. Altruism only happens in proportion to the extent to which it's felt.

Humanity has not yet invented a system that discourages this behavior effectively in the presence of abundance and wealth.

> The only mission is try to find a way to survive and prosper under hegemonic capitalism.

How true this is depends on where the money is coming from. Founders at a bootstrapped company may actually believe in their stated mission. I've seen it. Once investment money gets involved, sure, it's all about the exit. Even the founders may be legitimately confused about this, which results in a lot of mixed messages. Professional leaders who have held executive positions at large enterprises have zero illusions and will probably give it to you straight if you ask them one-on-one.

That is a choice. Not criticizing you for yours (and bonus points for honesty), but optimizing for money is not the only game in town. Plenty of software engineering work makes the world better while paying enough for a very comfortable life. Not FAANG levels, but good money. My 2c.

Yes I agree. I don't make FAANG money but I live comfortably. I think what is important is optimising for a fair balance of happiness in life, which despite my negative outlook here is pretty damn high and taking home enough cash to enable you to do what you want to do before you drop dead.

I'd be more invested in something which improves the human condition but that's a 1 in 100,000 job. Perhaps I should have done biochemistry or something at university.

> I'd be more invested in something which improves the human condition but that's a 1 in 100,000 job.

I think the ratio is much larger.

But consider that market forces do work: since a lot of people want to do such a job, the salary will be quite low (i.e. so low that there won't be a long queue of people who want to do the job for such a salary; the salary will just be high enough that the positions can be filled). On the other hand, the salaries of "bullshit jobs" or jobs where you do evil things will be much larger, because otherwise the company will have difficulties filling the positions.

Hey, if it makes you feel better, a lot of biochemistry research ends up being completely meaningless fluff that is only published to inflate the author's reputation, but will likely have zero effect on the real world.

You can be cynical about anything if you want to :)

Hahaha thanks for the perspective. I feel a little better now at least :)

Disagree there is a choice.

We all have money pressures. It is ALL MOLOCH.

If you think you have a choice, then count yourself lucky that your life ended up in a position that allows that illusion.

This. I've learned that I can't optimize for income, because typically it means I'll be doing work I dislike, or working for a company I dislike. For me, there is no amount of money that can balance that out. I'll prefer a position that pays a bit less but that I enjoy over one that pays excellently every time. To do otherwise ensures I'll have a miserable life.

Others can and do differ, of course. We all optimize for what's important to us.

> At least I'm honest.

For what is worth, I appreciate this last bit and I think many others do, too. It's depressing to see a person doing all these things and not seeing through this.

Your grandiose language (I've seen things you wouldn't believe, etc.) means you aren't as self-aware as you think you are.

Sorry I didn't think past listing the horrible things I'd done. Perhaps I should have stuck my business hat on and gone a bit more Cervantes to fit the mould of startup culture?

"One man scorned and covered with scars still strove with his last ounce of courage to reach the unreachable stars; and the world will be better for this."

Urgh no I'll stick with reality.

That's Cervantes? I thought it was by Leigh and Darion. It's possible that they adapted a real (translated) Cervantes quote for a song in Man of La Mancha, but a few Googles don't yield any trustworthy sources that attribute the quote to Cervantes himself.

In any event, Brian Stokes Mitchell did a phenomenal rendition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbgTUwUP-ew

Wait, this is the Broadway World forum, right?

Edit: Yup. Confirmed with someone with a doctorate in Spanish Lit and a deep love of Cervantes. That quote was invented for the musical. Oh well.

A "nerd" will be under-utilised and probably dissatisfied in most companies. Most software projects require developers with a level of knowledge that is "industry standard" - being able to write good-enough code in a popular language/stack with a popular IDE and tooling used in a company-specific way. Nobody would care about your vim customisations, the lock-free data structures you implemented, or your deep knowledge of compiler optimisations.

I think this is spot on and that distinction deserves to be in the education of present and future programmers. It's at the root of the different terms (programmer, SWE, computer scientist, developer) and it's not unusual for a role to demand more than one of these types of behavior. But, it's often disheartening to those who would rather spend their time daydreaming in math.

> Unfortunately TV shows, media and being a nerd at home while everyone else was having fun created the myth of...

Well, yeah. But how many real careers are accurately portrayed in TV and media, or closely resemble doing $Stuff as a hobby? I'm thinking somewhere between "zero" and "Gell-Mann Amnesia".

> Reality is that the software industrialization (which happened after 2000 I believe?) didn't give a damn about those nerds or 10x engineers or whatever

That's only true for 95% of companies, not 100% of them. But if you're really in the 5th percentile, you shouldn't care about these 95% anyway. I've been lucky to experience software companies that really care about exceptional engineers (and have proper business incentives to do so), and it truly has been the best place to work at as a software engineer.