Um... Does anyone else see the repo owner?

They meticulously document the falsehoods their programmers believe. ;)

These decisions haven't been made by programmers in over 10 years.

These lists made sense in 2000-2010 when programmers had the autonomy ( in most corporations ) to decide on what feature to develop and how it should behave.

This hasn't been the case since the industry introduced roles such as product owner.

I've had to implement my fair share of anti patterns that I was fully aware would degrade the experience for the user. At the end of the day, the programmers have been reduced to essentially blue color workers that just do whatever the MBAs decide on.

Programmers are some of the most in-demand workers in the world. You wield significant influence. And any even-slightly-functional workplace will at least try to listen to the word of their experts.

Perhaps it’s possible you didn’t do enough to explain why you didn’t believe it was the right work to do, or if you did, perhaps there were other factors in play than “user experience.”

Also, uh, “I have to do what my boss says” doesn’t make you a blue collar worker.

> doesn’t make you a blue collar worker.

I know, I was exaggerating. I thought it was clear from my usage of the word "essentially".

> perhaps there were other factors in play than “user experience.”

Of course there were. There always are - chief among them the profitability, because selling the customer on stuff they didn't need is profitable. Especially if you frame it "right".

But that example is completely unrelated to this case, to very little value in getting deeper into it.

If programmers are some of the most in-demand workers in the world, why do they have to send out over 1000 job applications and are still treated like trash by hiring processes? Hacker News is one of the few places on Earth where this belief that programmers are in control of everything still exists. Pretty much everywhere else has adapted to the reality where programmers are in great surplus, but the investor class won't be happy until it's a minimum wage job, or even better, an unpaid internship. No wonder HN has a reputation for being a bunch of out of touch Bay Area investors with little concept of the real world.

Do you think this accurately describes a Google engineer?

Yesterday? No. Today? Maybe. Tomorrow? Yes.

Programmers have control over things product owners and management don't care about. Frankly, those are things nobody but programmers cares about. When it comes to meaningful decisions that would either improve or harm the user experience, I have only ever seen programmers treated as advisors at best and obedient little foot soldiers at worst. And why wouldn't they be treated this way by MBA types? Programmers are a necessary evil that management would rather not exist at all. Just because there are startups founded by programmers doesn't mean that's the reality of the vast majority of the software industry, or that said startups won't soon replace their leadership with MBA bozos whose only goal is making it to the next quarter.

> Also, uh, “I have to do what my boss says” doesn’t make you a blue collar worker.

No, but it does make you a non-professional. The distinction between professionals and non-professionals is that members of professions have ethical obligations above and beyond their obligation to their employer.

You will not find lawyers willing to perjure themselves, accountants to cook your books, or civil engineers happy to sign off on deadly designs.

In contrast, software "engineers" are not professionals, we are hired goons and you can easily find a software monkey ready to build whatever atrocity you want for the right price.

> You will not find lawyers willing to perjure themselves, accountants to cook your books, or civil engineers happy to sign off on deadly designs.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxe9g0el8epo

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/practice/general-practice/ac...

https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3406928,00.html

None of these is an example of someone in one of those professions committing malpractice on their employer's instruction.

That wasn't part of the parent comment, but okay, here: Tesco finance chiefs accused of cooking the books and bullying the finance employees below them to misconduct themselves:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/tesco-fraud...

“The three defendants who are on trial in this case are not the foot soldiers who misconducted themselves. The defendants in this case are the generals – those who are in positions of trust, and who were paid huge compensation packages in order to safeguard the financial health of Tesco.

“These defendants encouraged the manipulation of profits and indeed pressurised others working under their control to misconduct themselves in such a way that the stock market was ultimately misled.”"

It was at least implied, I thought it was the whole point, because obviously there are malpractising professionals full stop:

> [...] ethical obligations above and beyond their obligation to their employer. You will not find lawyers willing [on behalf of their employer] to perjure themselves [...]

but based on their response to your the examples, :shrug:.

My point is that [ethical] professionals [who are not committing malpractice] have an obligation to their peers, as embodied in a professional code of ethics that is independent from and supersedes their obligation to their employers.

[Many/most ethical] accountants [who are not committing malpractice] will tell their employer, "no, I can't sign off on those fraudulent financial statements," but software developers [as a community, I'm sure someone will pop up with one colorful example] will not tell their employer, "No, I won't run fake bots on the site to inflate our user numbers," or "No, I won't implement this browser fingerprinting to violate our users' privacy."

The sibling commenter seems to be willfully misreading this as "all lawyers are ethical"

These are noteworthy counterexamples, the exceptions that prove the rules.

You will struggle to find any similar news stories for "software engineer jailed for implementing dark patterns"

they prove your claim "you won't find this" is wrong.

And probably because that's not illegal.

>that's not illegal

Unintentionally revealing comment here. Software goons have no concept of professional ethics and will do any terrible thing you pay them to do.

You made 3 claims, all of them easily disproven. When someone else pushed the claim further, immediately disproven. All you have left to your comment is namecalling.

Mixing three claims together to assert your "perfection" does not touch the basic fact that "we are human".

You're being intentionally obtuse and I suspect you understand full well the difference between professionals like accountants, doctors and lawyers (who, yes, on isolated occasions fail to uphold the standards of their profession) and software developers who are not professionals and operate as solo hired guns, absent any widely agreed ethical standards from a community of peers. It's not name-calling, it's a fact of life: If I refuse an instruction from my bosses, I get fired.

I'm going to stop here because this is just an exercise in silly faux ignorance on your part.

Heard the of bimodal salary distribution? I'd bet it matches up quite well with a bimodal influence distribution.

> programmers have been reduced to essentially blue color workers

Papa Smurf will not be pleased to hear about this.

> These lists made sense in 2000-2010 when programmers had the autonomy ( in most corporations ) to decide on what feature to develop and how it should behave.

Falsehoods programmers believe?

Which part? That programmers ever had that level of autonomy?

Is anyone old enough to remember when Google was an aspirational place to work? They had the best engineers and were doing the best stuff, and people spoke their name with awe. Now it's just Microsoft with a salad bar.

im sure it will be deleted/modified/adjusted/enhanced; though #1 is subjective, "unless it is essential" -> and right there, it is essential for google to do lookups of phone numbers to correct account ownership information based on another-companies paid services. "whenever possible try to provide" ... nope, it is never possible; phone validation or bust.

edit: i gotta change my first guess that it will be modified soon. google does not set the goal to not be evil, so they'll likely just leave the repo as-is, unattended.

quote: 1. An individual has a phone number

Some people do not own phones, or do not wish to provide you with their telephone number when asked. Do not require a user to provide a phone number unless it is essential, and whenever possible try to provide a fallback to accommodate these users.

That is insanely pathetic

One programmer's falsehood is another manager's kyc/regulations.

Falsehoods Programmers Believe About the Surveillance Industry? Entry #1: Do no evil.

Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Google:

- Projects under the `google` GitHub organization is from Google itself (Google for some reason force projects from Google employees to be umbrellaed under their own organization for some reason, even if it's a personal project)

- Google follows their own rules (applies to any "Big Tech" company)

- Google actually cares about correcting mistakes unless they hit the news/social media

- YouTube and Google tries to make the experience for you, the consumer (on YouTube: consumer = creators + viewers), as good as they can

> Google's common Java, C++ and JavaScript library for parsing, formatting, and validating international phone numbers

It does seem this repo is “from Google.”

I think they mean that just because code is under github.com/google, it doesn't make it an "official" Google thing.

For example, yapf[0] is under the Google Github org but has the disclaimer:

>Note YAPF is not an official Google product (experimental or otherwise), it is just code that happens to be owned by Google.

libphonenumber doesn't have any similar disclaimer and does seem to be an "official" Google product, but it's hard to tell what Google considers official or not.

[0] https://github.com/google/yapf

Google does not offer (m)any developer facing "official" products. Google offers "official" products for consumers or enterprises (e.g., Gmail, Cloud Platform), but all of their FOSS code, of which there are many, are all "unofficial"; they are FOSS projects that happen to be developed by Google employees but come with a normal zero liability FOSS license (as opposed to their "official" products, which do come with some liability user agreements/contracts).

> Google for some reason force projects from Google employees to be umbrellaed under their own organization for some reason, even if it's a personal project

I don't think that is true. Google employees can have regular personal projects. If you have a "personal" project that is done under the scope of your employment (e.g., you work on YouTube and you wrote a tool to, I dunno, manage Makefiles to help yourself and/or other coworkers, then that would be a "Google project" housed under `google` even though it's not an "official" product).