exelius
They only think they understand.
> Software is invisible and has failure cases that are completely incomprehensible.
Which are becoming increasingly comprehensible with better tooling and data collection.
> Hiring a bridge designer from another country who is really keen on avoiding the background check will raise some eyebrows.
It does in software too; at least with serious companies.
> Hiring a nearly anonymous software engineer from who knows where is business as usual for many large companies.
These typically come through staffing companies because most large companies are awful at hiring technical talent. They have a long-term relationship with the staffing company and expect the staffing company to ensure the competency of the workers. I actually think licensing software developers would put an end to this; as it would give HR departments a relatively high-fidelity signal to sort the professionals from the hobbyists (by far the hardest thing for a non-technical person to do in hiring developers IMO).
> Maybe shift gears and become a process consultant. Losing a license in software is not a deterrent.
"Processes" are rapidly converging into off-the-shelf SaaS products, and the industry is actually starting to slow down quite a bit. Trust me, the Big 4 and similar management consulting firms are in for a world of hurt over the next 5 years as AWS, GCP and Azure start to hone in on the ERP systems and reference process space. Companies today would rather spend $1M and 2 months to implement a non-customized, off-the-shelf solution that can be maintained by cheap offshore resources than spend $30M and 2 years to build something custom that requires a dedicated support and maintenance team. Maybe there's some vendor selection and strategy up front, but all those companies that used to do process consulting just become system integrators (for guess what -- software!)
When we talk about "programmed bias", we need to be careful because different subsets of the population hold different bias -- so the bias programmed in is reflective of the experiences of the team that developed the software rather than the population of users it affects.
Furthermore, your ability to make millions is only possible because of the services provided by government (education, infrastructure, security, financial regulation).
Plenty of people are motivated by much smaller numbers. The average take-home of the top 1% is between $400k and $700k. We're talking about a bigger tax on the 0.1% (>$1M/yr), and a huge tax on the 0.01% (>8M/yr). Again, those brackets are only able to achieve outsized returns because they have educated workers and a stable legal/regulatory system. Because they achieve outsized benefit, they should pay a proportionally higher share.
If those amounts are enough to incentivize 99.99% of the country, and you're still making more than they are, I'm sure you'll survive. If not, someone else will take your place.
Any algorithm under which decisions are not random can be deceived — see also Google’s search results which are full of garbage for any topic outside popular keywords. The history of law is effectively the history of humans trying to game the rules of whatever systems are in place; and I fail to see how AI would function any differently.
In my mind, understanding my privilege simply means that if I want to live in accordance with my own values, I have to recognize the biases that come with my privilege and try to move past them.
Social justice shouldn’t be enforced by the law — it should be a personal, moral imperative rather than a legally enforced one. That doesn’t mean there are no social consequences for being a selfish jerk, but anyone calling for the “pronoun police” is in a very small minority.
As it is, if someone finds a new life-saving use for an 80 year old drug, there are suddenly shortages of the old drug while a new, patented analog is sent through clinical trials. See also ketamine and depression.
And I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing — if a drug costs $500,000 and keeps my cancer at bay for 6 more months, it provides a high personal benefit from my selfish point of view; but at a high cost to society without much societal benefit. I think you’re right that Americans do lack the realism, but it may become easier if those treatments aren’t developed in the first place.
Any good product organization (and Apple is one of the best) focuses on their customer. We all know that. But Apple goes further and takes their customers’ side — the iTunes Music Store was an absolute disaster for the recording industry but a huge boon for the consumer (and, of course, iPod sales).
Apple is only in a position to do this effectively because they have such a large and loyal customer base. They have a large and loyal customer base because they have consistently driven innovation in personal computing while making high-quality devices that people are willing to pay a premium for. Why would they betray that loyalty?
Apple’s business model is simple and easy to understand. I look at their balance sheet and see where the money comes from: hardware sales to consumers. You can do the same with Amazon and Google too — which shows you why their definition of “customer focus” is so different from Apple’s.
SaaS companies already make ridiculous margins. Applying a sensible regulatory framework around privacy and data usage auditing would add overhead to be sure, but I’m also sure software margins will cover it.
To be fair, this has always been a problem — I think the recent failings of the historical trust model are due to better information rather than any increase in exploitative behavior. But prior to the smartphone era, trust was a fuzzy, emotional problem where a customer’s trust in a brand could be influenced by marketing alone. Today it is an explicit, quantifiable problem where users are willing to vote with their feet.
What companies are we bestowing authority upon? Do those companies’ business models truly have our best interests at heart? What guarantees do users have that their trust won’t be violated? I firmly believe that whoever can solve these questions to the market’s satisfaction will own the future.
I find any time you can walk around in an open world game, it ends up becoming an MMORPG. Elite very much does not feel like an MMO. You really only encounter other players around major trading hubs and combat zones inside the bubble, and even then not many due to the way they shard the instancing. Space is empty and unforgiving.
Ops today is largely responsible for maintaining build / deploy pipelines, orchestration systems, and ensuring SLAs are met via SRE activities.
Most functioning DevOps teams I’ve worked with recently have added a more generalist role for a person who is a mile wide and a foot deep. It’s more of a hybrid sysadmin / development skill set ranging across base OS and package management, logging, scripting / automation, networking, access control, security, a dozen programming languages and whatever ITIL / EA platforms you have to interface with. These folks are a godsend in issue resolution as they know where the skeletons are buried. They also can pinpoint your top 5 tech debt issues of the top of your head.
The best version of this person also has some BA skills — they work really well as a demand management / intake person because they usually understand the end-to-end architecture — especially the code behind the integration interfaces — better than anyone on the team. They allow developers to focus on code, ops people to focus on production ops, and architects to focus at the right level of abstraction.
They fail to see that many systems they want to replace with blockchain only exist because of the need for governance. The governance came first, then we designed a system around the rules we needed.
I also like to plug VSTS in these conversations. It’s really nice to be able to drill down from feature roadmap to build status in a single tool without a lot of config. I haven’t built anything complex in it personally, but hear nothing but good things from the teams I work with who do.
Edit: looks like I had the bamboo thing backwards; but I remember I stopped using it for a reason :)
Most kids right out of school are honestly pretty decent coders. The internship is more about the professional skills than the technical ones.
If you’re recruiting on campus, you’re competing with other companies for the most promising candidates. If you come in with an unpaid internship, you’re going to get the leftovers.
So you let them rewrite something that already works. If what they build is good, you‘ve just knocked out a good chunk of technical debt and found someone you probably want to hire. If not, they don’t get an offer. Either way you probably didn’t pay them much to begin with so there’s a lot of upside and not much downside.
And we wonder why our healthcare costs are so high...
It was maybe true in the beginning when payouts were subsidized by VC, but the most recent rounds of driver payout cuts have led to a situation where a lot of drivers are recent immigrants who “lease” cars on a daily basis (at a rate around 75% of what they make a day). Many speak next to zero English; but that’s ok because Google Maps is localized in their native tongue. I’d say most of the drivers on the east coast fall into this category.
Does that sound familiar? Because it’s exactly how the legacy taxi industry worked. People would bring their relatives over, have them drive a taxi they owned, and collect nearly all of their earnings from providing a room to sleep in and a car to drive. It’s exploitative, yet it’s often one of the only jobs available to these communities. And Uber has zero disincentive to just pretend this old business model hasn’t just carried over into the new world where there’s no government regulation to address it.