Think of the most important software in the world: Linux, Google, Facebook, JavaScript, PGP, even the World Wide Web itself. How many of these projects began in conference rooms, their success assured by the work of middle managers in business-casual attire obsessing over metrics, OKRs, and feature lists? Linux was a university project, but it now powers much of the world. Google began in a garage. Facebook was launched in a dorm room. JavaScript, PGP, and the Web were single-person experiments with no obvious economic value; now, the economy completely depends on them. Yes, Google and Facebook are now steaming piles of shit, but who ruined them? Who made the decisions that destroyed these paragons of technological achievement? Was it the former chess team captains, crafting software they were proud of, drinking Mountain Dew and watching episodes of Cowboy Bebop between merges? I don't think so.

“But wait,” I hear you saying, “Alphabet and Meta make tons of money!” Sure, they do, but it won't last. Even with their monopolistic power, or perhaps because of it, Facebook and Google Search are worsening every day, and they are just begging to “disrupted” out of business. Besides, at what cost are they earning their money? Is the destruction of society not a sufficiently meaningful externality? Phillip Morris makes tons of money, too. They just have to kill millions of unwilling addicts in the process. As harmful as they are now, and as flawed as they were from the beginning, Facebook and Google were better off before “engagement” and “monetization” were ends unto themselves.

Building software is nothing like building furniture, building cars, or even building aircraft. To build those things it to repeat projects that have been completed thousands or even millions of times before. Software, on the other hand, is always bespoke. It's always unique. It's always being created for the first time. After all, if someone needed software that already existed, they would just obtain a copy. Ultimately, the only way to know how long software development work will take is to actually do it. As someone once wrote, “Software development is one of the only professions where we are asked to accurately state how long it will take us to do something that has never been done before in the history of the universe.”

There is a profound difference between people who get this and people who don't. Spend enough time in a corporate feature factory, and you'll see it firsthand: your boss needs to know when the feature will be done, and they need to know now! Mountains of technical debt slow teams to a halt because management can just “hire someone to fix it later.” Moreover, good work doesn't matter; looking good (to management) is everything.

Working in the software industry for many years has felt, at times, like watching outsiders and know-nothings slowly infect and destroy the craft I love, all so that they could ruin the software that gave them their jobs with poor decisions and short-sightedness. It's like watching a bully force a talented artist to set aside their paintings so that they can instead sell Bored Ape stickers. No love. No care. No foresight. Just a quick buck.

Does all of this sound too harsh? Read Craig Cook's blog post on his decision to retire from the software industry, where he bemoans “Silicon Valley MBA pricks” and complains that “the whole tech industry is nothing but scumbag billionaires and smarmy marketing and unbridled enshittification and oppressive management and AI psychosis and alpha-bro startup-hustle grind-culture bullshit.” I worked with Craig at Mozilla, and I admire him, but even I didn't realize he could be so brutally honest! I mean, some of that might be going to far, but I agree with the general sentiment. I guess you can say what you really think when your paycheck isn't on the line.

Am I suggesting we let software developers run the show? No, not quite. If it were up to me, I'd probably still be refactoring some software I wrote ten years ago. Others would chase new, shiny objects—new JavaScript frameworks, to be sure—until their companies ran out of money. Software developers sometimes need their passion to be pointed in the right direction. That guidance, however, needs to come from respectable people with real wisdom and experience to draw from, not just professional fast-talkers who, as one colleague put it, “have 'KPI' tattooed inside their eyelids.”

I've worked with some incredible people who had degrees in business administration, some true visionaries and product-minded leaders, but I'm sorry to say it's been the exception rather than the rule. Most management types don't get it, and when they don't get it, they really don't get it. For that reason, I've decided I'll never again work as a software developer for someone who has not been a software developer themselves—for more than five minutes—and a good one, at that! Does that limit my opportunities? It sure does. It excludes all the people who think intense pressure gets cognitive work done faster. It excludes all the people who ruined Google and Facebook and Amazon. It excludes all the people who are making money off of software they didn't create, that their entire approach to software would likely never create.

That's fine with me.

#Life #SocialMedia #SoftwareDevelopment #Tech

—P.J. O'Rourke

I love this quote, because I've been that guy. I've been the guy who thinks he can save the world but who literally doesn't help his mom with the dishes when he visits. Thankfully, I've dramatically softened in my activism (appropriately discussed ever so briefly in a recipe but nowhere else on this blog), if it can even be called activism any more, and I did help my mom with the dishes during my most recent visit, although I'm sure I could have done more.

I interpret the statement like this: riding a “high horse” can be fun, and there really are important societal problems that ordinary people can help improve. That said, there are always more ordinary problems that need attention, and sometimes fixing those things goes further than protesting in the streets.

#Life #Quotes #SocialMedia #Tech

Say you're into politics. [TikTok] will push you further and further into the extreme edges of whatever side you're on. Why? Because outrage and confirmation bias keeps you glued to your screen! This isn't just bad for your worldview, it's bad for society. Echo chambers breed division. They make people more certain they're right, more hostile to differing opinions, and less likely to engage in actual conversation.

—If TikTok Were Honest

Let's not gloss over the reminder that this is bad for your worldview. That's one of my biggest problems with social media. In making people more extreme and less aware of differing opinions, their persuasive ability weakens and they become counterproductive in their activism. To add insult to injury, they sometimes actually come to think of themselves as the sacred protectors of their various causes. Give me a break.

Don't leave social media because I told you to. Leave social media because it's making you hurt the people you're trying to help.

#Life #Maxims #SocialMedia #Tech

I don't want to be too cynical, but using social media for this purpose does seem like opt-in advertising on some level. It's too bad that many of these users will also be manipulated into liking, commenting, buying, sharing, following, radicalizing, and you know, dismantling democracy.

#Life #SocialMedia #Tech

At some point, it apparently became fashionable to slap the label narcissist on anyone who has behaved badly, as well as many people who haven't. Someone's ex is a narcissist. That one's boss is a narcissist. Everyone's parents are narcissists. What in the world is inspiring people to talk like this? Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) does exist, yes, and there may be some very conspicuous examples of it in public life, although I'm not qualified to diagnose anyone. Still, it's a minority disorder. The Cleveland Clinic reports that NPD affects around 0.5% to 5% of Americans. Clearly, most people who behave badly from time to time do not qualify for a diagnosis. Moreover, mental illnesses like anxiety and depression are far more common.

Yes, sometimes people treat others badly because they are narcissists, but others are unkind due to their depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, addiction, or one of the dozens of other psychological afflictions that cause so much pain. In most cases—not all, but most—I'm sure those suffering with these ailments endure much more agony than the people around them. Of course, that's assuming the target of the “narcissist” label is even clinically unwell. Maybe your boss just wants to further their own goals at the exclusion of yours. That's not narcissism. That's not mental illness. That's just corporate life. (I would argue that any manager pursuing their own goals at the exclusion of yours is a bad manager, but that doesn't make them a narcissist.)

Language evolves, and I suppose people can use the term narcissist to mean brute, if they choose. The dictionary wasn't handed down from the heavens, unchangeable. I just worry that being so sloppy with terminology unfairly demonizes the vast majority of mental illnesses that inspire unusual behavior for other reasons. I also think it can suggest a degree of intent that simply doesn't exist. Maybe that person at the convention shouted at you because they struggle with anger or because they never learned how disagree respectfully, not because they want to feel superior to you.

I do wonder—and this is pretty speculative—whether some people are so cavalier with the term narcissist because they want to deflect attention away from their own narcissism of a different kind. I'm not talking about clinical narcissism, the type that seriously harms oneself and others, but rather more ordinary narcissism, the kind that leads one to believe that anyone actually cares about their status updates. I think it's plausible that social media does foster some amount of casual, everyday narcissism. Could it be that people throw the term around because they're uncomfortable facing their own shrouded narcissism of a different kind?

Instead of throwing labels around, maybe we should spend more time looking in the mirror—in a healthy way. I will try to do the same.

#Life #SocialMedia #Tech

Like you, I favor a bit of grace in a world full of sinners. And cutting off everyone who is morally flawed would leave you with a very small coterie of friends — who might then be tempted by the flaw of moral vanity. (In which case you’d have to get rid of them, too.)

You say you’re an equality-minded liberal. The way to live your creed isn’t by curating a spotless feed of spotless minds but by helping people do better. Hew to the norm; judge the person by what he does next; show grace where it stands a chance to help someone grow. That’s the difference between moral vanity and moral work.

This dovetails nicely with my last post, Counterproductive activism. I would never defend racist acts, obviously, but I agree that moral work demands helping others to be better, if at all possible. The rest, as he says, is moral vanity. Gosh, what a great term.

By the way, helping others to be better means approaching their wrongdoings with kindness, curiosity, compassion, understanding, and forgiveness. It's a slow and painful process, but that's how change happens. This approach is needed even when others cause severe harm. In fact, it's needed especially when others cause extreme harm. Just ask Megan Phelps-Roper, who left the incomparably hateful Westboro Baptist Church only after others had the idea to challenge her with patience and curiosity. Telling someone off in the form of “advice,” when you know the message won't be heard, because it makes you feel better about yourself? That's not moral work. That's moral vanity.

Am I guilty of moral vanity? Yep, in ways I both do and don't notice. Even this post might convey a kind of moral vanity. If you notice times when I'm guilty of it, though, let's talk about it.

#Favorites #Life #Quotes #SocialMedia #Tech

Little does more harm to a cause than the perception that its adherents are crazy. I've never heard anyone say, “Gosh, vegans are nuts… I should be one of them!” Purity tests are similarly destructive. Want to make an enemy out of a potential ally? Chastise them for not being good enough. On the contrary, celebrating small steps in the right direction achieves so much more than demanding perfection. (Guess who else isn't perfect. I'll give you a hint: you can find them in your mirror. Mine, too.)

Protesting outside KFC and throwing red paint on fur coats probably increases animal suffering, on balance, by deepening the resistance and habits of those who oppose ethical veganism. Similarly, having a meltdown when someone disagrees with one's economic vision probably hinders the economic justice they're after.

For that reason, I'm so frustrated and disappointed that social media fosters extremism and encourages users to preach to the choir. It's worse than a massive opportunity cost. It actually leads us to harm those we are trying to help.

#Favorites #Life #SocialMedia #Tech

Likes aren't worth much. You just look ridiculous.

#Life #Quotes #SocialMedia #Tech

#Life #SocialMedia #Tech

Consensus is different. If almost all people who are knowledgeable about a certain subject agree on some fact, despite their different upbringings, cultures, and worldviews, then it probably is true. Can one find people online who believe that pandas speak Latin? Probably. The internet is a big place. Can one find broad consensus that pandas speak Latin? Absolutely not. That's one way of knowing it's probably bullshit.

Is broad consensus everything? No, but it's a strong indicator of truth. Add it to your truth detection scorecard. Have it replace “my tribe agrees with me.”

#Life #SocialMedia #Tech