this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2024
180 points (97.9% liked)

Asklemmy

44149 readers
1384 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Short disclosure, I work as a Software Developer in the US, and often have to keep my negative opinions about the tech industry to myself. I often post podcasts and articles critical of the tech industry here in order to vent and, in a way, commiserate over the current state of tech and its negative effects on our environment and the Global/American sociopolitical landscape.

I'm generally reluctant to express these opinions IRL as I'm afraid of burning certain bridges in the tech industry that could one day lead to further employment opportunities. I also don't want to get into these kinds of discussions except with my closest friends and family, as I could foresee them getting quite heated and lengthy with certain people in my social circles.

Some of these negative opinions include:

  • I think that the industries based around cryptocurrencies and other blockchain technologies have always been, and have repeatedly proven themselves to be, nothing more or less than scams run and perpetuated by scam artists.
  • I think that the AI industry is particularly harmful to writers, journalists, actors, artists, and others. This is not because AI produces better pieces of work, but rather due to misanthropic viewpoints of particularly toxic and powerful individuals at the top of the tech industry hierarchy pushing AI as the next big thing due to their general misunderstanding or outright dislike of the general public.
  • I think that capitalism will ultimately doom the tech industry as it reinforces poor system design that deemphasizes maintenance and maintainability in preference of a move fast and break things mentality that still pervades many parts of tech.
  • I think we've squeezed as much capital out of advertising as is possible without completely alienating the modern user, and we risk creating strong anti tech sentiments among the general population if we don't figure out a less intrusive way of monetizing software.

You can agree or disagree with me, but in this thread I'd prefer not to get into arguments over the particular details of why any one of our opinions are wrong or right. Rather, I'd hope you could list what opinions on the tech industry you hold that you feel comfortable expressing here, but are, for whatever reason, reluctant to express in public or at work. I'd also welcome an elaboration of said reason, should you feel comfortable to give it.

I doubt we can completely avoid disagreements, but I'll humbly ask that we all attempt to keep this as civil as possible. Thanks in advance for all thoughtful responses.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NotLuigi@hexbear.net 8 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

I’m personally very conflicted between my love of computers and the seeming necessity of conflict minerals in their construction. How much coltan is dug up every year just to be shoved into an IoT device whose company will be defunct in six months, effectively bricking the thing? Even if the mining practices were made humane, they wouldn’t be sustainable. My coworkers are very cool for tech workers. Vague anticapitalist sentiments. Hate Elon. But I don’t think they’re ready for this conversation.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ziggurat@sh.itjust.works 36 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

The whole "tech industry" naming is bulllshit, there is more technology let's say in composite used to build an aircraft wing or in a surgerical robots, than in yet another mobile app showing you ads

The whole tech sector also tend to be over evaluated on the stock market. In no world Apple is worth 3 trillion while coca cola or airbus are worth around 200 billions

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 7 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

More people own an iPhone than an Airbus plane.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] frauddogg@hexbear.net 8 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (2 children)

The proliferators of theftbox technology and everyone who ups it/demands it for my career's advancement deserves to get put on an upturned pike, chest-first. To me it's like being a battle rapper: like a battle rapper better not EVER be relying on ghostwriters for their bars, if you need CoPilot to code, you don't deserve to call yourself a programmer; and I was an artist first-- so I don't see any of this LLM bullshit as anything more than tricknology that robbed me and everybody I consider my actual peers (which is to say, not the theftbox touchers).

I'd rather see a journeyman programmer cracking open the books they taught themselves out of than see them turning to CoPilot.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Mr_Fish@lemmy.world 37 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I think most people who actually work in software development will agree with you on those things. The problem is that it's the marketing people and investors who disagree with you, but it's also them who get to make the decisions.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LenielJerron@lemmy.world 21 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (2 children)

When I was in undergrad I did debate, and a term that was used to describe the debate topics was "a solution in need of a problem". I think that that very often characterizes the tech industry as a whole.

There is legitimately interesting math going on behind the scenes with AI, and it has a number of legitimate, if specialized, use-cases - sifting through large amounts of data, etc. However, if you're an AI company, there's more money to be made marketing to the general public and trying to sell AI to everyone on everything, rather than keeping it within its lane and letting it do the thing that it does well, well.

Even something like blockchain and cryptocurrency is built on top of somewhat novel and interesting math. What makes it a scam isn't the underlying technology, but rather the speculation bubbles that pop up around it, and the fact that the technology isn't being used for applications other than pushing a ponzi scheme.

For my own opinions - I don't really have anything I don't say out loud, but I definitely have some unorthodox opinions.

  • I think that the ultra-convenient mobile telephone, always on your person at all times, has been a net detriment societally speaking. That is to say, the average iPhone user would be living a happier, more fulfilling, more authentic life if iPhones had not become massively popular. Modern tech too often substitutes genuine real-in-person interactions for online interactions that only approximate it. The instant gratification of always having access to all these opinions at all times has created addictions to social media that are harder to quit than cocaine (source: I have a friend who successfully quit cocaine, and she said that she could never quit instagram). The constantly-on GPS results in people not knowing how to navigate their own towns; if you automate something without learning how to do it, you will never learn how to do it. While that's fine most of the time, there are emergency situations where it just results in people being generally less competent than they otherwise would have been.

  • For the same reason, I don't like using IDEs. For example when I code in java, the ritual of typing "import javafx.application.Application;" or whatever helps make me consciously aware that I'm using that specific package, and gets me in the headspace. Plus, being constantly reminded of what every single little thing does makes it much easier for me at least to read and parse code quickly. (But I also haven't done extensive coding since I was in undergrad).

  • Microsoft Office Excel needs to remove February 29th 1900. I get that they have it so that it's backwards compatible with some archaic software from the 1990s; it's an annoying pet peeve.

  • Technology is not the solution to every problem, and technology can make things worse as much as it can make things better. Society seems to have a cult around technological progress, where any new tech is intrinsically a net good for society, and where given any problem the first attempted solution should be a technological one. But for example things like the hyperloop and tesla self-driving cars and so forth are just new modern technology that doesn't come anywhere near as close to solving transportation problems as just implementing a robust public transit network with tech that's existed for 200 years (trains, trolleys, busses) would.

[–] pmk@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 11 hours ago

I'm interested in reading more about coding java without an IDE, what's your usual workflow? Do you use maven or gradle or something else? Are there solutions or scripts you use to make up for some functionality of an IDE?

[–] etchinghillside@reddthat.com 8 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

For the same reason, I don't like using CLIs.

IDEs?

[–] LenielJerron@lemmy.world 7 points 15 hours ago

Yes, my bad, I get all the TLAs mixed up.

[–] nnullzz@lemmy.world 10 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Software dev tools and process are so convoluted and unnecessary. We need to find a happy medium between sites being published via FTP uploads like before and the CI/CD madness of today. And there’s too many tooling options available. It’s caused a huge amount of disparity between options. Look at the JavaScript ecosystem for example.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

The abortion known as Terraform is a great example of what you mean.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Lussy@hexbear.net 5 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

I think that the industries based around cryptocurrencies and other blockchain technologies have always been, and have repeatedly proven themselves to be, nothing more or less than scams run and perpetuated by scam artists.

Can you please expand on this and help me out here?

I’m coming across people who are true believers in crypto and while I insist it’s a scam and it’s destroying the fucking planet, they go down the rabbit hole into places I can’t follow because I’ve literally not had the interest nor desire to read up on crypto.

They keep saying that what’s really destroying the planet is the existing financial system with all of the logistics involved with keeping it up as opposed to the cryptofarms adding to the demand on the electric grid. They say that is the goal, to replace the existing financial energy demand with crypto but again, it’s only added to it. Another talking point is that in the case of global climate catastrophe there will be pockets of electricity and cryptoservers somewhere on the planet and that while crypto will remain all the other financial systems will disappear

They also seem to somehow think it’s the fix to workplace bureaucracy somehow and everything in sight

Please impart some knowledge.

[–] StalinIsMaiWaifu@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Bitcoin and all similar crypto were intentionally designed to be self deflating, it won't replace finance, it's speed running the same problems. The reason almost every country on earth switched to fiat/self inflating currencies is that the best way to invest a deflating currency is to stash it and forget about it.

[–] Lussy@hexbear.net 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Please explain like I’m a bean

[–] StalinIsMaiWaifu@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Why deflation is bad: deflation means that as time goes on the same amount of money is worth more. This means that a viable way to invest the money is to hold onto it. Say there is yearly deflation of 4%, that means any investment which has a return lower than 4% is losing you money. Additionally intelligent consumers will cut down on purchases since they can buy more for less later. This leads to economic slowdowns and can self compound if suppliers decide to lower prices.

This is one reason why countries like inflation, it encourages spending and investment.

Bitcoin and similar crypto require new coins to validate all previous coins and interactions. Each new coin is exponentially more expensive than the previous. Therefore Bitcoin wealth is extremely stratified to early adopters who built up a collection before the value became this obscene.

[–] Lussy@hexbear.net 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

What about the new sentiment that pushes the switch back to the gold standard, is this a pipe dream? Aren’t there some major backers of this idea who hold it to be viable?

[–] StalinIsMaiWaifu@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 10 hours ago

Complete pipe dream, commodity backed currency means the currency issuer loses control of inflation/deflation to production of said commodity. For a commodity backed currency to maintain value, the commodity stores owned by the issuer have to grow in proportion to monetary demand (usually GDP growth).

[–] Cysioland@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

The job of a software developer should be regulated like a job of a lawyer/doctor/real engineer, that is a requirement of a degree/formal training and a professional society

[–] granolabar@kbin.melroy.org 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

lawyer/doctor/real engineer

We are all just wage slaves subject to the same economic conditions. Professional regulation is a charade to provide air of legitimacy for these professionals so peasants feel a bit more at easy.

Out do the three engineers have most integrity IMHO since gravity is a bitch yo

[–] Cysioland@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I used it as an example of jobs that require credentials and have a professional society where those workers are organized and have ethical rules governing their jobs (even if they're very frequently ignored)

[–] granolabar@kbin.melroy.org 2 points 10 hours ago

I am pointing that at best this is a cosplay.

I do agree with the overall sentiment that professionals should have high standard of care to their client but also society

This should be above profit motivate but I have no idea how to make that work

Professional licensing and orgs clearly ain't.

[–] stsquad@lemmy.ml 16 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

It's one of the reasons I enjoy working on open source. Sure the companies that pay the bills for that maintenance might not be the ones you would work for directly but I satisfy myself that we are improving a commons that everyone can take advantage of.

[–] Evilsandwichman@hexbear.net 8 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I told my lib colleague about how many software creators provide their stuff and its source code for free and he could barely get why; I also told him historically many nations just left their research and findings available publicly for people to learn from and he can't grasp why that was either.

He does truly believe the profit motive is the only (best?) way to advance science.

[–] stsquad@lemmy.ml 4 points 13 hours ago

Yes and no. A lot of the projects I work on the majority of the engineers are funded by companies which have very real commercial drivers to do so. However the fact the code itself is free (as in freedom) means that everyone benefits from the commons and as a result interesting contributions come up which aren't on the commercial roadmap. Look at git, a source control system Linus built because he needed something to maintain Linux in and he didn't like any of the alternatives. It solved his itch but is now the basis for a large industry of code forges with git at their heart.

While we have roadmaps for features we want they still don't get merged until they are ready and acceptable to the upstream which makes for much more sustainable projects in the long run.

Interestingly while we have had academic contributions there are a lot more research projects that use the public code as a base but the work is never upstreamed because the focus is on getting the paper/thesis done. Code can work and prove the thing they investigating but still need significant effort to get it merged.

[–] lzfm@lemmus.org 8 points 14 hours ago

Commercial freebie tech turns us into short-sighted muppets and pulls apart the fabric of society

[–] rbn@sopuli.xyz 14 points 16 hours ago

'Using cloud software will lead to lower costs and a better overall service quality'

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›