I threw my degree in the toilet, I closed my linkedin, and I went to go work in the trades as a diesel mechanic.
Greatest choice I've ever made. The pay is great, the work is steady, the coworkers are relaxed and not trying to one up each other. I'm now being paid to go to school, and get raises every year until I'm fully ticketed (way more than I ever made in the entry tech positions).
I've heard non-stop my whole life that if I join a trade it's going to be grunt labor and I'll be paralyzed in 5 years. Maybe some are, but this isn't hard at all. I lay on a creeper and turn wrenches. Anything over 50lbs we have lifts for.
Tech has become fun again, I'm just making projects because its what I wanted. I come home and relax by writing on my projects.
Now, I'm watching my tech friends from a distance and my only regret is not doing this sooner.
"Sometimes you gotta give in to win"
It makes me wonder if I would be happier doing something else, but (because of my personality) I’m very doubtful.
Since you see yourself as also being a computer guy I’m assuming that lack skill or intuition was not why you left the industry, so don’t read the rest of my comment as talking about you.
But I’ve definitely seen plenty of people in the software development industry where they may get by “okay” at their job, but things don’t tend to “click” as easily (in terms of intuitive understanding) for them the same way they do for me.
So I feel lucky and deeply happy to be at a company I enjoy working at and doing what has always been my passion.
It’s not that the computer industry is completely terrible (although plenty of parts of it certainly are), it’s just that for some people it’s not their true passion (which is fine).
Love it! A score of years ago, I considered being an auto mechanic after graduating HS but then ended up back in CompSci.
Did you have to go back to school? Did you find a shop that would take you in as an apprentice? And if they did, how did you convince them you can/will be good at the job?
However, the bar has never been lower.
I didn't want to do automotive, the piece work is a cancer. You'll do 12 hour days and get paid for 8. Not my cup of tea. I was interested in the big stuff. Offroad equiptment sounded cool too.
I wanted a nice car, so instead of racking up mega debt on a $70,000 mustang I bought an old classic car and learned everything. After 5 years I fully restored it on the cheap (less than $10k) and now I've pivoted my career to that.
Anyone currently with a tech job can pay for it out of pocket and barely notice. If it’s something someone thinks they may want to do, they should just do it. Nobody says you have to switch jobs at the end.
And tools have never been cheaper. The knock off chinese clones are used by professionals too. I have tons of automotive friends and they all vary in their level of access to things. I have friends who built their cars on the public road infront of their house, and some friends who took a year long college course.
We all ended up in the same place.
It's kinda like law. A mechanic doesn't make more than someone in the right side of the bimodal lawyer pay where 3Ls with the right clerkship or internship walking into a biglaw job paying whatever that is now ($200k?). But a mechanic might make more than the other tranche of lawyers fighting for the rest of the scraps who don't yet (and may never) have a good practice set up.
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intell...
I feel we are getting the worse of “both worlds”.
Fiction has sold AI in the form of Data from Star Trek. A robot with perfect recall of information over a wide range of topics and flawless reasoning.
Today’s AI is nothing like Data with its hallucinations but are taking jobs anyway because it’s “good enough” for many corporations.
P.S. Haven’t been keeping up to date but let’s say I have a story where I retcon a previously an established fact midway through the story with no explanation. If I feed it into AI as part of its training data, will it “challenge” this contradiction? Or will it just blindly accept it? What if the story is part of a prompt, will it “challenge” it in anyway?
I mean even a young child will point out that “that wasn’t what you said earlier”.
1) How long were you in software? 2) How did you get your break in the trades? Did you go to school etc? 3) Did you have to start on an apprentice program?
Thank you very much
I didn't do any schooling but thats because I've always liked cars and would tinker at home. So I was very advanced for an entry level. They get government kick backs for hiring apprentices and the less of a burder you are to them, the better. However, the bar has never been lower. Before this, I tried electrician but didn't like it. I have zero experience as an electrician.
Your employer signs you up after you pass probation. Then every year you do a 2 month schooling course which is all government paid.
I really wanted to go into tech because I've been told the trades were the boogie man my entire life.
Don't let yourself get attached to any tech stack you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner. That's the discipline.
AI is good enough now that you can't claim that you aren't using it because you're upholding some higher standard of quality. It is simply a matter of it offending your sensibilities.
BTW, 'Heat 2' is pretty good, gives a lot of backstory as well as current-story, mostly about Chris: https://www.amazon.com/Heat-2-Novel-Michael-Mann/dp/00626533...
You cannot and will not force them to care more. Don't waste your time on Earth trying to do so.
There will continue to be a glut of available software engineers and techies. Some will, maybe, transition to an AI field; some will get disgusted; some just won't be able to get work.
Jobs of some sort in tech might possibly be available, but wages for the majority of them will go further and further down until they become roughly equivalent to the average minimum wage, if they are not outsourced entirely. Many people will attempt to transition to a non-tech field if the number of available jobs and the wages are not commensurate (especially considering the cost of education). The most desirable of those jobs will also have an upper limit of positions available, and that is of course not paying attention to how many of those will be offloaded onto automation and/or AI. Little things wind up mattering (like the lowering crime rate in California towns suddenly putting auto and window glass repairers out of business) and people who leave tech for other jobs will be fighting for the same dwindling work, with people who are often less difficult to find or work with. Rent won't really go down, and the price of other things will likely continue to rise or stagnate (like many tech salaries; a small percentage of salaries went way up, and the majority went down or are stagnant also). Not saying AI will push everyone out of every field, but it feels like people are thinking in too little of a macro sense.
As AI 'knowledge' is populated by more and more countries with different languages and priorities, English- and some other language speakers will be squeezed out. Probably moreso if and when brain-machine interfaces become de rigeur. Countries with populations of a billion and large families will simply cancel out some people in places like America because social networks will merely favour different people. If my name sounds like yours ethnically, I am possibly far more likely to favour you in a queue. Especially if I am from the same country. This works against people all the time now in the opposite direction. Yes, AI models do use data like this, just as people do.
It is not just tech, of course, and that is the kicker. Tech writing, sure, but also movie and fiction writing, fields dealing large data models, accounting and pharmaceutical research will be largely automated and researched with AI models. Will we need forensic accounting once a model exists?
To the commenters who wrote about how, yes, sure, there will need to be people overseeing things, how do you propose to police that when the lower level AIs skills are so far beyond even the current most senior intermediate or advanced/senior people, and they ramp up so fast, but lack any error correcting? Maybe the AI won't want you involved. Maybe you cannot tell if it chose a good solution or not.
Many... well, no, most good (not even talking godly) tech people only get good by experience, hard work, repetition and the ability to see patterns in their debugging, crashes, program execution, the way their data farms 'feel' (how else do I put this? if you know it feels not right, and sure enough something breaks), and lord knows, even human-computer interaction.
At some point, looking for work is something AIs will discourage us from doing, if they don't already, just for feeling like maybe we won't choose the same solution (would we know?).
Not paranoia. Mere logic. We are attempting to create models but we lack the solutions ourselves. Are we not, like, pricing ourselves out of our own careers (and planet?)?
It is more than hubris.
> I've seen people supposedly smarter than I advocate for just giving in, conceding to AI coding as it's the future. But doing so means tossing out my friends who make art or the people who work their asses off to properly test and review code or the writers pouring all of their energy into even mundane dialogue. It means throwing out my dignity
In the games industry, AI usage immediately eliminates a human job. Why pay a pixel artist if AI can generate 100's of unique little people pixels in seconds, and output them in the right format? Hollywood is going through the same thing: the companies that are building AI for Hollywood have to do so in the bushes, hiding. You don't see them advertising or flashing cash. That's because no one involved in using their wares wants anyone to know they're using them, lest they alienate the highly-talented people they still need to fill the gap between concept AI and full theatrical release AI.
In the software world, we are worried about AI. In the creative industries, they are absolutely pants on fire, screaming at the sky, burning down the village terrified of AI.
Because someone who knows something about pixels needs to make a judgement. It is rare to see a machine-generated artifact (picture, video, text or code) that's good on the first try. And not always a non-specialist can see the issue.
Same thing why we still need human software engineers, even though a machine can generate code. Someone with actual understanding of the problem needs to make a management decision. Just like engineers see code slop (design or implementation) that laypeople vibe-coding don't recognize, artists see the visual slop where layman eye glances over.
Honestly, IMHO, this whole panic is artists' own creation. Instead of educating others on how to spot the issues (and thus reaffirming that expertise still matters - nothing had changed, and probably nothing ever will), a notable fraction went all-in on neo-luddite ideas, as if they don't know the history of their own craft and adjacent creative industries (I guess many really don't, or at least it doesn't click). Evaluate new tools, make use of them when they provide value, skip them where they fall short, and most importantly reaffirm that fancier brushes don't replace the artist in a human society - this is an already well-tested and proven strategy. Ring the existential bells when we'll get to the question of machine cognition rather than just intelligence.
Same for the engineering. Don't shy away from new tools, use them where they're a good fit, don't waste time when they are't (but periodically check out if something changes), explain everyone why you still matter - just to push back on unfortunate misconceptions.
The fact that a lot of companies' upper management went delusional and decided they want to replace humans witch machines (as if don't need responsibility anymore) doesn't help. But - hey - already plenty of stories how it bites them back, so while this period sucks, it's not exactly fucked, just in a state of (a pretty much expected) confusion.
Dishing out pixels or lines of code got somewhat cheaper. Expertise cost remains the same, though.
Not if nobody cares for the end product that finely.
And even if it was true, one person can make the judgement, while automation erasing 5 others that would have worked in both the judgement and the graphics wrok.
Yes. But a non-negligible number of people do care. If nobody would've cared, we wouldn't have this drama.
> one person can make the judgement, while automation erasing 5 others that would have worked in both the judgement and the graphics wrok.
Yes. In other words, new tools had increased people's performance for mechanical work - individual units of that can be arguably done faster than before. So hypothetically one person can do a work of five. Note of that erases those people and their skills. The real underlying issue is that demand for it doesn't catch up because world's coincidentally fucked (through a series of unrelated issues, such as a quite few global conflicts) and economies aren't exactly thriving outside of a few niches du jour.
I strongly suspect that if we would've had a flourishing economies around the world, the demand would ramp up and artists (and engineers, and writers, and everyone else whose performance could've been positively affected by new tools) would be in greater position than ever before.
It just doesn't magically take them out of the universe or turns them into unskilled persons.
But it does magically erases those people with those skills as needed employees.
>The real underlying issue is that demand for it doesn't catch up because world's coincidentally fucked (through a series of unrelated issues, such as a quite few global conflicts) and economies aren't exactly thriving outside of a few niches du jour.
Why would that demand have to "catch up"? Just because we can do something faster or automate parts of it doesn't guarantee demand will go up, even in a good economy. No shortage of jobs that vanished forever in a similar even, despite the economy going otherwise up. Even more so now, where it's fucked up anyway, of course.
The woman and man AI voice endemic to YouTube and ilk is also tremendously off putting. M5Stack has a bunch of these videos, and it devalues what they're doing.
And then... Transformer "art". It is some of the worst drek I've seen. I smell it a mile away. It's easily seen by slop english-like characters. Or too glowy humans. Or overall fake feel. For pixel art, I can perhaps see it. But for anything it just feels... Gross.
I'm completely sure management LOVES it cause its cheap and devalues humans.
And the tragic bit is that instead of educating them about the pitfalls so everyone's on the same page, so a lot of brave hotheads are literally calling for a class war
Hating that every third or fourth ad now is AI-generated. So much worse than what entry-level graphic designers can put out while putting them out of work.
If you stop doing X you will be fired/not-hired, simple as.
You can make friends on your free time.
> You can make friends on your free time.
Most well-adjusted people work to live, they don't live to work. Life comes first, the demands of the job come a distant second.
I am writing a post about that for my blog but it's still not there so ... check back later? Lol.
Anyway, in this particular scenario, a co-worker not being my friend does not mean we are enemies.
Heck, 50% of all Japanese game studios [0] along with all of China's largest studios [1] now use AI within their development pipeline - often with explicit state backing.
You may not like Blizzard or Ubisoft but Tencent, Sony, miHoYo, and even Nintendo are much worse from a work culture, compensation, and work expectation perspective.
[0] - https://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOUF251PU0V20C25A9000000/...
[1] - https://www.scmp.com/tech/tech-trends/article/3341063/next-l...
---
Edit: can't reply
> Why should that be a relevant concern? It's not like any of us will be working in game dev if AI wins.
Becuase AI is not taking all jobs. Yes a lot of redundant work will go away, but there is still a real need for human intervention, monkeypatching, and ingenuity.
The North American gaming industry only exists because the entire ecosystem from AdTech to Engines to Marketplaces exists to develop, finance, and distribute IP.
If you stay frozen in the past, you eventually get outcompeted and the ecosystem will leave. And unlike the automotive industry, game devs aren't a core voting bloc.
This is what happened to the entire animation industry and is what is happening to the film and television industry. Gaming will be the next IP driven industry to leave if everyone remains frozen and opposed to innovation.
> Maybe (sic) Chines sell tools for artists pitching them as useful rather then "haha this will make you obsolete you looser look at slop I made" middle finger pitch?
The obsolence and cost saving message is true though and used all over Asia - even in China [0][1].
Either you innovate and compete, or you will get trounced. THIS is the cultural mindset back in Asia.
Americans best learn how to compete again.
[0] - https://www.zaobao.com.sg/news/china/story20260622-9245522
[1] - https://m.tech.china.com/articles/20260615/202606151894081.h...
Why should that be a relevant concern? It's not like any of us will be working in game dev if AI wins.
Maybe Chines sell tools for artists pitching them as useful rather then "haha this will make you obsolete you looser look at slop I made" middle finger pitch?
This is seemingly spoken from an ignorant and insulated position. The victims of invasion don't get to decide whether or not they live on a war front, nor do the countless skilled and creative individuals losing their entire careers almost overnight.
By the way it's class war you're talking about, not culture war.
If it means helping the employers erase their jobs and their dreams for a career in the industry, then it is.
I think everyone kind of feels that AI is sucking up all the content that we have all created collectively, and we all know that the bell is tolling for thee, no matter how much you adapt. So if you see friends being fed into a meat grinder, you can have a 'culture war' take on it. He's posting on line to vent, something everyone is venting about.
Of course, for a job, to get a paycheck, we'd use any technology, even if we are the ones running the meat grinder.
I fully stand behind that prediction.
edit: despite the downvotes, I'll double down: most of today's software jobs will disappear. Your job, if it is in software, will disappear. It might transform into something new, if you're lucky. Or it might just go away entirely.
The tide is coming for almost all of us.
I don't think it's going anywhere, but I don't know what happens when prices start to rise because these companies need to start turning a profit.
The way you phrase this prevents refutation. But there will be a point where ordinary individuals cannot participate in the majority of the upside.
In the future, some class of models will require enormous compute that is outside the financial capital capability of ordinary individual contributors, middle class, and upper middle class. This will be sold as a capability to well-funded companies.
I'll agree with you as soon as all video games are in the metaverse and run natively on the blockchain.
Blockchain is bullshit.
Crypto is bullshit.
VR and wearables are bullshit.
AI does your job. Robots do your job. These are real and substantial and actually provide enormous value. You can get more done per unit of time.
I want them to do my job and everyone else's jobs, I just want to make sure there's a functioning economy we can participate in and benefit from at the other side.
I might be naive, but rather than giving money "to the arts", I would much prefer to give money "to the people" en masse, and then leave it up to everyone to decide whether they want to make art for art's sake.
I felt compelled to write "don't call yourself a Software engineer" [0], because we are still falling into the same trap of thinking we are hired only for our technical skills.
If we are just looking at a skills and these are assessed by parsing through a resume, then OP is right. We are all at a disadvantage. But the job search starts way before you are looking for a job. It's all about the connections you make along the way.
[0]: https://idiallo.com/blog/you-are-an-ai-enabled-engineer-now
Your customers are companies looking for someone to slot into a box called "software engineer" and so you sell yourself as such. Nothing wrong with that.
We should also note who Patrick was at the time. He was an SEO consultant and in general a business development expert. It just also happened that he was able to code. And he was very very early to the field. An SEO expert was barely a thing.
So if your only skill is software development, then of course you would call yourself that. And if your main skill is SEO or some other marketing channel, then you call yourself that.
I think the real takeaway from the advice "don't call yourself a programmer" is to search the market for higher paid opportunities, where you can still leverage coding. And you can call yourself a programmer while doing so.
Really good stuff haha.
EDIT: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-pr...
To justify their own jobs.
In theory there's never been a better time to hire on SWE talent. There are lots and lots of candidates who rode high during the COVID hiring wave, took on debt based on a high income, got fired, and now need money.
But hiring isn't picking up. You have a bunch of people in the HR industry who realize that for the most part, the combination of candidate filtering, ML, and a basic tech interview process could probably do their jobs. So they have to make the process as byzantine and difficult as possible to be able to go to the suits and say "look at all of these low-quality candidates we kept out!"
> I guess this is one of these times we read on history books: great unemployement.
The good/bad news is that if this continues, there will be either a regression to the mean or a massive de-stablization of most societies. You can't kick most of the working-age population out of their jobs.
If I'm being blunt, if you are in the game industry, you probably have nothing to worry about in terms of LLM coding replacing you, because the tooling used in the gaming industry is as unfriendly to LLM coding as it gets: Heavily visual scripting based, extremely reflection heavy, and the code, Unreal C++ and Unity C#, looks like regular C++/C#, but doesn't behave like normal C++/C#. LLMs simply cannot reason about hidden implicit states effectively, so if the code looks right but doesn't act right, LLMs will simply get confused and start hallucinating.
> because the tooling used in the gaming industry is as unfriendly to LLM coding as it gets: Heavily visual scripting based
At the start of the LLM craze, we (as a team) put ChatGPT to test with Godot. It wasn't very successful in that, IIRC, GDScript 2 was just released and ChatGPT's training corpus was so obviously based on GDScript 1.
We could make ChatGPT outline steps of how to accomplish things in Godot, sort of like getting a customized tutorial. When code isn't involved, ChatGPT was okay and Gemini seemed to fare better. Based on vibes, I think Gemini had a marginally better handle on GDScript 2 for some reason.
I've been trying it lately with Claude still with mixed results. I had to install a few skills/extensions for it (can't tell you which as I basically just blindly followed what our AI advocate recommended). Sometimes it works but when it doesn't it's harder to put a finger on why. Overall I prefer the DX of generating customized tutorials with ChatGPT.
> extremely reflection heavy
Big time. And IME we don't even have to deal with textbook reflection here. Game entities are so convoluted (remember the Fallout 3 Train NPC, the stories of how Skyrim works, etc.) that it is really pushing inheritance and OO to contortions it shouldn't be doing.
Dirty confession: in our game we have this GIANT switch-statement dealing with game objects. It happens in a handful of places, for different game object types. LLMs (Copilot and Codex) could generate the monkey code of adding a switch case and even writing the body but sooner than later, when the new objects have to interact with others, LLMs just can't reason around it. Not to mention the hundred edge cases you have to consider!
And before some smart-ass comments: in my almost-decade of dealing with this code base there have been a handful of attempts to "refactor" these switch-statements, always a newcomer's enthusiastic effort. I'm proud to say, I've managed to slay one of the giants, the only successful effort to my knowledge, and this only happened last year. But I did so by basically delegating to another of the giants; they turned out to be twins and we could do without one. The dirty way is the clean way because the alternative contains Lovecraftian geometries.
Claude has been great for finding edge-case bugs but that's only once the code has been written properly. Generally if QA reports a bug on a pre-release feature, it's at most 50/50 if Claude can debug it. But if it's a player report/live incident, I'd say Claude's chances goes up to around 80%.
All that said,
> if you are in the game industry, you probably have nothing to worry about in terms of LLM coding replacing you
Hah-hah. Look, I agree with you but please get in touch with upper management. As an engineer I'm confident on the value I bring to the table but I'm not sure management "gets" that. Like, no matter how I tell them what features I shipped, what infra I built, etc., it doesn't come across to them that LLMs would not have been able to automate that output!
Let's see. My plan:
- Have my own company and start looking for customers. (Rust consulting)
- Keep looking for job opportunities, but don't succumb for shit jobs.
It might be that I'm too hopeful, but you can't know unless you try.
Anyway, I may join the "everything is shit" crowd in half a year if nothing pans out, but until then, I'm hopeful.
- political: there’s an enormous amount of uncertainty here. All businesses make plans and uncertainty puts them all on pause.
- economic: related to political, but we’re teetering on a very bad recession. Watch where national oil reserves go.
- AI: I throw this in with every new technology that comes out. There is always a period of chaos before normalization. We’re still in the chaos phase.
- Business Pain: Right now I don’t see any sector that’s in pain. Inflation has hurt consumers, but we’re still spending. When consumers lock it down, that pain comes back and job market shifts with it.
I have no solution other than figuring out a way to do your own thing. There’s no better time to be a founder.
> There is always a period of chaos before normalization.
In this case, it's the normalization period that has people terrified.
- GenAI becomes a foundational requirement for tech and non tech sectors. If you’ve refused to engage, you’ve self-selected out of any of those sectors.
- GenAI usage shifts down to just the tech sector, but in an integrated fashion where current engineering practices are still desired. Everyone survives, but pay scales are adjusted down by a not-insignificant amount.
- GenAI bubbles badly, OpenAI and Anthropic merge with Google/Microsoft/Oracle/IBM/???. Tokens become extremely expensive and no one is leaning into agentic integration. Everyone thrives.
But that's not the promise of GenAI models. The skill floor is constantly lowering and your advanced workflow is rendered obsolete monthly.
I got laid off from a large company last summer, and took some time off to travel. Now I've got a chill, low paid dev job in a resort town in New Zealand, but my sense is that dev work is not going to be the thing for me long term. This job will pay my bills while I pivot, but they're not going to sponsor me to extend my visa, so I'm on a bit of a timer. The market back in the US seems like an ongoing mess and I don't want to get back into it.
I imagine people in ML or who've found a good way to demonstrate prowess with agentic systems may be highly in demand right now(?)
Hiring here is a little bit more old school, I guess? Especially because the types of roles we are hiring now are usually 5+ years of experience, we focus more on learning about what the candidates have done in the past, the leetcode type of question interview is just a small part, and matters more for prospective Jr. hires.
That being said, we aren't hiring that many fresh graduates anymore, we already have some we hired, we're focused on investing in them, getting them to learn more about our hardware and code, etc. and hoping to retain them.
Background is SWE at an AI co that's in the news sometimes
It felt about the same in terms of grind effort from my last search in 2022. the main difference was ai companies cared a lot about your understanding of agentic systems and harness / context engineering, and had much more practical rounds with less leetcode (usually 1 medium). More legacy firms (finance / some big tech) still expected you to solve 3-4 leetcode medium/hards throughout the process
That being said, I'm not sure how much job security having such prowess would convey because I feel AI will be better than us at that too eventually (if not already).
Recruiters have utterly given up on being efficient in the market. I do not know why, but there is something very wrong given "spamming the same brand-name fish all the other recruiters are spamming" is their only strategy. My guess is there is a combination of bad (or an entire lack of) hygienic data filtering and a disconnect between compensation and terminal goals (hiring the best candidates).
Can speak to my experience that if you are a senior engineer in London the market is relatively easy at the moment (or was at the beginning of the year) even with no connections.
The problem with specialized roles is that nothing lasts too long in software. Given enough time in it, nobody really has an edge. Everyone is smart enough to have invented and implemented the very thing eating the world right now. They just don't have supervillain money or clout, so they work for you instead.
It's easy to find jobs in software engineering provided you have an attractive resume.
Using this technology to build anything remotely serious, OR EVEN GAMES, is wildly stupid.
We are still in the post-pandemic hangover.
If you look up M2 money supply on St Louis fed - that chart has more influence on the job market in the US than anything.
The macro whiplash compounds this problem for people like OP in a few ways:
- cheap money leads to hiring frenzy (cheap capital costs lead to investments in human capital in software)
- developers get conditioned to artificially high demand and assume it will be like that forever
- artificially high demand attract people into software dev for the money instead of love of the art (increasing supply)
- when capital gets expensive again companies have to correct for over-hiring with layoffs and hiring freezes
- developers are stuck in a market with crashing demand (because of higher cost of capital) and over-supply (people attracted to work when cost of capital was cheap)
Everyone says it's about AI, but AI is more like the flavor & scapegoat, the substance is all a consequence of macro policy.
The next time the fed does quant easing labor market will kick up again.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/interest-rate
ChatGPT wasn’t released until the end of 2022, and it wasn’t until the next spring where it really started to take off. Spring 2023 is when ChatGPT started to gain traction as a direct to consumer app and it wasn’t until later in the year when startups started building on top of it.
You only need to know for one though...
I guess even an off hand example, now must be completely 100% technically correct , or you aren't worth a job?
And, I'm pretty sure in "X" language, you can call them differently. Since it is "X", how do you know.
It's a litmus test, and not a terribly challenging one. It's solved by spending a week doing simple coding challenges.
What a noncommittal sentence
Like, go be a farmer, Adapt? Reinvent yourself as a performance artist? Because, learn Java in 21 days, is kind of gone.
In 5 years, the Junior pipeline will be completely dry.
Seniors will be retiring.
Companies will be floundering.
We'll see a great correction where we need workers again.
Programmers/SE/etc... will be needed again. Always were needed, but at least managers will realize it again.
Applying for jobs out of the blue usually sucks. In the ideal world, you want recruiters calling out to you.
Don't assume you can't do proper software engineering using AI. You can. The people that want to create loops are not the only ones delivering with acceptable productivity. Lot's of us still write code, at least interfaces, traits, modules or whatever, and just use the AI to fill the blanks on the really tedious code.
And then recruiter spam is COMPLETELY gone. I'm not really complaining, but it feels indicative of where things are at.
Oddly enough, in the past year recruiter spam has ticked up significantly for me. It was completely gone for a while, but it's back in full force.
Lots I agree with here, but...
> I would promptly remove them from my LinkedIn connections afterwards because I'm exhausted of pointless connections and recruiters.
Why would you do something like this, it's just counter productive. I've had numerous recruiters reach out weeks or months later to say "hey another team is interested", or even when they have moved on to other jobs.
Stop being so bitter you're just shooting yourself in the foot.
Recruiters only add you as a connection if they can't afford LinkedIn premium, which is what you need to message people you're not connected to (except for connection requests). That probably means that they're not very successful recruiters.
Even is so stupid but looks like in last few years lot of strange metrics like that used more and more.
The frontier model companies could all collapse tomorrow but the tech is not going anywhere.
Two possible reasons:
1. People who are truly in-demand still have an easy time of finding jobs without going through the tedious process you set up.
2. FAANGMANGAMEME never hired that many truly exceptional people in the first place and you've fallen for corporate propaganda.
in my experience, FAANGMANGAMEME hires good people but they get placed on a weird career trajectory.
they learn how to work experience in enormous well funded company that has spent a fortune building fancy in-house tools for their dev experience, spend their time thinking about scaling problems that no other company will likely ever face, and all covered in ten layers of bureaucracy and "process".
if you hire a faang employee into your startup or normal mid-sized business, there needs to be a bit of a detox period where they have to learn what software dev is like for the rest of us mere mortals.
Interesting. If _I_ was the owner of a business, I would try to find the people, who have ideals, dedication, like understanding what they deliver, being thorough in their work, like to learn, etc.. Well rounded persons. Individuals, whom you can give a task and they will search and find a solution. I find the hyperallergic reaction to people who stand for something, anything actually, to be very superficial and short-sighted. Businesses which do that are bound to become mediocre, due to hiring mediocre yes sayers.
But then I am not a business owner, for a reason. I probably couldn't deal with all the crap one has to wade through to be a business owner.
I respect the candidates who stand for something and can pragmatically navigate the social space of work at the same time. I find that people who just want to shut up and lick boot don't end up being very creative problem solvers. It's easy to say for me as a small biz; different atmosphere in larger corps, but I can't subscribe to the reality presented by the cynical grandparent post here. I think we can be better than this.
You are an independent entity that will be selling your services to a company. If you want to maximize your potential customer base (employers), minimize your interest in anything that isn't relevant to the company making money. You want to maximize traits that make money, and minimize traits that lose money.
That doesn't mean throwing your values out the window, but does mean separating your personal life from your work life, and understanding that your opportunity window shrinks with each "non-negotiable" you require.
Stuff does actually happen, out there in the real world. It's OK - even preferable - for people to engage with the world instead of ignoring it.
> Maybe the virtue signaling is still strong here and I'll get flagged
Having beliefs, a sense of morality, and a personality are actually not virtue signaling. Having a solid and informed perspective on the world is an important part of being a complete human being. It makes for better employees, too.
If I think the problem is my friend, I might tell them what I wrote.
Having a solid and informed perspective on the world is an important part of being a complete human being.
Having beliefs
You give yourself away when you say things like this. Your phrasing here comes across as if you think that people who support social change are fickle and unprincipled, just following whatever is popular.
> I don't come across as someone who doesn't have beliefs, right? I have very strong beliefs in general.
Oh you do come across as having beliefs. Not ones that you seem willing to state or actually stand behind, though.
Your phrasing here comes across as if you think that people who support social change are fickle and unprincipled, just following whatever is popular.
This is wrong. You should strike a balance (that admittedly errs on the side of "I admire your business"). You absolutely do not want to be working for an employer who rewards "100% DEDICATION TO THE COMPANY" in an interview. That's absolutely sick. In fact, I'll go further: It is our duty to do everything we can to destroy the minority of leaders who demand this quality from applicants. This is a form of business every civilized nation should aggressively eject from their culture. It is an ignorant, incompetent, destructive form of business that other cultures have formulated in the 21st century based on a cartoon version of American business.
the anti-trans stuff is a nice touch too.
No trans employees? What does that mean? No advocating for yourself at all? No unions?
You are ghoulish
If the market ever turns favorable for me, then I'll advocate for all those things you deem not ghoulish.
And again, what does that have to do with pronouns?
> If the market ever turns favorable for me, then I'll advocate for all those things you deem not ghoulish.
If you only stand for things when you think you have the advantage, then you stand for nothing at all.
As you said, this isn't about OP who didn't mention any of these.
But honestly, I don't think most companies read applicants' resumes and interviews deeply enough to even derive "attitude" from them. There is such an overabundance of supply that they have to use coarse, blunt filters to narrow the incoming list down to something manageable. Getting noticed and not rejected by the layers of AI filtering is likely almost a pure numbers/luck game at this point. When you have hundreds of applicants at the top of the funnel per job opening, who has time to figure out whether one particular applicant has an undesirable attitude?
I had a recruiter (from a company I previously went through the pipeline with, though did not get an offer, as a PM) reach out to me last week to assess availability and fit for a few options. I was looking at their Careers page in the background, couldn't see any Product openings. Mentioned that to them. "We're not even putting these up, or not yet. We wanted to look at people who we'd talked to and filtered before, versus getting over a thousand applicants per position if we post to the usual suspects."
We can do the miserable things that are necessary to secure our lives while also fighting to stop the people who are forcing us to do those miserable things.
Unrelated: When you say, "No him/her", I honestly can not tell what you are saying. I'm not being sly - I really can't tell if you're saying:
1. People should pretend to not be trans (scary, but a very common form of hatred).
2. Don't mention your pronouns even if you're not trans (which, ok, so maybe you roll your eyes when people do that, I don't even think that's insane - but what on earth does that have to do with having a bad "attitude"?).
3. A 3rd thing I can't think of?
The more politically-charged parts of your comment apply to both sides - it's fine if you have political opinions, but nobody wants them shoved down their throats, or brought up at work. If you come across as someone who is going to put politics over work, or cause conflict, then people aren't going to want to hire you and deal with that.
Telling people to have a good attitude is easy to say, hard to do when you've been applying for 6+ months with no response and bills to pay.
Unfortunately, the advice that's most likely to help is something everyone already knows. Networking, practice, and luck play a huge role in a environment like this. And cut expenses as much as possible, just in case you need a cash cushion.
No one really goes into an interview speaking about politics, or propaganda, or unionizing.
But it is a sad state of affairs if you have to self-suppress you're freedoms to work. That is how freedom dies isn't it? Everyone fearful to speak or lose a job.
"Just shut up and code, have to get those gas chambers up and running themselves, so we can stick the rest of you lot into them."
Uh. What?
If unions were stronger and the government was more populist, etc., (speaking of the US), maybe this choice could have been headed off better... but it's too late for that this cycle.