79 pointsby RickJWagner4 hours ago51 comments
  • ang_cire2 hours ago
    Because we see what's coming?

    Because we watched our careers go from being in service of an industry of tinkerers and designers, to being in service of the worst people attempting to maximize wealth extraction no matter the human cost?

    Because Snow Crash wasn't supposed to be the goal?

    Because our daily complicity in what's happening is also a daily reminder that we're not brave enough to be a Mangione?

    Take your pick.

    • dspillett2 hours ago
      In some cases being told "just treat it like you are a manager", when we've always done our level best to avoid anything vaguely like management because we like doing things particularly the nitty gritty details.
      • JohnFenan hour ago
        So much this. I've spent my whole career avoiding being promoted into management because I don't want to be or enjoy being a manager.

        So it always amuses me when genAI advocates say things like "your job isn't going away, you're just going to be doing management" as if that is a good thing. To my ears, that reads as "you'll still be getting a paycheck, but your job is going to shitty."

        • 9rx20 minutes ago
          The last time a programmer wasn't a manager was when they were handed a piece of paper with toggle combinations and their job was to flip the toggle switches as detailed. AI doesn't seem to have much applicability in any other profession, other than maybe graphic arts, but the same holds true there. Artists are also always managers.

          So, what is this magical not-a-manager but also at risk of AI taking it away career? Are you sure it actually exists?

          • rhsjie294nd11 minutes ago
            That's a weird way to put it. Yeah, everyone does a level of management for their own time and work projects. Still, the bulk of the work is in the details. Programmers talked a lot more about data structures and algorithms instead of keeping the LLM on track or sandboxed. How is it not different? We can play semantics on what it means to be a manager but the jobs as they were are going away
    • spicymaki2 hours ago
      > Because our daily complicity ...

      Exactly this. We were (still are) complicit in our own destruction and worst yet when other courageous people spoke up we shout them down, hid away, laughed at their folly, or shunned them outright.

    • pc862 hours ago
      "Not brave enough" to shoot an innocent person in the back and then run away?
      • scottLobsteran hour ago
        He murdered a guilty man, not an innocent one. Still murder, and murder is wrong, but let's not get things twisted
        • pc86an hour ago
          What crime did he commit? If he's guilty of something for which the just punishment is death, then how can you say it was wrong?
    • scottLobsteran hour ago
      As a mid-career software dev I'm just sick of most of my job being a highly paid technical janitor mopping a floor that never gets clean.

      I've had maybe 2-3 years combined where I actually got to build something I could be proud of, and made all the red tape worth it. The rest has been navigating/paying down other peoples' technical debt and being forced to add some of my own when there's no budget for maintenance and the band-aid becomes permanent.

      At the start of my career I wondered why anyone retired early when there was so much cool stuff to work on... now I get it. The cool stuff is the extreme minority of available work, and the odds of you getting to work on any of it are down to being in the right place at the right time. As for the rest of the job, I'd sooner step on a nail if it didn't come with the pay and benefits.

    • ThrowawayR2an hour ago
      > "a daily reminder that we're not brave enough to be a Mangione"

      Sure are a lot of wannabe murderers on HN lately. Mangione, guillotines, what other thinly veiled incitements to violence are HNers using these days?

      I fault the HN moderators for not following their own stated guidelines on most political submissions being off topic. "Most" needs to become "nearly all" since the submissions they allow through (or even explicitly unflag at users' request) are nurturing a very unpleasant breed of HN users.

      • ang_cirean hour ago
        Is discussing offshoring that takes away American jobs and has driven much poverty in the heartland equally political and unacceptable, or is it just the political discussions you don't like having that shouldn't be allowed?

        The "no politics" rule is about not posting constant "x politician said this about tech" articles, not about banning all discussion of real-world consequences of the tech industry.

        • throw-the-towel23 minutes ago
          Even by your definition, HN is still full of off-topic politics these days.
    • akagusu2 hours ago
      Can I pick all?

      All options are good because they are all true.

      I think you can extend them.

    • brandonagr22 hours ago
      Are you really holding up a murderer as a role model?
      • Multicomp2 hours ago
        I'm not happy they do it, but I'm not surprised. There's a lot of media echochambers where Luigi M is lionized and his heinous actions dismissed or celebrated because it advances a grievance/covetousness/envy political narrative, and for the same kind of people who have to be atheist to be fashionable tend to be the ones who can fall into workism as described in TFA and also have a non-trivial chance of falling into media spheres that want to drive that anti-healthcare-exec animus crowd.
        • scottLobsteran hour ago
          Anyone who's lost a loved one over a denied claim can sympathize with Luigi even if they disapprove of his methods. Sounds like you haven't gone through that experience, but a lot of Americans have.
      • ang_cire2 hours ago
        That's only okay if they're a politician or business exec, right? It's fine to hold those murderers up as role models, apparently.
    • an hour ago
      undefined
    • stego-tech2 hours ago
      I mean, yeah.

      I got into IT because I loved working with technology, building communities and game servers and chatrooms and computers and the like. I got lucky that someone found me, my interest in these things, and showed me how it could be a career.

      Nowadays though, so much of my time isn’t spent building so much as debunking the latest grift, scam, or lie. It’s spent unfucking arbitrary vendor changes that didn’t fix any actual problems but created a slew of new ones. It’s bristling at the notion that SAML, SSO, and SCIM remain Enterprise options so that a fraction of players can have total control over identity, instead of letting customers and users build solutions that fit their needs. So much time spent talking, not doing, and almost always in service of making some rich old billionaire fuck that much richer while I struggle to buy a home.

      I got into this field because it brought disparate people together. People from all over the world, all walks of life, all backgrounds and belief systems and ideologies into a giant melting pot of community. Nowadays there’s so many corporate and nationally-erected fences that everyone is so carefully siloed into approved areas, and any attempts to cross imagined digital borders is viewed as suspect or criminal by default.

      The technology of today does not enable, or empower, or bring us closer together. By design, it keeps us apart, distanced, agitated at difference or unbalanced from change. The stuff that fucking works - Home Assistant, the Pi-Hole, my Docker containers - are what is good, and leaves me time to deal with shitty OS updates breaking familial devices, or “smart” appliances that get unprompted updates that break connectivity.

      We are miserable because those in charge of the direction of technology - the shareholders, the Boardrooms, the C-Suites, the VCs - all demand it be miserable and extractive, rather than empowering and liberating.

      For a lot of folks, AI was the final canary in the toxic coalmine. The realization that this is not a noble cause or profession anymore. That we’re not helping people do better, at least not en masse, but instead making life actively worse for disproportionately more folks than those whose lives we make better.

      And it’s a goddamn tragedy.

    • Der_Einzige2 hours ago
      Ah yes, freely admitting that you want or want others to shoot AI researchers/workers.
      • ang_cirean hour ago
        I don't know where you got the idea my comment is about AI from.
        • Der_Einzigean hour ago
          "The Librarian"

          Oh didn't you realize that some people actually READ the books people reference here?

          • ang_cirean hour ago
            The article isn't only about AI, and neither was my comment.
    • salemh2 hours ago
      [dead]
    • pc862 hours ago
      [flagged]
    • wonderwonder2 hours ago
      "not brave enough to be a Mangione" If you idolize a man who murdered an innocent then perhaps you should seek mental help. This is a you thing, not a society or industry thing
      • NicuCalcea2 hours ago
        A quarter of Americans (and 40% of young Americans) see Mangione favourably, so it definitely is a society thing.

        https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/51189-presidential-pardons...

        • scottLobster2 hours ago
          The only reason in my mind to view Mangione unfavorably is that vigilante justice, however justified, does not result in a civilization anyone would want to live in. It's the same reason we can't just go around killing everyone in the Epstein files. It's not that they don't deserve it, it's that the resulting corrosion destroys the entire system, including the good parts.

          If Mangione had killed the UHC CEO by being his insurer and denying his claim for cancer treatment that his doctor said he needed, nobody would be saying anything.

        • wonderwonder2 hours ago
          Be attractive Don't be unattractive
      • pixl972 hours ago
        >an innocent

        Remember murder is only bad when it's not done with an algorithm and a bureaucratic process.

        • wonderwonder2 hours ago
          Is your argument that every new health care ceo should be gunned down as soon as a single claim is denied in perpetuity until all claims are approved and all health insurance companies go bankrupt and then no one gets health insurance?
          • scottLobster2 hours ago
            If Mangione was the CEO's health insurer and knowingly denied him cancer treatment the CEO's doctor said he needed, all to boost his quarterly earnings, resulting in his death, would you have this same level of outrage?

            For-profit claim denials should be abolished unless there's a public backstop.

          • nancyminusonean hour ago
            the way healthcare companies act now, they deserve bankruptcy
      • ang_cire2 hours ago
        [flagged]
        • wonderwonder2 hours ago
          Cool so do I get to decide who's decisions I don't like and resulted in death or do only people like you and Mangione get to decide? And to be clear, you are advocting for vigilante justice so you are going to be celebrating when the following happen:

          Abortion doctors and admins are gunned down

          Gender change doctors and admins are gunned down

          Judges who allowed for bail and the person killed after bonding out are gunned down

          Regular killers and gang members are gunned down

          Police are gunned down

          Politicians on both sides are gunned down

          Mayors that didn't prioritize for natural disasters are gunned down

          Feel free to add to the list.

          • ang_cirean hour ago
            Everyone makes decisions in life and lives with the consequences. Your question, as it's stated now, is simply "should we have free will?"

            I never made any statement about which actions should be legal. And the facile assertion that endorsing one action is either tantamount to, or requiring of, endorsement of any action that shares an arbitrary attribute you identify is sloppy argumentation; somehow I don't think you would argue that someone supporting police having the authority to use force means they are supporting every instance including illegal uses of force.

      • kome2 hours ago
        he didn't murder an innocent man.
      • akagusu2 hours ago
        Mangione is a murderer but that "innocent man" he killed was not innocent at all, he indeed was a murderer too. The only difference between then is they used different tools. No... Mangione murdered one, the other guy killed much more.
        • baggy_trough2 hours ago
          That is a reprehensible claim of which you should be ashamed. Being a health insurance executive in no way makes you a murderer, yes, even if you deny some claims. Do you think that there is some health care system in which all requests for care can be approved without limit? I should hope you would see that this is impossible. And therefore, someone must decide what claims are reasonable. That can either be government bureaucrats or it can be done via the insurance marketplace, giving patients some choice in the matter. In a socialized medical system, are the bureaucrats the "murderers" then?
          • scottLobster2 hours ago
            If you think all denied claims are denied in good faith, I don't know what to do for you.

            The insurers are hardly running up against hard resource limits, where there just isn't enough to go around and they have to triage. They are profit driven entities, and if they were legally allowed to deny all claims they would be required to do so by their shareholders.

            No system is perfect, but patients shouldn't die to boost a stock price. And no patient should be required to fight for coverage at their most vulnerable.

            • baggy_trough33 minutes ago
              Why would an insurer who denied all claims have any customers? I think you're missing the market competition aspect of the insurance business.

              Certainly no system is perfect. I'll take the system where I can shop around for insurers and plans over a one size fits all approach from unaccountable government bureaucrats.

          • nikole9696an hour ago
            "And therefore, someone must decide what claims are reasonable."

            Yes, that person is MY DOCTOR. There is no world in which it is reasonable that my health care team says I should have particular treatment, and insurance executives get to say no I don't. Sadly I understand this is not the case, and we value money more than human life, but I do not find that reasonable, no matter how common it might be.

            I also understand that medical fraud happens, but I'm not sure the tradeoff to reducing it is worth the lives it's taking when we refuse claims.

            • baggy_trough38 minutes ago
              So you think that your doctor should be able to order you any imaginable treatment that they think is medically necessary, and someone else will have to pay for it? Sorry, but that is utterly preposterous. Why would a doctor care how much something costs? What if they order you something that costs multiple millions of dollars? Somebody has to balance costs vs. benefits. And it's not your doctor, since they don't care one bit about costs, if they aren't paying.

              There is no way to get around the fact that advanced medical care is expensive and tradeoffs have to be made.

          • SketchySeaBeast2 hours ago
            > Do you think that there is some health care system in which all requests for care can be approved without limit?

            I'm not going to wade into the murder tag, but is this the actual incentive? The health care execs don't have enough money to save everyone so they pick who they can help strategically, making sure to help as many as possible, or is the system incentivized to instead maximize finding who can be denied so that the company makes the most money?

  • marginalia_nu2 hours ago
    Saw a meme on mastodon the other day contrasting people of the '90s going online to escape from offline reality, and people of the '20s going offline to escape from online reality. There's something to that.

    I think a big part of it is just how incredibly toxic the web has become. If you spend any time online, as most tech workers do, you have exceptional resiliency if you're able to stay sane and level headed.

    Going online it's like everyone is really angry and tired and sad all the time, and it's getting worse every year. This really took a nosedive during the pandemic, but looking back this had been going on for several years before. Every election cycle makes things worse too.

    It's just been spiraling in a very dark direction for a long time. You have these blackpill depression cirklejerks everywhere. Astroturfing is getting worse every year. Like what Bannon did with gamer gate is an amateurish precursor to what everyone with is doing everywhere now. With AI you can even run these campaigns with a very small budget.

    All the news is just outrage porn and non-stop predictions of impending doom. Used to be more tabloid territory but now I don't know if anywhere is spared. A lot of the focus now is on AI, but when it isn't the world is burning in some other fashion. Reading the news, we've been in a permanent state of crisis for years now.

    This information diet just isn't good for your mental health. It isn't just tech workers, but they're probably more exposed than most.

    Candide's closing remarks spring to mind. Tend your garden.

    • MarkusQ2 hours ago
      "It's just been spiraling in a very dark direction for a long time. You have these blackpill depression cirklejerks everywhere. Astroturfing is getting worse every year."

      Agreed.

      From TFA: "This disillusionment is infectious."

      I would suggest it is in part being spread by articles like this one. If you look at the press surrounding earlier advances, it was largely neutral to positive. Nowadays, as you note, it's doom stew everywhere, and the beacons of solace are pieces like this one driving home to anyone who's missed it how demoralized their peers are.

    • Multicomp2 hours ago
      TL;DR: We won't stay here in blackpill-as-entertainment long term, tech/HN will proxy the way forward, but it will take time and will be messy.

      I think you make a strong point here. I will add a note of hope.

      In my opinion, besides the 'this too shall pass' nature of life meaning this outrage-focused moment, we on HN have hope here.

      I've been a lurker for a while around here, IDK when this account was made and I don't care, I feel confident that I've been watching the great techies of our era and HN celebrities and dang and other mods presiding over it all for at least a decade.

      It's probably my own media bubble bias, but I have noticed this trend where HN is discussing a given subject that the general public is not aware of, and it after years filters into the greater consciousness. I don't think HN is necessarily magically head of the curve, but I do think it concentrates where curious and possibly-open-minded people's thoughts are at, before internet-point-seeking/popularity echo chamber communities like Reddit/FB/Twitter or algorithm-driven hivemind homogenziers like YT/Reels/TikTok/Periscope all become aware of something.

      HN saw the centralization of control with the SOPA/PIPA/encryption in public fight, that has been ongoing since the clipper chip and before, but in this modern form with end-users not needing PGP and friends and just getting to have e2ee with Signal, HN was talking about and using Signal for years before now our government figures and traditional + social media companies have talked about Signal.

      Similarly, the broader privacy questions, turning off Google Location History was happening on HN (and XDA back when custom android ROMs were more popular) as soon as Google Reader was axed, people only now have learned to fear 'the internet' because of how many more egregious things have happened across all powerful web platforms.

      And of course we can't ignore HN playing with cleverbot and that dall-e precursor who's name I forget, ML models and markov chains and tech beyond my ability to teach about, before OAI ever released a single product like ChatGPT.

      HN still has heavyweights of each industry and titans of tech who pop by on occasion to grace us mere plebians, pushing back the Eternal September for just a few happy moments (looking at you BWK, Walter Bright, and other famous names I can't rattle off) to share with us what happened 'in the room'. Just the other day someone posted 'I was the guy who controlled the rollout for Apple MacOS X Snow Leopard, it was a bugfix only release no really' ... only on HN by the power of the internet do we get that, we don't get that on a TikTok. So HN has still got 'it' at least for now, and therefore I can make a broad observation.

      If the HN being directionally appropriate even if getting particulars wrong is true, I'm seeing future trends that will lead us out of this populist/blackpill moment.

      People will get emotionally overwhelmed/numbed to overwrought angry moments, they will want to move forward. Americans tend to be keen as a people, whatever the 'thing' is. 90s tech utopia optimism was a keen-thing. Support for or opposition to the Iraq War was a keen-thing, whatever we Americans do, we do with gusto.

      So right now, we are all in on outraged doom/gloom/anxiety/this sux!! feelings.

      I'm hopeful that perhaps we as a people go with a decision to move in what a figure from my current media bubble named Aaaron Renn says where there are New Constructivists, who are intellectuals on all sides of American political aisles looking to revitalize and create new institutions.

      I'm fearful that we will have to fall down hard to learn our lessons first and/or learn the wrong lessons where we decide the fix to ennui is to blame 'those' people over there (whoever that happens to be). The fix to the fear and ennui won't come from us fighting with our families, community members, internet strangers, or political opponents, it will come from us choosing to change our media diets away from garbage in/garbage out (I Know, I know, you who read this and disagree with everything I say and my media diet sources want me to change my media diet, that may very well be true) that is focused on emotional inflammation (didn't we used to ban people from our forums for flaming?) instead of genuine debate and encouragement and online civility.

      It's boring and its lame, but circling all the way back to the parent comment: the web used to be a homogenous unified place made up of professionals and nerds and group think. We need more diverse opinions than that, but what has happened is that the internet (and its mobile app/web/private chat mediums) has become a borderless place where people who never encounter each other have diametrically opposed views constantly, and so retreat into echochambers and don't get the media literacy experience needed to peacefully coexist with the rest of the online anglosphere without constant acrimony. Grifters feed the flames for likes/subscribes/patreon subs/etc.

    • rob742 hours ago
      If you also consider that many of us, via the companies we work for, actively contribute to making the Internet (and by extension, the world) a worse place, the question in the article's title kind of answers itself. It also makes "quiet quitting" seem almost the right thing to do: doing only the least possible to advance your company's goals while keeping both your job and your sanity, hoping that you will one day be offered a buyout package and then maybe find something more fulfilling...
      • marginalia_nu2 hours ago
        A counterpoint would be that you don't really ever see investment bankers reacting in this fashion.
        • Gud23 minutes ago
          Because engineers and investment bankers are wired differently.
  • FLeXMurphy2 hours ago
    This article is too inward, clique referential looking. It uses too many "known" things to frame and validate its points, but has very little contributions of its own.

    The way that people are described, and the conditions portrayed, have been this way for quite some time. The only thing that is changed is now there is a clearly defined boogeyman to point to that justifies it. Because the other boogeymen make the usual authors too uncomfortable to bring up.

    • chrisjj2 hours ago
      > This article is too inward

      Too inward for what?

  • xlii2 hours ago
    Long long time ago people in tech were in tech because of the tech.

    Then, at some point, being in tech became a gilded profession and everyone: salesmen, artists, clerks etc. joined in. Not because they wanted to be in tech.

    They wanted gold.

    For years it was working, but right now things shifted. You can no longer just do the thing you learned for a job and continue doing so, because landscape shifted. So they're miserable and they want to get back to knitting, pottery or whatever thing they want to do but not tech.

    For people I know who are in tech for the tech nothing changed. There's new tech in town, one has to adjust, and it's still possible to discover new things and pave new paths. Tech was always shifting and I suppose people who worked in it for it always knew it, and it doesn't derail them.

    • cholantesh24 minutes ago
      Quite a lot of folks who got into tech for the tech are also miserable, because, as the byline rather aptly puts it, a lot of it is pointless. It does not serve a public good, or even a public desire, and 'work for its own sake' is only engaging up to a point.
    • MarkusQ2 hours ago
      100%.

      I noticed it most when the slurs they used against us became status symbols, as a hoard of grifters traded in their ties (remember ties?) and golf doodads for SF franchise bling and proclaimed themselves "geeks" and "nerds".

  • agys2 hours ago
    Side note: a half an hour call on a commute train (or in public spaces) is considered extremely rude in many parts of the world.
    • mattcantstopan hour ago
      It's rude to me as well. But I think we are wrong about this.

      I was in the doctor's office and a person was on the phone talking in the waiting room. I thought it was weird. But then I thought "if a person was sitting in the seat next to them and they were talking, would that be weird?"

      I don't think we'd see two people talking as being weird. Why is it weird if someone is by themself speaking to someone that isn't around on the phone? If two people can speak in that place, it's not weird for someone to have a phone discussion.

      Now playing music speakers or watching TikTok videos on your phone in a public place...psychotic!

    • elric2 hours ago
      It is rude and annoying in general. But even in quiet cars it seems like many people just don't give a fuck and will simply jabber on obnoxiously without any care for anyone else.

      Would be nice if people could keep their noise levels down in general.

      • Der_Einzige2 hours ago
        These kind of social rules are why I’m very glad that America has garbage public transit culture. Actually I am going to jabber on talking to folks during transportation events. I’m going to do it in my personal vehicle so I don’t have to deal with others crying about my behavior.

        Only poor people are required to humiliate themselves by asking every tom, dick, and harry for their opinion on if their behavior is acceptable.

    • arendtio2 hours ago
      I think it depends not just on culture but also on the volume of the conversation. Some people manage to have a conversation when you can barely hear them; others seem to have a conversation with everyone on the train.
      • swat53519 minutes ago
        I don't mind people having conversations, just don't blast the volume up or put it on speaker for the whole train to hear..
    • neom2 hours ago
      From my experience, (outside of the quiet car), "extremely rude" - only South Korea and Japan?
      • left-struck2 hours ago
        Having lived in both Australia and Japan and visited SK, for me it seems like it’s rude in all those places but only in some places do almost all the people care what strangers think enough to modify their behaviour. Which is not as judgmental a statement as it sounds like, because that care, or some might call it pressure to conform, has upsides and downsides.
        • neom2 hours ago
          Yeah, to clarify my comment, I think it's rude everywhere and I suspect many others generally also, but I've only experienced feeling I couldn't do it/people will absolutely stop you in SK/JP. I've been on trains all through Europe, the UK, almost all of North America and usually hear someone on the phone, but nobody ever says anything.
      • dspillett2 hours ago
        UK, unless you are quiet about it. Though you might not notice as our reaction only tends to be in body language, or for particularly loud speakers (particularly those who are GOING INTO A TUNNEL or otherwise think shouting will help with bad reception) we might tut.
      • boelboel2 hours ago
        It's considered rude in Belgium, at least when I commuted there by train. People would leave the wagon to take a call. Maybe it's changed in the past few years. There were also signs that it's prohibited to call in the trains.
        • margalabargala2 hours ago
          Leave the wagon to where? Like get off the train? The trains are all wagon, no?
          • NicuCalcea2 hours ago
            There's usually some space between train coaches (I think it's called a gangway?) or at the end of a coach (a vestibule) that is separated from the seats area by doors on both sides. You can take your call there.
            • margalabargala36 minutes ago
              Gotcha. On the trains I'm used to (Amtrak, NYC subway) spaces between cars are either nonexistent, or extremely dangerous.
          • boelboel2 hours ago
            Leave the department*, the parts where people get on/off trains are closed off from the seats. There's also some gangway connections which have doors between the wagons.
      • ausbah2 hours ago
        i’m in the US, if you took a call for more than a few mins a busy metro car I’d tell you to knock it off
        • nikole969644 minutes ago
          Unfortunately, these days, most of us won't do that because there is a high likelihood it could incite violence.
        • serf2 hours ago
          My dad speaks loudly on speakerphone phones in restaurants and public spaces daily because he's a rude old asshole.

          No one beside myself has ever told him to stop because I think being old gives one a bit of a 'get out of jail free card ' with regard to social behaviors.

          I would love for you or someone like you to happen upon him and tell him to knock it off, but alas that seems fleetingly rare.

        • qbit422 hours ago
          People talk on the phone all the time on every US metro I’ve tried. Seems fine if they’re not on speaker or raising their voice
    • chrisjj2 hours ago
      UK included.
  • olooney2 hours ago
    Scholars and academics have been bemoaning the pointlessness of what the article calls "knowledge work" for centuries. A few of my favorites:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Scholar

    https://andrewmbailey.com/papers/Higher-order%20truths%20abo...

    • ComputerPerson2 hours ago
      There's a well-known book that labels programmers as a specific type of pointless job. "Duct tapers" is the category. Also task masters, who would have a foot under the software development umbrella, have space in the book.

      "Bullshit Jobs"

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs

      • Der_Einzige2 hours ago
        We are socially punished for our extremely cushy jobs

        SWE has negative social value. Saying you’re a SWE or god forbid anything in AI in a dating/courtship context is basically suicide.

        We are paid so well as compensation for debasing ourselves socially. A lot of normies intuitively understand the concepts in that book even without reading it and either see you as evil or a grifter, maybe both, when you say you work in tech/AI.

        A lot of people are going to have extreme schadenfreud as they watch tech workers take L after L. They really hate us, they want us bullied or dead or wishing we were.

        Still, it was totally worth it because the blue collar pricks that dislike tech workers are even worse in so many ways. At least I’m not a shitty construction worker responsible for contributing to the pathetic state that our housing industry is in.

        • ComputerPersonan hour ago
          Woah, bad day?

          I've noticed or experienced absolutely none of this. The closest thing I can relate to is that I operate on a different intellectual plane from some of my blue-collar friends. This causes a divide and probably limits intimacy, but does not result in negative relationships.

          Regarding the dating world, it impresses people that I'm an SWE. My role is a boon, maybe because it signals intelligence; I'm not sure.

          Strongly disagree here. Would encourage you to try to reframe some of that. Sorry if that comes across as patronizing.

  • lostaccount2 hours ago
    This is basically office space but for the modern era. Peter found happiness in construction work, but when something physical like that is your job… I don’t know. A lot of those guys have back pain, inflexible schedules, working in extreme weather, and the pay isn’t even that good. Is tech so bad? Or is the world of work broken?
    • pc862 hours ago
      > A lot of those guys have back pain, inflexible schedules, working in extreme weather,

      And a lot of them don't?

      A lot of people who work on a computer all day also have back pain and inflexible schedules. Hell, I'm sure a lot of knowledge workers in other countries work in places with no air conditioning, for example - not exactly "extreme" but not climate-controlled, either.

      • jonahrd2 hours ago
        There are definitely downsides to office work, but this post really implies to me that you don't actually personally know anyone who works in the trades. The amount of body pain/damage, extreme conditions, and ridiculous scheduling (as in, last minute decisions that you must be on site at 5:30am the next day, not as in overall hours) are pretty much incomparable to tech work.
        • pc8642 minutes ago
          I didn't say they were comparable. But there is a common refrain that every single person who works in the trades has their body basically destroyed by the time they're 40, which isn't remotely true, and that nobody who works in an office (or a number that is essentially a rounding error) has any physical effects directly caused by that, which also isn't remotely true.
    • nancyminusonean hour ago
      Office workers get chronic conditions from sitting around all day too. Yet vary few jobs provide any such balance.
  • Multicomp2 hours ago
    > In my experience, there are two broad categories of Knowledge Workers. The first are outcome-first workers. Their focus is on the business, on winning, on efficiency. Human needs and faults and emotions are an obstacle to be overcome.

    > The second group has an experience-first perspective. These workers love the messy middle. They value the journey. They want their organizations to perform well but as a natural consequence of collaboration, debate and shared struggle with people they actually like. Many experience-first people are artists outside of work. Photographers, directors, screenwriters, sculptors, painters, poets, writers. Many are active volunteers. For these people, to be pulled away from their economically unviable passions requires something in return: a company experience with freedom for exploration, creativity, problem solving and cool colleagues.

    The first group appears to be correctly compartmentalizing work into its correct location, this is a job I do to meet a goal, how are we doing on that goal, they have healthy limited expectations of the experiences there.

    The latter group sounds childish or unprofessional or at least unrealistic in their expectations that a job you do for a living will be all you want it to be. I laud people who volunteer, I do as well, I laud creatives, we need more of them, not less of them, but somewhere along the way, people need to work at the sucky starter job so they grow out of wild-eyed views that all jobs will bring one satisfaction. Some jobs are more cushy and give you more of a sense of fulfillment, true, and those are vocations in the article's sense, but most jobs are just jobs, therefore it seems unrealistic to me to expect them to make one happy.

    Satisfaction in life comes from service to others, because said service drives strong trusting relationships with people, you love what you serve, and those trusting relationships mean you get to see more people and they often reciprocate, thus families (in the nuclear, community, and found senses, all apply) are formed and meaning arises as the gestalt of that support and forward progress gets us what we can handle for this-side-of-life eudaimonia.

    Beyond that? That's the nature of religion and I know I'm already annoying someone with my too-strong opinions as is, so I will spare you my thoughts there this time.

  • thisisauserid2 hours ago
    Most of the people in tech I know that have interpersonal relationships and go out and look at a tree every once in a while are not often sad.
    • 2 hours ago
      undefined
    • 2 hours ago
      undefined
  • robofanatican hour ago
    Because most of us are middle aged with mortgages, kids etc. Not old enough to retire and live off of savings or 401ks, not young enough to start all over again.
  • SirFatty25 minutes ago
    cybersecurity has taken over my life as a IT Manager. Security was always important, and always something I worked on, but now it's all I work on and it's exhausting.

    Managing patch management)software and firmware. Users who cannot help but enter credentials via phishing regardless of training.

    Chasing the next best practice (SSL VPN out, IPsec is back, etc).

  • pm902 hours ago
    Tech has always had an unhealthy streak; it was ok while workers were being compensated well and treated amazingly. The end of zirp has cut comp and benefits massively so there’s a lot less upside to this lifestyle.
  • ghm21992 hours ago
    On a personal level to remain as a SWE/Dev maintaining your sanity comes down to a few choices:

    1. Do I want to have the kind of lived experiences that the field has to offer? The answer can come through some introspection to questions like: "Do I have a good devx talking to AI and understanding how it works? If not am I willing to learn how to?" or "Am I ok if development has become more intense than it was — because you will talk to AI/Machine more than before?".

    2. Whatever your introspective questions are, if there answer is: "Yes I am more or less ok.", then pick a goal that lets you get those experiences and hack away.

    I feel this decision making is more important than ever for people who are banked on more their skill to write decent code and not much else in the recent past. And also people with mental health issues should be more deliberate about their choices.

  • arendtio2 hours ago
    I think we shouldn't be depressed, but work on ideas and concepts of how this could be changed into something good.

    I see a lot of people hyping AI and condemning it, but very few seem to be interested in working on what our future should look like.

  • JohnFenan hour ago
    None of that is the reason I'm sad. I'm sad because I realized that this industry had grown from something that is a benefit to everyone to something that is the opposite of that.
  • rarisma2 hours ago
    "It's good to be in something from the ground floor. I came too late for that and I know. But lately, I'm getting the feeling that I came in at the end. The best is over."

    I feel like this can be applied to a lot of things, but this is pretty much how I've felt working in tech for the last 2ish years.

    • jebarker2 hours ago
      What makes you feel like that? Is it AI specifically?
  • dgabriel2 hours ago
    I'm not sad. As an engineer with decades of experience under my belt, I'm really excited about how AI can democratize software and help me finally complete long-simmering side projects, create value for the greater good, and be a generally fun thing. So far, I have not found myself even remotely replaced by AI at work.
    • echelon2 hours ago
      I have never been happier.

      I flipping love AI.

      This is literally what I dreamed about as a kid. I feel like we might get to witness the singularity, and that's exciting.

      To live and die under cellphone incrementalism is what's depressing. I hated where we were. I love where we're going.

  • hackeraccount2 hours ago
    I read about an experiment with pigeons. The birds were given a target. For one iteration if a bird pecked a target it would get a piece of corn. For another it got nothing and for a third... sometimes it would get piece of corn and sometimes it would get nothing.

    Tech for me is that third variation. Sometimes you get nothing and sometimes it totally delivers (and more!) on what it promises. This is as a user and even as a provider. You take various bits and bobs and suddenly with a slightly clever idea and you've got something that's more then the sum of the parts. Sometimes. Other times it just never comes together.

    I'm not sure if that makes me happy or sad. Bit of both I suppose but I keep going back to the well because you never know.

  • andsoitis2 hours ago
    > knowledge work is mostly pointless

    Really, noemamag?

    • aogaili2 hours ago
      That sums up the depth of the author understanding.
    • my-next-account2 hours ago
      Doing pointless things is wonderful, anyway.
    • dreadnip2 hours ago
      Do you like increasing shareholder value?
  • eahm2 hours ago
    Because everything is ads, lots of propaganda and too much politics.

    Flame wars used to be about distros and code and now it’s about how people think and opinions.

    Everyone needs to go outside for a second, smell the flowers, hear the birds chip and calm down.

  • deanc2 hours ago
    I wrote a little bit about this a few weeks ago [1]. For me, programming, building software has always been a creative expression based on fundamentals. AI sucks all the joy out of it.

    [1] https://deanclatworthy.com/2026/02/09/the-joy-of-programming...

  • mrjay42an hour ago
    Because of the *gap* between the enjoyment of "discovering, learning and practicing tech" and the capitalistic use of tech and the consequence it has on people AND how tech is used.
  • twodave2 hours ago
    Yeah, it probably is sad to be so unimaginative or pessimistic about your skill set that you see AI as an impediment and not a boon.
    • logicchains2 hours ago
      It's the same as the old "As hire As, Bs hire Cs".
  • mikert892 hours ago
    You used your most prized mental faculties to build software: logical intelligence, creativity, etc to make someone else rich
    • trgn2 hours ago
      > logical intelligence

      it's this that AI is stripping. the work is becoming systems thinking. not bad per se, but removing the small scale puzzle aspect of the job

    • 2 hours ago
      undefined
  • MarkWayneNewton3 hours ago
    Standing on the precipice gives all a new perspective.
  • Grombobulous2 hours ago
    Everyone in tech isn’t sad, the people who are vocal about being sad are sad.

    This is a universal concept across the Internet.

    If you’re on your phone all day doom scrolling you’ll only encounter sad people.

  • zitterbewegung2 hours ago
    When have people in Tech been happy? (Serious question).
    • Balinares2 hours ago
      There was a time when Google SREs were inventing the profession from the ground up, and it was the stuff of legend.
    • david9272 hours ago
      The 1990's
  • seydor3 hours ago
    Having just installed the world's most popular software (MS windows), i think they should be.
    • dec0dedab0de2 hours ago
      Surely android and ios surpass windows in usage. Though I would argue that none of them are popular.
    • alansaber2 hours ago
      Fair enough.
    • sri9s2 hours ago
      good one
  • matheusmoreira2 hours ago
    Because society sucks so people enable Daniel Plainview mode.
  • jgbuddy2 hours ago
    I'm pretty happy I think
    • knicholes2 hours ago
      How long have you been working in tech?
  • swasheck2 hours ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs

    the theory is not without flaws but it seems relevant to the topic and conversation

    • win311fwg2 hours ago
      The glaring flaw in the theory is that it hypothesizes that jobs are pointless, but in fact they do have a point: Companionship. There are always exceptions, but overwhelmingly those with resources don't like being alone and without social standing and so they use their resources to buy friends, so to speak.
  • luciana1u2 hours ago
    we spent a decade being told we were building the future, and now the future is a subscription fee and a quarterly layoff email
  • ieie33662 hours ago
    Because they don’t exercise, have a terrible diet, lack of socialization, and no family to speak of
  • mariopt2 hours ago
    Let's see.... Unemployment, AI Lunatics, forced to use AI, AI Slopping...

    Much of joy we got from coding was taken way, I can not even imagine anyone wanting to get back to a coding role to vibe slop all day long.

    I even heard from colleagues that presented algorithms better than the AI slop and heard verbatim from their boss: I prefer the AI solution instead of your.

    So yeah, AI lunatics are ruining tech

    • pixl972 hours ago
      >So yeah, AI lunatics are ruining tech

      Eh, this is just the latest rendition. Before that we were still complaining about tech bros ruining tech.

      With all this said, the demand for ever increasing profits squeezing everything that exists till it bleeds out will eventually ruin anything so even without AI tech would have reached that point.

  • zabzonk2 hours ago
    Too much web stuff.
  • peakdunningkrue2 hours ago
    Its because everytime they see Zuck or Musk punchable face and they see the world becomes worse because of what they did and the tech workers helped made that.
  • asjh15an hour ago
    Everyone is so sad because comments that follow the AI money are flagged, everyone knows that there is marketing and censorship and 50% of commenters are useful idiots that swallow the propaganda.

    Noemamag is a propaganda rag for Berggruen.

  • wonderwonder2 hours ago
    'professionals are sharing dreams of “disappearing” or “living on a farm somewhere” or “going off the grid.”'

    This has been a meme in tech for decades. I seriously considered farming 20 years ago due to my dissatisfaction with tech, its nothing new.

    I fall into the group of tech workers that never enjoyed their work, I still loathe it but it pays really well. Standups are the worst, every day its "what did you do yesterday". The number of hours worked are far above a normal 9 - 5.

    Sections of sociery spent years telling people to learn to code and they did and they do. The issue is that for many people that just work to live and don't live to work, code is souless and there is nothing to show for it after decades of grind.

    This negative outlook is not universal of couse, I am sure this site is full of people that love software and more power to them. For a good deal of us though, its just how we pay the bills and there is nothing else that will come close to paying them as well.

    Now to add to the general malaise we see companies laying off tens of thousands of engineers to justify their token spend. The feeling of living on borrowed time is prevelant especially for those that never got RSU's or SF salaries

    • surgical_fire2 hours ago
      I enjoy coding, but I always sort of hated working in tech. It's something I do because I get paid well to do it, I happen to be good at it.

      It was ironic that I was at my most miserable when working for FAANG. Allowed me to save to buy a house, but man, I hope I never have to go through one of those again.

      Things got better after I started avoiding startup and US companies.

  • surgical_fire2 hours ago
    Everyone is sad?

    I'm pretty neutral. I was pretty neutral before too.

  • catigula2 hours ago
    The idea that "knowledge work is mostly pointless" is absurd and only literally true specifically if AI can do it... which it seems to be able to.
  • paulcole2 hours ago
    > people who want to pick up pottery, painting, crochet or other old-timey analog hobbies. In coffee shops and in the low-lit corners of bars, professionals are sharing dreams of “disappearing” or “living on a farm somewhere” or “going off the grid.” These aren’t fantastical daydreams…

    Things people say they want to and then don’t do is the dictionary definition of fantastical daydreams.

  • diogenescynic2 hours ago
    Because the entire career or job experience is like a never ending marathon where the only reward is keeping your job and not becoming destitute. You never have true job security and if you work at a company long enough to go from start up to mature company then they eventually start trying to outsource or automate your job etc. It's nothing but stress and fake positivity for years and years and hopefully your lottery ticket/RSUs actually increase in value and you're eventually able to afford your freedom. It's brutal. I keep fantasizing about cashing out my retirement and running some kind of small business. I am sick of the corporate world and being a hostage to some corporate executives whims.
  • rvz2 hours ago
    Because the free ride and the day-care rest and vest ZIRP tech life style is over.

    In 2012 - 2023, this lifestyle used to be at Google, and Facebook and everyone outside wanted to join.

    In 2023 - present The day care lifestyle is at NVIDIA, OpenAI and Anthropic and everyone outside wants to join (they are too late) after getting laid off.

    It's that simple. There will be a new day care somewhere but it if you are looking for a safe and stable job, it does not exist.

    • 8by32 hours ago
      It doesn't have to be _that_ extreme,

      Many of us just wanted vaguely what the promise of a good job was supposed to offer. A decent wage, the ability to afford a home one day, support our families etc.

      Maybe not everyone but up until about 2022 I had great job security and loved my work. I knew I was extremely lucky. I didn't have a crazy silicon valley salary but I was doing pretty well on any kind of global scale.

      Job security went quickly out the window, with it came a sense of insecurity and the dread that most other working people live under. So I'd argue we aren't more sad than most people, just lost the warm bubble of being paid well to sit in a comfy chair and daily get the reward of solving interesting problems.

      • pixl972 hours ago
        >what the promise of a good job was supposed to offe

        So did the people at car factories, at steel mills, at any number of places that no longer have that either.

        Your last sentence is correct, we're just coming down to the reality that everyone else is suffering. But hey, tech unions are socialism, we'll pull ourselves up by our bootstraps at any moment now.

  • kittikitti2 hours ago
    Objectively speaking, I'm less miserable than before, even though I am still miserable. I think it's because I always found Workism to be very cringe. Now that the workplace has a good amount of fascism mixed in, adherents to Workism realize their free trial is over. The price to pay is their soul.

    I really enjoyed reading this article. Thank you for sharing.

  • 2 hours ago
    undefined
  • gverrilla2 hours ago
    Debord without Marx...
  • tossitawayplz2 hours ago
    A lot of people truly enjoyed the craft and creativity of building something. That is being stripped away. The building is being outsourced now. In some cases, the design too. Everything they once enjoyed and took pride in is being done by machines now. That is not a good feeling.

    Imagine you are a master craftsman, a furniture builder. You sourced the wood, designed the furniture, built it by hand, took pride in your work. You adjusted your design or how you used wood based on a knot present in the lumber you got, made custom jigs to improve your efficiency or accuracy. You built skills, you were mastering a craft.

    Now, suddenly, you manage a factory of outsourced workers who mass produce cheap particle board furniture. At the end of the day both the hand made dresser and the particle board one store your underwear, one is significantly cheaper (even if it falls apart on you after a few years.) so the cheaper one wins and that is what everyone starts producing. Good enough often wins, especially when cost is involved.

    Some of these crafts people may have never got to the point of being masters yet either, they were working their way towards it, but now it looks like those skills may not be valued by the market, did they waste their most valuable years working towards a goal that no longer exists? A lot of these people in this situation are also millennials that are currently or nearing mid-life, hard to pivot to a new career at this point. That is not a good feeling. Perhaps a new kind of mid-life crisis.

    A lot of the people I know that are excited about AI weren't craftspeople in the same sense, the process of designing and writing code was just a means to an end, they just wanted something to store their socks at the end of the assembly line regardless of how it was made, the cheaper the better.

    The worse part is not only is it a craft, its a living and so even when the times are rough you still have responsibilities, housing, family, healthcare so you are forced to use AI even when you know you are feeding the very machine that will grow big enough to eat you.

    Some craftspeople will say that the AI makes them better at their craft. They can understand and learn things they never could have done before. I think this is the ideal scenario and believed this at first as well but four problems emerged for me:

    1. I kept getting lazier and lazier, letting the LLM do more and more until I wasn't learning I was just trying to get to the end goal.

    2. The majority of my team pressed the easy-button slot machine and wholesale let the AI do everything, its practically impossible to keep up with the massive PRs and unbelievable code churn in a team like this especially with every level of management (who are not code crafts people) want that outcome.

    3. I forgot how to do simple things, syntax, standard library functions, useful libraries. I started forgetting it, I kept finding myself reaching to ask the LLM how to do this or that, things I knew how to do by muscle memory only months prior.

    4. You are giving immense amounts of training data to the LLM companies. Its already been proven they give 0 fucks about copyright in any sense, your code, your ideas, your products go right back into the LLM code blender in some shape or form.

    Anyone reading this far that is the same kind of crafts person that I'm describing I will tell you what I'm doing about it. I'm going to starve the machine. I've cancelled all my LLM subscriptions, I've deleted the apps. I'm going back to hand coding. I don't care about the consequences. I will find a way to provide for myself and my family. I might get "left behind" but so be it, I'll do it on my own terms. I will no longer lose the sense of who I am for companies and people that don't care about me, or even humanity in the first place. Guess who's with us? Artists and Authors other creatives hate this shit too, software is a mix of creativity and engineering so its not as black-and-white as other fields but you get to choose what it is for yourself.

    Good luck out there.

  • CurbStomper2 hours ago
    [dead]
  • 129123122 hours ago
    [dead]
  • aogaili2 hours ago
    [flagged]
    • Forgeties792 hours ago
      It’s not 1998 man you don’t need to use that word.
      • aogaili2 hours ago
        Which word? I use what I want..I hope you understood what I said. Also, who said I'm man? I might be they?
        • Forgeties792 hours ago
          You know what I’m talking about and this comment is not as clever as you think it is. I’m moving on, have a good weekend.
          • aogailian hour ago
            But I'm guessing it's "retarded"? You seem to be sensitive to intelligence ranking, judging by your comment "not as clever as you think".

            I find a lot tech people sensitive to that in general, given that what they are exchanging in the market is their presumed intelligence.

            But again, you can keep me honest, instead of leaving me guessing about a banned word since 1998.

          • aogaili2 hours ago
            I honestly don't, forgive my ignorance but English is not my first language and I'm from different culture I suppose.

            I was trying to explain a point that "sadness" as a by product arraignment not the domain. And I personally found the article heavy on generalization. When I read statements like "All knowledge work is pointless" and "Everyone in tech is sad".. I just think it's lousy thinking.

            But I don't know what word you referring too that was not common since 1998 specifically and why..I find you comment to be really strange, sorry.

            But anyway, I'm getting used to being flagged and downvoted on this site.

      • Der_Einzige2 hours ago
        Pretty much every slur is ableist. You better not use “lame” as just another of the myriad examples of how slippery of a slope that is.
        • aogailian hour ago
          I'm guessing it's also the culture and I'm reading about the history of the word "retarded". In my mind, it means slow/delayed, or slow comprehension. Which, I can comfortably use on myself sometimes.

          But it seems since 1998 it has been used for diagnosis and people are shunning the word, but that is mostly in western culture.

          But I think it was clear from my post what I mean when I said this, I don't know why I'm defending words, I don't know the author, I'm merely expressing my dissatisfaction with the author's position and broad generalizations.

          What would someone coming to tech think when they read articles like this?

          • Forgeties79an hour ago
            You looked at an article, didn’t like what it said, and called somebody “retarded.” I’m not going to sit here and let you attempt to dress this up as some casual description after the fact. It is a personal attack that depends on commenting on someone’s cognitive ability using a word that is clearly controversial and offensive to many.

            If this is new information to you, then you should go look more into the subject and try to understand where I am coming from rather than simultaneously saying “English is not my first language so how could I know” and digging in your heels

            • aogailian hour ago
              I understand.

              But then you sat their reading a published article labeling an entire domain/knowledge workers as useless/sad and you took it, so that sits alright with you?

              I don't know the person, I can see the work that produced and the cognition behind it, and in my mind it was lousy thinking dressed in uniform published and shared that could lead to damage, just imagine young people at university reading this..

              And are you their lawyer? you took offence at the word because it is sensitive to you. Just like I took sadness personal to me. Again, I don't know the person, but I think their work was weak. Perhaps I didn't use the right adjectives but that was my point, it was a weak article and poorly reasoned, that stigmatized an entire domain.

            • aogaili43 minutes ago
              And yes English is not my first language and the definition and perception of this word changes in the west with the last 20 years as you noted.

              I'm sorry to break your bubble but if you step out of this forum and the culture you are in, you will be offended every day.

  • sri9s3 hours ago
    tech people need to become business owners
    • dgellow2 hours ago
      how about just letting us behind? You go on your AI futuristic trip, don't force it on others, and you can then come back and tell us how fantastic your life is while we all missed the boat. That's fine with me. But that's not what will happen, right? AI is being forced on everybody, everywhere. Which means it really doesn't matter if we jump in right now, agentic stuff will still be the norm in 5 years, and at that point you can show us all the magical things you're doing. I'm sure that will convince way more people than the current approach of "join right now or be left behind!!!"
    • hostyle2 hours ago
      how will that help? being a business owner magically makes you immune from ai stealing your job?
    • gverrilla2 hours ago
      there's no space for everybody. not even near. free market is inherently oligopolic for most cases..
      • win311fwg2 hours ago
        Oligopolies are unlikely in a free market because as soon as you do anything interesting a million other people will copy what you are doing wholesale and you will have no advantage to see you rise up to form an oligopoly. We find oligopolies in our regulated markets because regulation, such as copyright, patents, tariffs, etc., legally hinder that competition from emerging.

        However, even if we accept oligopolies as inevitable, that doesn't mean the tech people cannot collectively own those oligopolies. A business does not have to be owned by just one person. Cooperatives are a thing.