Software Engineers Should Be a Little Bit Cynical
Key topics
The debate around Sean Goedecke's assertion that software engineers should be a little bit cynical sparked a lively discussion, with many commenters resonating with his perspective on navigating the complexities of their careers and the corporate world. While some praised Sean's writings for offering a refreshingly realistic view, others lamented the prevalence of "cargo cult mentality" and pseudo-"grindset" culture on platforms like LinkedIn. A notable exchange emerged between subdavis and Sniffnoy, with subdavis labeling the "late-stage-capitalist hellscape" characterization as a straw man, only to be met with Sniffnoy's counter that such claims are, in fact, all too familiar. As the conversation unfolded, a consensus emerged that a balanced approach, blending idealism with a dash of cynicism, might be the key to success.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
20m
Peak period
62
0-2h
Avg / period
13.3
Based on 160 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Dec 28, 2025 at 4:29 PM EST
4d ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Dec 28, 2025 at 4:49 PM EST
20m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
62 comments in 0-2h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Dec 29, 2025 at 11:52 PM EST
3d ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
However, I think we've got some tactical disagreements on how to actually make society a better place. Namely, I think Sean is right if you have to remain an employee, but many people just don't have to do that, so it feels a bit like a great guide on how to win soccer while hopping on one leg. Just use two legs!
My own experience, especially over the last year, has been telling me that being positioned as an employee at most companies means you're largely irrelevant, i.e, you should adopt new positioning (e.g, become a third-party consultant like me) or find a place that's already running nearly perfectly. I can't imagine going back to a full-time job unless I was given a CTO/CEO or board role, where I could again operate with some autonomy... and I suspect at many of the worst places, even these roles can't do much.
Also Sean, if you're reading this, we'll get coffee together before March or die trying.
Win.. what?
> enough oomph to get lucky.
The underpaid cargo cult mentality is alive in well in corporate America.
Nothing but pseudo "grindset" cargo cultists as far as the eye can see writing worthless technical platitude posts.
It feels like a parody site of itself these days.
Feels like cynics are right and optimists get rich.
I definitely lean more to cynic, my very good friend is def more optimist. He’s worth more than 10x me.
But the right optimism in the right situation can really pay off. Imagine you're pitching your non-technical carmaker CEO on a proposal to make a new pickup truck, and the CEO asks if you can make the entire thing with 0.1mm accuracy.
If you say "Yes sir, in fact many parts will be even more accurate than that" your project gets funded.
If you say "No, thermal expansion alone makes that impossible, it's also unnecessary" you're gambling on him respecting your straight-talking and technical chops.
A lot of people missing that cynicism isn't the same as sneering grumpiness.
You can be perfectly pleasant and charming while being utterly cynical about how you approach professional relationships.
This is a problem with at least two axes. The cynicism part relies on accurately calibrating the distance between official narratives and reality.
If you're a pessimist, you overshoot. An optimist undershoots. A realist gets it more or less right.
But if the distance is huge, that automatically makes the realist a cynic, because the reality is a lie, and in most orgs failing to take false narratives at face value is considered dissidence.
The strategic part depends on how you handle that. You can be sneering and negative, you can play the game with a fake smile and an eye for opportunity, or you can aim for neutrality and a certain amount of distance.
Sneering negativity is usually the least effective option, even when it's the most honest.
A realist in a functional organisation won't be cynical at all.
Cynicaler take: That's how some companies fill their management with people who don't know when they're lying.
A person who knows how much 5m of steel expands with a 30°C temperature swing has to say "No" to the boss. A person who doesn't know that, but does know the production line uses a $250,000 Leica laser tracker thingummy that's real accurate can say "Yes Sir" and find themselves in charge of a funded project.
Is the issue being that one isn't being cynical enough? If you are very cynical about how things will turn out, and share that with others who don't appreciate it (even if you are right), then you are being optimistic in thinking it will change things. Controlling one's displays to others to appear as whatever gets one their best outcome is being even more cynical, to the point of abandoning any attempts at open honest relationships, but it likely works the best if one can pull it off.
Though that might be a very big if, and getting caught faking this likely is worse. Then again, is forcing oneself to adopt optimism just an attempt to do this indirectly, a sort of 'fool yourself so you can better fool others' approach when more direct manipulation doesn't work, given that drive for the optimism is to get better outcomes?
survivorship bias.
This is quite a straw man. I think a lot of engineers believe that other parts of the org lack perspective, sure. I’ve certainly seen managers or salespeople genuinely convinced that they’re delivering value when I know for a fact they’re selling snake oil. But I never assume it’s in bad faith, just an artifact of a shitty feedback and communication culture. People want to do good work, they just don’t often get good signal when they aren’t.
Here’s more of the quote. I say it’s a straw man because it’s a caricature that is easy to knock down. The point of my comment was that I would be surprised to find out that even 20% of people think this, much less a majority.
"Straw man" strictly speaking means something you invented, although, yes, that is likely overly strict, since you can find someone saying just about anything. But 20%? That's a substantial fraction of the relevant population!
The other thing worth noting here is that the point of a straw-man fallacy is. In a straw-man fallacy, you replace your opponent's argument with a ridiculous version, and argue against that instead of what they actually said. Or, alternatively, it's where you are arguing against some general nebulous concept, and you instantiate it as something ridiculous -- which maybe someone is actually saying! -- and use your argument against the ridiculous version as an argument against the more general concept, tarring other versions by association. (The real solution here of course is to not argue about nebulous concepts like that in the first place, it's not a useful way of arguing, but that's another matter.)
But if you're not performing either of these types of substitution, if the ridiculous position is actually out there and you're simply arguing against it as it is and not trying to use it to substitute for something else or tar something else by association... then that's not a straw man, that's just people believing ridiculous things and you having to argue against them.
Isn’t this the most prosperous, peaceful, and just period in history like ever? What “hellscape”?
People who run large tech companies want one thing: to increase shareholder value. Delivering "good software" (a very, very squishy term) is secondary.
I don't even think "good" is a quantifiable or effective measure here. C-level executives are deviating from reality in terms of what they say that their products are capable of versus how their products actually perform. If you're a CEO shipping a frontier model that adds some value in terms of performing basic technical tasks while simultaneously saying that AI is gonna be writing all code in 3-6 months, you're only doing good by your shareholders.
I think Sean is right that, in the abstract, they prefer good software to bad software, but they won't make any sacrifices if those sacrifices require losing money or status. It's the same "do your what your manager wants" playbook, but run up to board level.
That's not preferring good software to bad software, though. In order for a value to be meaningful when expressed, it has to result in some kind of trade off. If you value honesty over safety but never are put in a situation where you have to choose between honesty and safety, then that value is fairly meaningless.
A lot of very cosplay/play-pretend (and sometimes expensive!) tactics I’ve seen in high level enterprise sales made a lot more sense after being exposed to these views. Lots of money spent on entire rooms that are basically playsets for high level execs to feel cool and serve no other purpose. Entire software projects executed for that purpose. I didn’t get it until those folks clued me in.
Well, a bunch of them are. From what one can hear about Elon Musk for example, at each of his companies there is an "Elon handler" team making sure that his bullshit doesn't endanger the mission and stuff keeps running [1], Steve Jobs was particularly infamous among employees [2] and family [3], Bill Gates has a host of allegations [4] even before getting into the Epstein allegations [5], and Trump... well, I don't think the infamous toddler blimp is too far off of reality.
> and insist that if you want to reach them and be understood you have to do the same.
That makes sense even for those who aren't emotional toddlers. At large companies it is simply impossible for any human to dive deep into technical details, so decisions have to be thoroughly researched and dumbed down - and it's the same in the military. The fact that people are allowed to hold positions across multiple companies makes this even worse - how is a board of directors supposed to protect the interests of the shareholders when each board member has ten, twenty or more other companies to "control"?
IMHO, companies should simply be broken up when they get too large. Corporate inertia, "too big to fail", impossibility to compete against virtually infinite cash coffers and lawyers - too large companies are a fundamental threat against our societies.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34012719
[2] https://qz.com/984174/silicon-valley-has-idolized-steve-jobs...
[3] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/memoir-steve-jobs-apos-daught...
[4] https://www.amglaw.com/blog/2021/07/both-microsoft-and-its-f...
[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-...
But otherwise I think it's spot on. Especially for Cxx specialized in keeping the ball running, they'll have no interest in understanding most of the business in the first place, they seem themselves as fixers who just need to say yay or nay based on their gut feelings.
It's like saying that employees only want one thing: to get their paycheck.
It's a fundamental truth of capitalism, deeply interwoven in the history of markets and modern capitalism. It began when the Dutch East India Company sailed to the Banda Islands and committed genocide in order to harvest nutmeg for trade. Money is and has always been the prime directive of capitalism.
To quote Tom Stoppard: War is capitalism with the gloves off.
Delivering shareholder value happens to be a consistent way to maintain the power and payouts a successful executive demands, but I'm not sure it's the motivation per se.
Delivering good software is so far down the hierarchy of motivations I'm not sure they can even see it from up there
Indeed you are, for calling software developers “engineers” meanwhile software development is actually writing, so they are more closer to writers than engineers.
Consider this: math is mostly doodling some glyphs on paper, so clearly it is closer to drawing than engineering.
there are roughly 0.082% of software "engineers" that deal with these constraints or have to "think about them"
The organisation he works for is implicated in surveillance, monopoly exploitation, and current military action involving particularly unpopular wars. No one forced him into this role - he could have made less money elsewhere but decided not to. He has decided to be a cog in a larger, poorly functioning machine, and is handsomely rewarded for it. This sacrifice is, for many, a worthwhile trade.
If you don't want to engage with the moral ramifications of your profession, you are generally socially allowed to do so, provided the profession is above board. Unfortunately, you cannot then write a post trying to defend your position, saying that what I do is good, actually, meanwhile cashing your high 6-7 figure check. This is incoherent.
It is financially profitable to be a political actor within a decaying monopolist apparatus, but I don't need to accept that it's also a pathway to a well-lived life.
Upton Sinclair
Getting older is worse than travelling near light speed dammmit.
I have found that mentioning that elicits scorn and derision from many in tech.
Eh. Whatevs. I'm OK with it (but it appears a lot of others aren't, which mystifies me).
I’ve found talking about ethics and moral responsibility with people working in big tech is futile and frustrating. Almost everyone takes it as a personal attack though I never hold anyone else to my moral standards.
Also, religion and philosophy are alike in that some people have a rich inner life that they are not willing to share with most of the world. Your acquaintance who works for a defence contractor is not going to explain why he believes propping up the Pax Americana (or helping ICE deport migrants, or working for a social media company, or any other example of something you don't like) is morally right unless he feels safe in doing so.
I don't really think of it that way.
I didn't work for "not-bad" companies. I worked for a good company.
The attitude makes a difference. If the only way I can feel good about myself, is to define myself by what I'm against, I find life is bleak.
I prefer to define myself by what I'm for.
Part of the tradeoff the parent comment references is a lack of thinking about the moral ramifications. Thus, when you mention your position which is grounded in that tradeoff's opposite, the reaction is not surprising. They are largely incompatible. Because your position hinges on a moral component, you are thus passing a moral judgement on others. This is often met with scorn, most especially because people have an aversion to shame, and it doesn't help if it's on the behalf of someone essentially randomly declaring they are morally better than you anytime the topic of their employment comes up.
So really, I'm not sure why you would be surprised, though I sympathize with your general sentiments, in a way you should know better. Surely you are aware of the aversion to shame writ large. That seems a logical predicate of your own conceptualization of your position.
Maybe because I'm not especially interested in passing moral judgment on others, for working at a company that isn't a "moral high ground" company, but isn't exactly NSO or Palantir (I used to work for a defense contractor).
I find that people take the mere existence of others that have different morals to be a personal attack.
I know that it happens, but I'm not really sure why. It's not like I'm thinking about comparing to others, when I say that I worked for a company that inspired me. I was simply sharing what I did, and why.
I read comments about people that are excited about what they do, and even how much they make, all the time, and never feel as if they are somehow attacking me.
> I'm not especially interested in passing moral judgment on others
Earlier:
> I chose to spend most of my career at a company that did stuff I found morally acceptable (inspiring, even). I made probably half what I could have made at places that were more dodgy.
Put more succinctly:
> I work somewhere that is morally acceptable. I could have made double or more if I had worked at a 'more dodgy', less morally acceptable place. Like where you work. No judgement though.
Honestly, I would have more respect for your sentiments if you would just stick to the logical conclusion of your position. Perhaps the scorn you meet is simply a reaction to the inability to simply follow the logical course of your own viewpoint. It has nothing to do with the _mere existence_ of your morals it has to do with the fact that they are incompatible.
You want to have it both ways - you want to make a moral judgement and yet not make a moral judgement. Or you want to bound your moral judgement simply to yourself as if it is at all logical to not extrapolate it to others. If others can work for wherever they please, then what do you even mean by "morally acceptable" or "dodgy"? Simply places you prefer? That's not what morally acceptable means.
For someone who speaks of moral judgements, you don't seem to grasp their implications. I would suggest reflecting on this if you actually care about the reactions you elicit in others. This brief back and forth with you is certainly suggestive of a picture far different from the one you originally painted.
From a purely consistency perspective I don't think you're incorrect, but humans aren't purely consistent
We are able to accept that our personal preferences aren't the same as others and still like, respect or love them anyway
I read the GP as stating:
- he wanted to work for a place that made him happy
- he voiced that pleasure to others, "I'm glad I work at a place I find inspiring"
- they took that as an implicit attack on them
There are at least two parties to a conversation, each of them gets their own opportunity to interpret what occurs
It sounds like in this instance they interpreted his position much more negatively than he intended
Now to answer why is in my opinion is much more complicated and I honestly wouldn't hazard a guess without either being there or knowing both parties very well
That's not what he said though. His version included a comparison to others:
> I made probably half what I could have made at places that were more dodgy.
That's where the offense comes from.
Most posts are "I worked at a company that did stuff I really liked, and was honored to work with some really inspiring people."
That's usually enough to cause people to assume that I'm insulting them.
I do my best to not be offensive, but some folks live in a world, where everything is a personal slight, and there's really nothing I can do about that.
To me it's like with vegetarians. If someone tells you out of the blue "I am a vegetarian because I find it completely irresponsible to not be vegetarian. No judgement though", it's not the same as someone saying "I would like to inform you that I am a vegetarian, given that we are going to eat something and it is relevant for you to know it right now". Yet that latter situation will regularly offend non-vegetarians just the same.
People feel like if they want to climb the prestige ladder, they need some way of justifying the business practices of the megacorps.
In contrast, I feel like it’s well established that gigs in big law or finance or medicine have found a way to decorrelate pay from social status. You can make a choice between chasing money OR prestige.
I’m glad for the antitrust litigation. It’s very obvious that this was a collusion effort that was self serving to each party involved, as a means of overcoming a negative (for them) prisoners dilemma type situation.
The fact that it depressed wage growth was a welcomed side effect. But framing that as the intended outcome as a way of discrediting original author is telling. I don’t know if you’ve understood corporations to be rather simple profit seeking entities, whose behavior can be modeled and regulated to ideal societal outcomes accordingly.
What military action is GitHub involved with.
I didn’t make that same naive assumption when describing corpos as simple profit seeking entities, you just misunderstood what I was saying.
How exactly would you frame major corporations colluding to suppress wages?
> What military action is GitHub involved with.
GitHub has been part of Microsoft for the better part of a decade now, and Microsoft is pretty broadly involved with the military (across a wide swathe of countries)
I will leave this world with no meaningful legacy, but that's preferable to me to exiting knowing that I'd directly helped Big Tech get bigger and even more evil.
If I'd have had kids, maybe my calculus would have been different, that I'd have been motivated enough for their futures to sacrifice my conscience for them, but I did not and so all I had to consider was whether or not I'd be able to live with myself, and the answer for me was no.
I don't begrudge anyone who bit that lure but I am entirely content to have said no myself.
If you write proprietary code, everything you do dies with that company. I certainly don't want my life's work locked away like that. Working on OSS means a better chance to put the engineering first and do something that will last.
I did my few years and Silicon Valley too, and when it came to decide between money and code, I chose the code. Haven't regretted a thing.
I think helping make OSS a thing at all, especially in the very early days when my employer was seen as the poster child for its failure, will be the closest thing I have to a legacy. And I got to travel the world teaching about and evangelizing the open source process, tooling, and ethos which was great fun. I even got to play in the big leagues for a while, at the height of our consumer successes, and those years helped solidify some important industry standards that will certainly live on for a while.
I'm happy with my contributions, and happy with the comfortable life I achieved all while having a good time doing it. I'm also very happy that I got out a couple years ago before this latest wave of destruction.
There is no set future to what kind of technology we will build and end up with. We can build something where everything is locked away, and poor stewardship and maintenance means everything gets jankier or less reliable - or we can build something like the Culture novels, with technology that effectively never fails - with generations of advancement building off the previous, ever improving debugability, redundancy, failsafes, and hardening, making things more modular and cleaner along the way.
I know which world I'd rather live in, and big tech ain't gonna make it happen. I've seen the way they write code.
So if some people see my career as giving a middle finger to those guys, I'm cool with that :)
Saying that he is morally bankrupt is like saying that you are morally bankrupt for continuing to live in the US because the current administration is a dumpster fire. It is financially profitable to live in the US; you basically cash in a 6 figure check (perhaps translate the metaphor by taking the monetary value that a significantly increased quality of life is worth to you) by living here rather than some other, lesser developed country with more morally aligned politics. Why not leave?
Democratic voters are culpable; their politicians are all about keeping the system going but tweaking it. No, the system is bad. A system that results in trump being elected a second time is prima facie evil and must be torn down. If you have power and aren't working to treat down this system, you are culpable.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/08/technology/microsoft-nvid...
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/sundar-pichai-saty...
I don't live in the US. But if I did, and I was capable enough to be a successful software engineer, I would try to work for an organisation that was not implicated in abhorrent behaviour. If I was to work for one, I would not attempt to dismiss criticisms of it as cynicism.
I'm also not really asking that people leave these roles - everyone has their own path to take. Just that they don't make posts dismissing criticism of these structures as silly cynicism. Or else they will have to contend with me writing a comment disgreeing with them.
A lot of people say this, while collecting 6-7 figure cheques. I've not seen that much evidence that it is correct - certainly, I might as well have been pissing into the wind, for all the effect my influence had on the direction of various FAANG
I do agree that it's not easy even given the correct conditions.
The cynicism the post is talking about is the argument that your chain of command doesn't want to make good software but you do, not anything related to the use of said software.
Not to take a stance on the issue either way, but I think the author is only referring to the politics involved in building products, not the broader political/moral issue of what the company does with all of the money it earns from those products. I don't see their post as defending or even referring to the latter.
Everything is political, though. Establishing a barrier for cynicism so it doesn’t have to tackle the tough questions is understandable but it’s not that justifiable.
It kinda makes me sad to see the top comment on a thoughtful piece like this expressing outrage on something the other didn't even take a stance on. I come to Hacker News to avoid this kind of rhetoric.
I definitely took an uncharitable reading, but man am I tired of being told big tech is neutral. I will continue to be cynical and I will continue to gnash my teeth at anyone who tells me otherwise.
Its baffling to see US engineers repeatedly being shat on by the company, and yet still retain belief in the chain of command.
But, to be a good cynic, you need a rich information network to draw on to see what the wider business is doing and thinking. You must understand the motivations of the business, so that you can be correctly cynical.
But they are the best paid and everyone wants to move to the US.
I was paid exceptionally well when I was at a FAANG, but that didn't extend to me blindly following my leadership team into the same obvious bear trap every 6 months.
Improved morale significantly.
Not really, I prefer less pay but way more affordable cost of living over a dying country rapidly moving into fascism. What's your money worth compared to a life worth living without tyrannical maniacs ruling over your every move. Fuck the USA.
I think this is only true within certain bubbles. Within my bubble there’s a considerable amount of cynicism towards the US. No one wants to move to the US because of gestures broadly.
I disagree. Cynicism is a toxicity and will fester. Anecdata: I only know people that are either 0% cynical or 100% cynical (kinda like how people feel about Geddy Lee's voice).
>> Tech companies have a normal mix of strong and weak engineers.
Yes, that's not "a little cynical" that's a healthy perspective.
I think OP is really trying to tell people to be stoic, not cynical, and is confused on the vocabulary.
I must have a more diverse group of friends and colleagues because I see and experience the whole spectrum. Perhaps it's worth considering why your bubble is so black and white and maybe even how to change that.
You may actually have the winning strategy.
Tombstone (1993) Doc Holliday: Wyatt is my friend. Turkey Creek Jack Johnson: Friend? Hell, I got lots of friends. Doc Holliday: I don't.
I strongly disagree with this statement. What C-staff cares about is share-holder value. What middle management care about is empire building and promotions.
> for instance, to make it possible for GitHub’s 150M users to use LaTeX in markdown - you need to coordinate with many other people at the company, which means you need to be involved in politics.
You presented your point in a misleading way. I would classify this as collaboration/communication rather than politics.
Politics is when you need to tick off a useless boxes for your promo, when you try to to take credits for work you haven't helped with, when you throw your colleague under the bus, when you get undeserved performance rating because the manager thinks you are his good boy. There's a lot more, I didn't read any of your previous blogs, but all of these things are what engineers dread when we refer to politics.
Collaboration and communication are key parts of politics, though.
At its core, politics is simply the dynamics within a group of people. Since we innately organize into hierarchies, and power/wealth/fame are appealing to many, this inevitably leads to mind games, tension, and conflict.
But in order to accomplish anything within an organization, a certain level of politics must be involved. It's fine to find this abhorring and to try to avoid it, but that's just the reality of our society. People who play this game the best have the largest impact and are rewarded; those who don't usually have less impact and are often overlooked.
What you’re describing is a particular form of manipulative and divisive politics which is performed by insecure, desperate or selfish people.
Many engineers are not good at building relationships (the job of coding isn’t optimal for it after all), so painting the people who are good at is as narcissistic may be comforting but isn’t correct.
Your just working for them for free rather than getting paid.
The sole reason I am hired for my position as an engineer is that I am expected to make the life of my hiring manager easier. Not to save the world, not to do "the right thing" (whatever this means), but help my manager. During the interview, I had a chance to a get a rough idea what I am going to be responsible for.
If the organization or the mission changes to the extent that it is no longer consistent with my values, I start pinging my former colleagues working elsewhere.
So where is the intrigue?
What an ignorant way of working. Guess that's who they hire to build the software spying on Amazon drivers so they have to piss into bottles to make deliveries on time.
What is your approach?
You have responsibilities, which ideally should be stipulated in some form in a contract, and if you are vaguely senior they hopefully go beyond "do whatever steeve needs to feel good".
I would argue that it is in fact your manager whose job entails making your (and your peers) professional life easier, by identifying the roadblocks, escalating problems if need be, etc...
If you want to save the world, join the Peace Corps or at least a non-profit.
Large corporations are just groups of people with conflicting incentives, and that means they are basically incapable of performing certain kinds of tasks. It also means that when the incentives do align, some tasks are very likely to be completed, even with other corporations or governments working in opposition.
Some of those tasks might be things you care about, like making a product of a certain quality, or furthering some other goal you have. In all those cases, it is best to to first think about what is most likely to happen and what is unlikely to happen. You have to think of the organization as just another phenomenon that you could exploit if you properly understood it. Unfortunately, how to manipulate complex systems of humans is an open problem, and if anyone had effective, repeatable solutions, then investors would demand that they be implemented.
As it is, most corporations don't act in the interest of the investors a significant amount of the time, even though they are supposed to. The only thing we can reliably bet on is: all organizations tend towards dysfunctional bureaucracies, the longer they live, and the bigger they get.
Cynicism is specific trait and has only negative connotations. It cannot be “good” for a social structure by definition.
Realism is neutral. But we often assume that realism implies cynicism which is not true.
Parrhesia (tact) is the only worthwhile, long term goal in terms of attitude. And that doesn’t include cynicism. It’s about being honest without feeling like betraying yourself.
“Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." - (supposedly) Isaac Newton
That's certainly very extreme, but a tempered, measured belief in the negative aspects of human nature is necessary, I think.
You might say, "that's just realism", but I think they are just separate axes: some amount of cynicism (and idealism) is necessary in order to be realistic. Possibly different amounts in different contexts, depending on the other people involved.
Then when they eventually outdo even your worst expectations, you will be less disappointed by the gap between your original impression and the fresh dose of reality. I've adopted a motto that I could finally put words on about a decade ago. "You are not cynical enough."
And no, not even after accounting for the above.
It's no surprise or secret that I have since left the country.
Never heard of this quote, but I could certainly use a large dose of tact as defined above! The quote seems to be due to an advertising executive though, Howard W. Newton, not Isaac Newton [1].
[1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/07/18/tact/
Idealism about one’s own behavior vs idealism about others’ behavior is an interesting tension to explore further.
“The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.”
George Bernard Shaw
> We live in a late-stage-capitalist hellscape, where large companies are run by aspiring robber barons who have no serious convictions beyond desiring power. All those companies want is for obedient engineering drones to churn out bad code fast, so they can goose the (largely fictional) stock price. Meanwhile, end-users are left holding the bag: paying more for worse software, being hassled by advertisements, and dealing with bugs that are unprofitable to fix. The only thing an ethical software engineer can do is to try and find some temporary niche where they can defy their bosses and do real, good engineering work, or to retire to a hobby farm and write elegant open-source software in their free time.
Let me re-state this in another way, which says functionally the same thing:
> Companies are hierarchical organizations where you sell your specialized labor for money. You should do what they expect of you in order to collect a paycheck, cultivate as enjoyable of a working environment as you can, then go home and enjoy the rest of your free time and your nice big tech salary.
Is this cynical? In some sense, sure, but I don't think it's inaccurate or even toxic, and I think it's probably how something like 90% of big tech employees operate. Sometimes your writing makes it seem like this is actually what you think. If your "objective description" of big tech companies were in service of this goal -- getting along better and not fighting the organization to preserve your own sanity and career -- I don't think people would take issue with it.
But you make the analogy of public service and seem in some sense to believe in values that are fundamentally at odds with these organizations. Is your position that, through successful maneuvering, and engineer can make a big tech organization serve the public in spite of internal political and economic pressures? This seems far more idealistic than what I believe. To quote Kurt Vonnegut, "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."
Maybe, just maybe, when any single individual is unable to propose a product improvement due to the requirement of ass-kissing and favor-dealings involved... the company is too big and should (be) split up.
Corporate inertia is what is killing many a Western company against the competition from China.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
I don’t know if you’d label this view “cynical” or “idealist” but it feels balanced and I think there is a lot of truth in it. As a software engineer, you’re not a mindless automaton “just doing your job”. Your judgment about the proper way to do things—or whether a thing should be done like that at all—makes a difference in how useful and beneficial a product is for end users and for our society more broadly.
However:
We DO live in a late-stage-capitalist hellscape.
Large companies ARE run by aspiring robber barons who have no serious convictions beyond desiring power.
I have compromised my principles by giving them (or anyone) my labor.
but I don't lie to myself or anyone else about it. I don't find any need to rehabilitate the structural and personal failings I encounter. When my friends call me out for working at EvilCorp, I don't argue. I know it's like any job: it's all dirty money. Instead, I deal with reality: weigh up pros and cons. I judge each year just how much Corporate I'm willing to swallow to support my dependents.
I enjoy the author's redefinition of cynicism and optimism. These are useful ideas to consider and I've given it some thought, arriving at an attitude of Becoming that I guess some would call idealism.
PS OMFG I just realised its MS. I believe this is what the kids call cringe.
So in a sense, Goedecke is right: Be a little cynical. Don’t bother with a veneer of the greater good or some other bullshit. Enjoy your paychecks while it lasts.
This morning's aspiring robber baron fun (I think it's OK mention this, under the circumstances, so long as I don't say anything identifying)...
Responding to cold outreach from a new startup, for which I happened to also have unusual experience in their product domain (no, you won't guess which). They wanted me to relocate to SF, as a founding engineer, and do a startup incubator with them.
Me: if you haven't even done the incubator, just to clarify, do you mean founding engineer, rather than a co-founder?
Them: it will be good experience for you, to work alongside me to develop the product, and to see how the incubator works from the inside.
(This isn't really their fault. The incubator has started telling kids that they should work for one of the incubator's portfolio startups, for the experience (certainly not for the salary and stock options), and then maybe one day they can be the Glorious Founder. And then new Glorious Founders, who might not yet know any better, simply regurgitate that.)
(I previously tried to talk with that same incubator, about this message that they were using, after they included it in a broadcast that also invited connecting with a particular person there. When I found a way to contact that named person, they ignored my question, and instead offered to delete my account on their thing, if I didn't like what they were saying. So I deleted my account myself. I'm not sure we really developed a collegial rapport and constructive shared understanding about the concern...)
This has happened with other technologies as they matured. Bridges. Electrical power. Radio. (The story of Roebling, the Tweed Ring, and the Brooklyn Bridge is worth knowing. Tweed tried to steal too early in the history of the technology, and it backfired on him big-time.)
This happened to software a while back. Semiconductors had it less because keeping up with Moore's Law dominated the politics.
Learn more about the history of technology and this pattern reappears.
If doing things ethically (not defrauding investors and customers) keeps your manager happy, then do it. If not, do it fucking anyways.
If stakeholders are set out to compete against society do not join them.
45 more comments available on Hacker News