[HN Gopher] Software engineers should be a little bit cynical
___________________________________________________________________
Software engineers should be a little bit cynical
Author : zdw
Score : 72 points
Date : 2025-12-28 21:29 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.seangoedecke.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.seangoedecke.com)
| sleazebreeze wrote:
| Props to Sean for this post. I have found his writings to be much
| closer to how I've learned to understand my career and companies
| than many standard reddit/HN posts portray things.
| mettamage wrote:
| Some of the HN comments iver the years though are really in
| line with this post. They have protected me from a lot of
| emotional anguish.
| ludicity wrote:
| Just wanted to pop in and say that I think Sean is absolutely
| right here. I've tried the ultra-cynical view at workplaces, and
| would have had better results with some "idealism", which he
| rightly notes in his form is just a more effectively action atop
| a base of clear-eyed cynicism.
|
| 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.
| Swizec wrote:
| > I've tried the ultra-cynical view at workplaces, and would
| have had better results with some "idealism", which he rightly
| notes in his form is just a more effectively action atop a base
| of clear-eyed cynicism.
|
| Cynics feel smart but optimists win.
|
| You have to be at least a little optimistic, sometimes even
| naive, to achieve unlikely outcomes. Otherwise you'll never put
| in enough oomph to get lucky.
| themafia wrote:
| > but optimists win.
|
| Win.. what?
|
| > enough oomph to get lucky.
|
| The underpaid cargo cult mentality is alive in well in
| corporate America.
| bayarearefugee wrote:
| Have you logged into LinkedIn lately?
|
| 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.
| ludicity wrote:
| It's important to note that many of those people aren't
| winning. What you're witnessing is the marketing
| equivalent of what random government software engineers
| produce. A good number of the people on HN would be
| trivially outearning those nerds
| Swizec wrote:
| > > but optimists win. > Win.. what?
|
| Depends what you want to win?
|
| You won't have happy kids and a good family life, if you
| don't think it's possible. Same as you won't make a cool
| open-source library, if you aren't optimistic (or naive)
| enough to go work on that.
|
| And if you keep saying everything is impossible a huge drag
| extremely worthless and why even bother trying, you won't
| get the fun projects at work.
| subdavis wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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.
| Sniffnoy wrote:
| Why do you say it's a strawman? All of those claims seem pretty
| familiar to me, even if, as the post says, the full exact
| combination might not be. You say _you_ never assume it 's in
| bad faith. Well, great! But that doesn't mean it's a strawman,
| it seems that other people do!
| subdavis wrote:
| 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.
| gavinhoward wrote:
| > For instance, you might think that big tech engineers are being
| deliberately demoralized as part of an anti-labor strategy to
| prevent them from unionizing, which is nuts. Tech companies are
| simply not set up to engage in these kind of conspiracies.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
| CodingJeebus wrote:
| > It's a cynical way to view the C-staff of a company. I think
| it's also inaccurate: from my limited experience, the people who
| run large tech companies really do want to deliver good software
| to users.
|
| 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.
| ludicity wrote:
| Oh, I glossed over that in my response. I've had people at the
| C-level admit that they don't care about ethics to me, and I
| especially see startup CEOs lie a lot, or otherwise be so self-
| deluded to make sales easier that it's hard to tell if they
| know they're lying.
|
| 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.
| jaggederest wrote:
| > they won't make any sacrifices if those sacrifices require
| losing money or status
|
| 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.
| ludicity wrote:
| That's fair. I overstated my point a bit -- if a project
| was on schedule and it could be delayed by one day to
| improve something nebulous, many would agree. It's just
| that the tradeoffs are never that small, so you never
| actually see it happen, i.e, the preference is extremely
| minor.
| phantasmish wrote:
| I can tell you that everyone I've met whose job it has been to
| communicate with and guide C-suiters across many companies has
| regarded them as basically super-powerful young children, as
| far as their reasoning capacity, ability to understand things,
| and ability to focus. Never met more cynical people about the
| c-suite than the ones who spend a lot of time around lots of
| them, without being one of them or trying to become one of them
| (any time soon, anyway). Like they truly talk about them like
| they're kindergarteners, and insist that if you want to reach
| them and be understood you have to do the same.
|
| 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.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| There's exceptions to this. Usuallly founders who've made it
| past many mergers and kept a central role in the company.
| Insulting their intelligence will bite you back very quick.
|
| 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.
| 9dev wrote:
| It always sounds so ridiculous to me when people working for
| Meta, Microsoft or Google talk about idealism, or solving good
| problems, or really any kind of values. The likes of you have
| very much sold your soul to the devil in exchange for a lot of
| money. Any kind of idealism you may hold is nothing but a
| carefully crafted illusion to keep you from thinking too hard
| about what you are a part of, what are you are doing. If it
| hasn't made click after big tech fell on their knees in front of
| Trump, there's nothing left to say anymore.
|
| 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.
| tamimio wrote:
| >cynical: concerned only with one's own interests and typically
| disregarding accepted standards in order to achieve them
|
| Indeed you are, for calling software developers "engineers"
| meanwhile software development is actually writing, so they are
| more closer to writers than engineers.
| mettamage wrote:
| I disagree with your view. It's the thinking needed that makes
| it engineering, especially when you have a lot of constraints
| (massive scale, low latency, etc.).
|
| Consider this: math is mostly doodling some glyphs on paper, so
| clearly it is closer to drawing than engineering.
| bdangubic wrote:
| > especially when you have a lot of constraints (massive
| scale, low latency, etc.)
|
| there are roughly 0.082% of software "engineers" that deal
| with these constraints or have to "think about them"
| wiseowise wrote:
| Do you also say this shit in real life?
| therobots927 wrote:
| This reads like a pickme LinkedIn post.
| divbzero wrote:
| > It is just a plain fact that software engineers are not the
| movers and shakers in large tech organizations. They do not set
| the direction of the company. To the extent that they have
| political influence, it's in how they translate the direction of
| the company into specific technical changes. _But that is
| actually quite a lot of influence!_
|
| 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.
| burnto wrote:
| I appreciate that the author looks specifically at what elements
| of a given viewpoint are idealistic vs cynical.
|
| Idealism about one's own behavior vs idealism about others'
| behavior is an interesting tension to explore further.
| elliotto wrote:
| The author seems like a nice guy, but perhaps a bit naive
| regarding the efforts big tech companies go to to crush employees
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-
| Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...). They appear to be a staff level
| engineer at a big tech company - I don't know how much money they
| make, but I suspect it's an ungodly amount.
|
| 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.
| conception wrote:
| Evergreen: It is difficult to get a man to understand something
| when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
|
| Upton Sinclair
| bdangubic wrote:
| except they do understand it of course but choose not to
| accept it :)
| stanfordkid wrote:
| The dude works for GitHub. I don't doubt there is some rotten
| code on there, but what you're saying seems like a stretch and
| exactly what he's describing.
| rrdharan wrote:
| GitHub is owned by Microsoft which covers most of what GP is
| alluding to...
| makeitdouble wrote:
| It's been almost 8 years now since the Microsoft acquisition,
| should it still be seen as an independent culture ?
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| 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.
|
| 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).
| the_cat_kittles wrote:
| its because it hurts peoples feelings to confront the truth
| shikshake wrote:
| Your comment really resonates with me, I'm in a similar
| position though much more junior. My colleagues in tech can't
| fathom that I actively choose to stay where I am and make 50%
| of their salary.
|
| 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.
| nmfisher wrote:
| For what it's worth, I personally have a lot of respect for
| people who do this (or at the very least, people who forego
| higher salaries to avoid working for companies they find
| morally objectionable).
| hahahacorn wrote:
| Framing an agreement between companies to not poach each others
| top talent as a means to "crush their employees" is very
| discrediting.
|
| 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.
| voxl wrote:
| Perceiving corpos as "simple profit seeking entities" is some
| of the most naive Milton Friedman crap. Corporations operate
| as an amalgamation of the desires of a group of powerful
| enough influencers, of which your rank and file investor is
| NOT making a meaningful contribution. Milton Friedman has
| done more harm to capitalism than Marx has done to socialism.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| > "you should do things that make your manager happy"
|
| If doing things ethically (not defrauding investors and
| customers) keeps your manager happy, then do it. If not, do it
| fucking anyways.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| Being british, I am cynical by default.
|
| 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.
| kayo_20211030 wrote:
| A very good piece. Balance always. Ultimately, everything _is_
| politics, and always will be - that 's reality; it's always
| people. Pick your poison, idealism or cynicism; in any
| organization you'll have to deal with the people. That's the
| balance. It's not easy.
| the_cat_kittles wrote:
| i genuinely believe the correct response to a post like this is:
| "shut the fuck up"
| why-o-why wrote:
| >> Cynical writing is like most medicines: the dose makes the
| poison. A healthy amount of cynicism can serve as an inoculation
| from being overly cynical.
|
| 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.
| biglyburrito wrote:
| A little bit?
| justatdotin wrote:
| I too am an aussie swe (just 3700km up the road) who likes lots
| of things about working (on a much lower rung) in big (well, mid)
| tech. I have learned so much more in large orgs than startups,
| and I'm not done with it.
|
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-12-28 23:00 UTC)