←back to thread

Big Tech Killed the Golden Age of Programming

(www.taylor.gl)
128 points taylorlunt | 5 comments | 30 Jul 25 14:58 UTC | HN request time: 0.638s | source
Show context
freedomben ◴[30 Jul 25 15:15 UTC] No.44735332[source]▶
This is a really terrible article. I suspect the HN comment section will be good, but TFA is not worth reading IMHO (though it is quite short so can be read in a minute or two).

> For years, companies like Google, Facebook/Meta, and Amazon hired too many developers. They knew they were hiring too many developers, but they did it anyway because of corporate greed. They wanted to control the talent pool.

Aside from all the claims with no sources/references whatsoever (claims which are not at all self-evident), blaming "corporate greed" for hiring employees? Isn't it also "corporate greed" to lay people off? Blaming corporate greed for causing high salaries? Let me guess, if they started cutting salaries, that is also corporate greed?

It's not possible to "control the talent pool" when there are so many companies in competition. Yes, they want to hire the best engineers they can find and they will pay handsomely for it. Every company (even our small non-profit) wants to hire the best engineers we can find. It's not "corporate greed" or us wanting to control the talent pool.

replies(15): >>44735416 #>>44735431 #>>44735459 #>>44735603 #>>44735617 #>>44735644 #>>44735798 #>>44735967 #>>44736236 #>>44736287 #>>44736291 #>>44736344 #>>44736402 #>>44738145 #>>44738312 #
1. bigbuppo ◴[30 Jul 25 15:23 UTC] No.44735459[source]▶
The article is something known as "a blog post" with a bunch of words known as "an opinion". It's not a thorough economic analysis from an economist using validated data sources and empirical research backed by strict scientific rigor that passes all peer review but can't be repeated.
replies(3): >>44735525 #>>44735566 #>>44736743 #
2. szundi ◴[30 Jul 25 15:29 UTC] No.44735525[source]▶
Parent commenter presents perfect arguments to show this opinion or whatever it is is based on questionable grounds
3. johnfn ◴[30 Jul 25 15:33 UTC] No.44735566[source]▶
Are we not supposed to pass judgement on a blog post just because it's opinion-based? If I put the most nonsensical opinions into my blog post, I hope people tell me that it's not very good.
4. freedomben ◴[30 Jul 25 17:06 UTC] No.44736743[source]▶
I don't disagree, but I also don't think that gives the article a pass to make whatever claims they want without getting any pushback. Especially where they posted it to HN, they should be expecting to be challenged. I could (and probably should) have been nicer instead of calling it "terrible", but I don't think we (a site like HN dedicated to intellectual curiosity) should give bad claims a pass just because they are "opinion." We don't let journalists make unsubstantiated factual claims that are self-contradictory just because they listed it under the "opinion" section of the paper/site, and I don't think we should have different standards for a self-published piece. I'm not advocating censoring it or taking it down, I'm just critiquing it.
replies(1): >>44739477 #
5. bigbuppo ◴[30 Jul 25 21:05 UTC] No.44739477[source]▶
Where is your peer-reviewed research that shows your opinion on this is correct? Do you have the numbers to back that up? Is there any verified source of data that says, "I love it when the people of HN find my blog post and start screaming at me for shit that doesn't matter."