←back to thread

Big Tech Killed the Golden Age of Programming

(www.taylor.gl)
128 points taylorlunt | 1 comments | 30 Jul 25 14:58 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | 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 #
ecb_penguin ◴[30 Jul 25 15:21 UTC] No.44735416[source]▶
Sure, all those things could be "corporate greed". Opposite actions in different environments don't change the intent.

> Aside from all the claims with no sources/references whatsoever

It's an opinion piece about many of our shared experiences.

> blaming "corporate greed" for hiring employees?

They explained their argument.

> Isn't it also "corporate greed" to lay people off?

It depends. A struggling company that needs to reduce workforce to survive? No. A company worth trillions laying off en-mass because stock rates are down? Yes, probably.

> Blaming corporate greed for causing high salaries?

They explained their argument in the article

> Let me guess, if they started cutting salaries, that is also corporate greed?

It depends. A struggling company that needs to reduce salaries to survive? No. A company worth trillions cutting salaries because stock rates are down? Yes, probably.

replies(4): >>44735519 #>>44735890 #>>44736928 #>>44738591 #
tickettotranai ◴[30 Jul 25 15:29 UTC] No.44735519[source]▶
If your framing is unfalsifiable, I question its utility.
replies(3): >>44735782 #>>44735917 #>>44752648 #
ahf8Aithaex7Nai ◴[01 Aug 25 03:07 UTC] No.44752648{3}[source]▶
How is this framing unfalsifiable? It is up to you to demonstrate that. Otherwise, I question whether you even understand what falsifiability means and why it is relevant.
replies(1): >>44754020 #
1. tickettotranai ◴[01 Aug 25 07:41 UTC] No.44754020{4}[source]▶
Something can be falsifiable without being false. F=ma is falsifiable but not false. With humanities stuff it's less clear cut, but I'm inclined to be skeptical of ideas that explain too many things.

Falsifiability is relevant because I'm not saying the framing is wrong (I'm not even convinced it can possibly be proven wrong), I'm saying it's not very useful. In practice this has the same effect as me saying that "corporate greed" is axiomatic, so blaming it for things is like blaming water for flowing downhill.

It would be much more productive to frame this as an example, say, of market failure. Or a discussion of short-term thinking, or lacking negative feedback. All would be interesting.

PS: the author has now stated his post was AI slop written to make the front page of HN. I feel extremely validated.