25 years since I started learning C++ as a kid, 14 years in industry and feeling like a disappointed old man despite still having the youthful looks to pass for a student!
This is exactly it. There's a lot of apex fallacy going on in the discussion of tech.
Most of us in tech don't have any say in the direction of the industry. Many of the rank and file workers would actually prefer to live someplace cheaper like Seattle, but it's the leadership of the tech industry (VCs, execs, etc) that have been slow to geographically diversify the industry.
There's too much blaming of all techies for the actions of the people at the top of the tech hierarchy.
"Tech bro" describes a few people at the top (think Adam Neumann or Travis Kalanick) known for their bad behavior but unfortunately is used by the media to paint the rest of the men in tech with the same negative light.
The irony is that these people don't have a strong technical role -- they are mostly founders and executives. It's the people working under them with less influence who are doing all the hands-on tech work.
While I don’t agree with the label, one could argue that there’s a deep problem at the heart of tech culture where developers are happy to prop up cultish frauds or criminal behavior for a good paycheck. Neither Neumann or Kalanick got to where they are without a lot of people enabling them.
The problem is that large organizations like government agencies and corporations don't want alternate opinions, except in the rare cases where they specifically have a devil's advocate position to test the validity of ideas.
Better performance isn't an argument that sways these organizations that care more about preserving the status quo than about success in their stated goals.
I've noticed it has less to do with an organization's size or age and more with its workload and urgency.
One program I work with has a few clearly defined tasks they've basically mastered. They're very open to my ideas and critiques. Another program was required to overhaul their planning process. It was part of the grant which provided most of their funding. It was harder to debate decisions, because everything needed to move lock-step to make the deadline. It surprised me, because they're usually more receptive to my advice.
They feared failure more than non-optimal success. This can happen in large and small organizations.
Differing opinions are seen as an annoying impediment to decision making: yet another variable that needs to be weighed up eye-roll.
Management is easier when everyone just agrees and when Management is easy then Managers are happy, which generally means employees feel less "under the microscope".
Therefore alternative opinions have the appearance of working against both (lazy) Managers and (paranoid) employees. There's only a small percentage of humanity that are either willing, or unaware, enough to potentially get off-side with their boss and peers to provide dissenting opinion. Despite the great long-term value there is in attacking problems with the knowledge of the various angles of entry and exit.
It's sad, but human nature. And here we find ourselves in a world of our own making.
It's purely a cultural construct. Companies, societies, families, organizations, universities, etc. all have different internal cultures that dictate the social behavior of those in the group. When a culture of diverse opinion is encouraged and supported by official and implicit policy, it tends to thrive.
The point of the article is that they should want alternate opinions. An army of yes-men is not going to be good at critically evaluating the merits of a project.
To give an example from a completely different field, I think this might be a big reason behind the problems with the Star Wars prequels: when he made the original movies, George Lucas was a young, new director, and people weren't afraid to tell him no and offer suggestions to improve his ideas. By the time he made the prequels, he was a Legend and of course he was right about everything.
It's important to have people who aren't afraid to criticise your ideas. Even if it makes the people in charge uncomfortable. Or perhaps especially if it makes them uncomfortable.
The chief editor of the first films was Lucas's first wife, who had a considerable contribution to their success and won a BAFTA for the editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcia_Lucas
A good video. I believe the content is largely pulled from a book on the topic, but this is definitely a case where video helps, and if you haven't read or even heard of the book (like me), it's new stuff, not just a rehashing of the same old Star Wars stuff, and interesting from a film school point of view, not just a Star Wars point of view.
I'll also just echo the grandparent post and say that you can see this pattern in a lot of artists: Heinlein, probably JK Rowling (her later books definitely were getting flabby and she's had no comparable success since the original series), all kinds. Hollywood has an interesting pattern where a director makes a huge hit, and they kind of have a defined structure for letting them make a "passion project" before putting them back under some editorial control. The passion projects usually do fairly poorly. I'm not sure what happens if one of them becomes a big hit. That would be interesting to see.
This is significant because it is a company that pays very well. Not because of where it stands relative to the US average.
I'd like to know what this person actually did for work. The media tends to ambiguously use terms like "tech worker" without specifying whether they are technical or non-tech employees at tech companies.
Googler not on Cloud team, but using Google Cloud Platform for an internal project. I've encountered my share of bugs and other flaws while using this platform. I think all these platforms are just too damn complex and brittle. It's easy for even a smart SWE or SRE to overlook one little thing that will bring down a bigger part of system.
FTFY