Edit: I should have explained my reasoning. They have a much smaller eligible applicant pool - US citizens who are eligible for security clearance. Because of this they’re continuously looking for good talent.
To those of us with work visas, this is like saying, "if you're homeless, just go to your vacation home," and then being surprised that people without vacation homes express feelings of despair.
I think the commenter's helpful suggestion has an implied "Unfortunately, this doesn't help everyone, but..." In an attempt to help the people it can help.
For people currently in certain especially difficult or unfair situations, it might hurt less to know that people are sympathetic, though they might feel powerless to help right now.
Knowing that, maybe some of the people getting the short end of the stick would prefer not to have that constantly articulated. I can only guess at when is the right time to articulate, and when to leave it implied.
But while I draw my moral.line at small arms (those have the nasty habbit of ending everywhere, and the likes of Heckler and Koch have their long list of export scandals), others draw their line at weapons in general. Both view points are fine, as is working for the likes of SIG Sauer.
Said nobody with any common sense, ever. Palanthir or Meta are in my eyes as bad on CV as… as… wait is there a way I don’t go Godwin’s in this thread?
If our service goes down, civilization goes down. We can't afford to hire people who've spent a career playing games.
is this your employer's policy? Or do you just fail them in in the interview regardless of their performance.
There's an entire generation in this country that thinks the US is safe, a villain even. How wrong they are, and how much they stand to lose if the US loses.
Anyone that gets into defense because of this thread, remember that the technologies you develop will be used to slaughter the innocent.
It's not insult if it's verifiably true, is it?
There are plenty of people that are okay with their work being used to kill babies. They can work defense jobs. I just wanted to provide a little reality check for downtrodden devs considering defense work for the first time, because I'm sure a lot of them in fact are not okay with their work being used to kill babies.
You are being incredibly uncharitable, bordering on dishonesty. Cars kill babies every year too but it’s not why people get into the automobile industry.
And this isn’t the “reality check” own that you think it is. It’s actually very condescending, and reductionist. You have not even attempted to refute the idea that a defense industry is necessary to maintain peace.
No, I want people that aren't baby-killers to avoid it. That's all. The defense industry is important and needs staff, staff that are OK with babies being killed.
It's starting to sound like you're a baby-killing defense industry employee, and if you are I want you to understand that I don't hate you. I just dislike drone strikes against children and hospitals.
Couldn’t be further from the truth. No defense, no finance is the promise I made to myself when I started my career.
My point is that you are insulting the intelligence of people both in and out of the field with toxic, pithy remarks like that. It serves no purpose but to agitate.
I’m gonna reflect really hard on this
Everyone in the community, us kids included, considered this to be serious and vital work for defending the US from the USSR, an adversary who's brutality has been revealed for the umpteenth time in the Ukraine attack. I, for one, would like to see the US strive to actually live up to our stated ideals. Unfortunately, Reagan showed the neocons all you have to do is act like you care about your ideals.
WRT your link - that video was obtained via a FOIA request. Do you think Putin would allow such a video to be released? Yeah, we're not perfect but at least we're still allowed to talk about the bad things we do, openly gripe about our government, and demand more accountability. THAT is something for which US citizens can still be envied.
Yes, because the US had one of the most effective propaganda machines of all times.
You know, participants of a war always believe their side is right and they’re fighting the good fight. Otherwise they wouldn’t do it. And while you’re certainly right that Putin shouldn’t be considered harmless, a victim or even an opponent with equally valid interests, it’s still naive to think the US is just defending against the Putins in the world.
That's how I see the United States and the old USSR, modern Russia and to a lesser extent, China (I tend to view China much more favorably than Russia). Does that mean the U.S. is perfect? Nope, we're not. Sometimes we're wrong and disastrously so. Does that mean every Russian is bad? Nope, I've worked alongside many awesome Russians over the decades. Some were even in the Russian Army at the same time I was in the Marine Corps and we've laughed that here we are now in a bar having a beer together whereas a few years before we would have been on a battlefield trying to kill one another.
In that regard I see Putin and Trump very similarly. Putin has reminded us that Russia hasn't advanced as much as we'd thought, and Trump showed us that our lesser selves were always there under the surface brewing and waiting for a monster such as him to release our demons and let them run amok. They're old-school people from whom the reigns of power should be taken away.
I totally agree. One should think carefully before helping to arm a nation or its people. It's a weighty decision.
I wish the answer was as straight-forward as armament is bad, pacifism is good. Unfortunately, AFAIK unarmed nations don't last very long.
I'd be happier to know that my code would let a shaped charge target a J20 cockpit in the unlikely event of Really Bad Decision Making, than to know that it was targeting teenage girls with contagious mental illness.
On the other hand, I can give you plenty of reasons not to work in defense. They don't pay enough for you to ever own a house in a desirable place; security clearances are an invasive relic of the J. Edgar Hoover days (and your sensitive data will get hacked by China anyway); it's assumed that you don't know "foreign persons" (hint: This is actually now a mark of the lower-class and uneducated.); a software engineer without an advanced degree is basically nobody; cloud stuff is mostly off limits; work may happen in windowless rooms; perks are non-existent; and it's embarrassing to answer "so what do you do for a living" if you're trying to exist in blue-state society.
But ethics? Compared to FAANG? I wouldn't worry about that.
Caught myself clicking upvote 100500 times. Index finger hurts
I know plenty of people who took pay cuts to work in cleared jobs at Amazon, Microsoft, and Google. If you're talented, you can make a lot in the defense and intelligence community.
> and your sensitive data will get hacked by China anyway
Hacked? No. Most sensitive data is kept on air-gapped networks. Not really hackable. Can be exfiltrated, sure, but that's part of the point of the extensive background checks.
> it's assumed that you don't know "foreign persons" (hint: This is actually now a mark of the lower-class and uneducated.)
Not even remotely true. You do have to report contacts you know to be non-US citizens, but that's not disqualifying. I knew someone who filled out over 200 pages of foreign contact forms, and still obtained TS/SCI clearance.
> a software engineer without an advanced degree is basically nobody
Not accurate. Most people I knew in the cleared space didn't even have computer science degrees; most of us had bachelor's degrees in unrelated subjects, many even non-STEM (several history/English degrees).
> cloud stuff is mostly off limits
Somewhat true, but surely you're aware of AWS and Azure building out substantial private clouds for intelligence and defense customers?
> work may happen in windowless rooms
Rarely. Most SCIFs have windows, in my experience.
> perks are non-existent
Depends on the employer. But sure.
> and it's embarrassing to answer "so what do you do for a living" if you're trying to exist in blue-state society.
I did cleared work in Seattle. I don't think I've ever voted Republican. I've voted Green on a number of occasions. Same story for most of my coworkers. The most left-leaning people I know never had an issue with my job.
I think there are two ways of thinking about this: First, your presence there means someone more conservative isn't there, and you can maybe effect some small change. Second, any job at a sufficiently large corporation is ultimately killing people, even if indirectly; there's no way you can work to enrich billionaires at the expense of the working class and feel like you're contributing to the net good of society unless you're engaging in some serious cognitive dissonance. At least, IMO.
Thanks for the hint anyway - perhaps someone else will benefit.
Needless to say, the pay at non-tech companies is substantially lower than FAANG and FAANG-tier tech companies. I quadrupled my TC going from the finance industry to my current company - and finance is known to pay above average for a non-tech company. I would say the junior SWEs with <5yoe at my current company make at least as much as the staff SWE equivalents (10+ to multiple decades yoe) at my previous company (bank).
But money aside:
- The onerous bureacracy.
- General lack of respect for tech employees (you're the cost center).
- Dull/depressing office (assuming you're not WFH).
- My colleagues at the non-tech companies I've worked for were nice, great, people. I keep in touch with many of them. But objectively speaking I would say the overall technical caliber is noticeably lower than that of my current colleagues at the FAANG-tier company. For what it's worth, most of my colleagues at the non-tech companies that I felt were great technically...eventually also jumped ship for tech companies.