Where are the builders?
near.blog
near.blog
You are not actually a builder at a modern large tech company.
My day job consists of lots and lots of org politics. I'm technically in management (though I tried to keep my SWE title as long as possible), and I view my job as "I put up with the political bullshit so that my reports don't have to." But realistically, they are not builders either. They are spelunkers, hackers, maybe even developers - but the majority of their job consists of digging around in a 5M-line codebase to understand what is possible, communicating that back up to management, and then implementing a trivial change because trivial changes are realistically all you can do in a 5M-line codebase. The builders were the folks I learned from, who were employed as SWEs 20 years ago.
Computer games create just enough of an artificial, static sandbox that you can learn the rules and get really good at putting together parts. In a big tech company, some executive is going to change the rules in 3 months, and everything you know will be obsolete in a year. And that's not because the execs are stupid or capricious (although sometimes they are), but because the market's rules change every 3 months or so. Like it or not, a market economy's function is to satisfy people's desires, and as the article notes, people's desires are fleeting. But building requires foundations, it requires stability, and so we create that artificial stability with games so that you can build.
I’ve been involved in a few huge, greenfield projects that were mostly building new things from the ground up. There was an air of “true” building around. But it was astonishing how quickly that faded away. It took less than a year after our first launch for a lot of people to start leaving the team, citing reasons like their job was now just drudgery maintenance work or small feature adjustments, which is definitely less attractive and inspiring.
And that is reinforced by career paths as well. See: the trope about Google promotions based on new launches, not bugs fixed. And people definitely idolize “the engineer that built Linux” more than “the engineer that has patched 1000 linux bugs”.
Note that sci-fi goes through cycles. The optimistic Star Trek or Jetsons future was a product of the 1950s and 1960s, when people were generally pretty optimistic. 30s/40s sci-fi is Brave New World and 1984, which is a decidedly different vibe (and also came true in many ways).
No, that's just an excuse for lazy writing. And if our stories are predominantly this basic, it's hard to create a future that's better.
they are unfortunately
> have all made it into reality.
I don't like this. It sounds like you're saying it is we who are intentionally creating this dystopian world. Or that we build this because this is what Hollywood shows us. One sounds like we're all evil (maybe we are), and the other sounds like a conspiracy.
> Note that sci-fi goes through cycles.
Saying it goes in cycles dismisses the aspect that we are the ones in control. And let's be honest, we're the nerds, it doesn't matter what mainstream sci-fi is in vogue. It matters what we watch and what we're trying to create.
All things "go through cycles" and that's not a meaningful thing to note. It is dismissive of the causal factors and as if we are subject to fate. The future and world is in our hands. We are the creators and masters of our future, our society, our culture. It is not father time nor are our thoughts and dreams controlled by others. You can argue that our capacity to make those dreams a reality are, but not the dreams themselves.
I want to add more context to my previous statement. Antoine de Saint Exupéry once said
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea.
Not I think we should be clear that it doesn't matter if we're in demand or not[0]. You always have a choice to not build the Torment Nexus. Sometimes it's harder than not. You might not know what you're building (you can always turn back when/if you find out). Some things aren't worth the money and it's important to always remember there are other ways to make money. You may be a cog in a machine, but all cogs serve a vital role, even when there is redundancy. People forget that without our labor (whoever "we" are and what "labor" we do), the Tournament Nexus can't be built.
But the trouble with the Tournament Nexus is that sometimes it's built without anyone actually intending to build it. It's more important that we remember this and stay vigilant. That we don't always dismiss others who say it's being built. No one likes to hear that because they think it means someone is claiming they're doing it purposefully. But did we also forget that the path to Hell is paved with good intentions? And that's what needs to be remembered, that evil is often built by people trying to do good.
[0] clearly we are though since it's our labor that created the wealth of the wealthiest people and businesses.
And before you tell me you are too tired of coding from your day job, which is the cliche response to this question, you can do anything, even woodworking, it just has to affect the real world and not a video game.
I think this is the real reason why people aren't building, and on a societal and not just individual level. Other people don't want them to. Just look at the response whenever someone tries building new housing or mass transit. It's endless environmental reviews, neighborhood reviews, lawsuits, public hearings, ballot initiatives, etc. The market for mobile apps dried up not because there aren't enough of them (there are millions) or that they're crap (90% are, but 90% of everything is crap), but because most people already have the apps they need to manage their daily life.
When it comes to my real world, I do plenty of stuff. I garden, largely unsuccessfully, but now that's ballooned into construction projects to keep the dear away. I had the kids helping me redo my home's gutters and putting new crown moulding on, as well as assembling furniture and caulking the driveway. I'm in the process of organizing my kids' toys. But these also have diminishing returns: once the gutters are done I hopefully won't need to re-do them for another 10-20 years, the driveway caulking should last a few years at least. I don't feel any particular need to pick up a hobby like woodworking just for the sake of doing it; that's just as unproductive as computer gaming, but generally less fun.
> And before you tell me you are too tired of coding from your day job, which is the cliche response to this question
For the first point: I do, but this does not change what you consider a cliché responses that
1. I am often very tired from my job
2. I can only invest little time (at night and at weekends), which is far too little to affect the world around me. I nevertheless invest these precious little ressources, but the reasons lie in my personal convictions.
Here are several real-life examples.
3 decades ago, you could've gotten rich by buying 'simple noun' domain names: beer, pinotgrigio, moving on down the list, stuff like that. You could literally just buy ad space on Google for next to nothing, pump money in, get more money out. You could decide to be the Internet expert on 'potato guns' and build an entire business off that, by writing blog posts alone. You could film yourself all day and become a rich YouTuber, just by showing up and recording videos daily.
Try doing that now! You can't live off the profit of any of these methods as written. So naturally the builders, who are upstream of that, can't do it either.
You will live a comfortable life (except for all the hard work and heavy lifting, of course) but you'll never save up a million. Not unless you're in the real estate speculation side of the equation and you get lucky.
The biggest benefit house building skill gives you is that you don't have to pay someone else to fix your own house.
Why didn't you do those things? Why aren't you trying to catch the next trend? It's extremely difficult to know which trend will actually stick around for the long term.
TikTok could be a current example since they are pushing the shop so hard.
> Why didn't you do those things?
Because at that time I was a child, and thus simply wasn't able to, even though I saw the potential.
> Why aren't you trying to catch the next trend?
I actually attempt to, but since I have an exhausting job, I can only invest very little time at night and weekends on this topic. And no, my (also work) environment is not very receptive to my ideas ... :-(
So, what I do is rather attempting to catch some long-term future trends.
But I am very sure that I am onto some something(s) since when I presented some of my ideas to my former PhD advisor a few months ago, he immediately made slight attempts to (re)hire me. Well, a few years ago, I would likely have taken such an offer, but now I am not anymore willing to accept the bad job security and prospects in academia (which were central reasons why I left academia).
There are plenty of new ideas and trends. However most people do not pursue them because we're too young, need job stability, etc
You could just get your code into lama.cpp, get a job at the winning AI startup, get stocks, get vested, become rich. So why haven't you? Hindsight is easy.
The stuff that really needs to be worked on doesn't pay that well and isn't appreciated. Fast factory automation. Security for the power grid and Internet backbone. Non-AI systems to monitor AI systems to keep them from doing something dangerous.
"We wanted self-driving cars. We got retracting door handles." - me.
But this does not need builder skills, but robber baron skills. :-(
I believe the current sad state of robotics is because many people seem to be wanting to build robots, so employers think they can afford paying peanuts.
And for peanuts, you may hire a lot of personalities, but by definition you cannot hire people striving for swift commercial success. So those people will just have their highly paying job at a bank, aforementioned adtech or big tech. Which are all not build many robots.
I always think if I was building robots, they will do all the things you may imagine and serve coffee when they're done.
[1] https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/operations/amazon-robotics-...
The actual difference is that robot usually does only one thing, and any limitations and deficiencies will need to be taken care of by human workers.
Whereas a human needs all kinds of breaks throughout the day, needs conditioned workplace, unreliable in terms of durations and frequencies.
You have to document your work, and produce test plans.
You have to execute part of someone else's plan, or prepare a plan such that someone else can execute part of it.
You have to juggle multiple tasks.
You have to write status reports and attend meetings; if you're lucky there isn't a lot of this.
You may have something enjoyable to work on, only to have that task cancelled or indefinitely shelved when you're many weeks or months into it and it's 85% complete, and then be put onto something that you like a lot less.
This essay could be easily transposed into other domains, for example “why are some good musicians not trying to get record contracts?”
From the essay:
> Many of our values are locally-set by our environment and peers
The mentality that $$ reflects social value is a social sickness that to some degree of course has existed in all societies, but it has become particularly pernicious in the USA over the past 40+ years.
I was shocked that my tween/teen stepkids knew the financial arrangements of their favorite professional athletes and which of their friends’ parents were on the Forbes Midas list (which I hadn’t even heard of).
Culture has become professionalized to the point where I never see kids wearing homemade Halloween costumes — they are all branded.
Apparently “doing something because you want to” is no longer considered a mainstream attitude.
Before you can build inside NVIDIA, you have to convince the people in charge that this is a project worth building. They're not going to hire some guy that plays Minecraft all day and the people within the company that do build things are at least 2 layers removed from anyone who directs the new projects.
The most I can do within my own company is make small tweaks to an existing project. Anything that will need multiple people turns into a political battle.
It's like night and day.
The only way to catch up is to foster an environment where one must create the things one wants to do. Make a game to play one. Write the screenplay instead of watching the movie. Make paper models, sketch wireframes, and read books.
All I can do is block, block, block. Be bored or burning calories. Be the only one--for a while, maybe--who can quit vi or compile a program.
Fundamentally, mechanics, math, and programming. Write adventures, design levels, and port Photoshop tutorials to Gimp.
Foster a network, but (locally) not many may subscribe to this quirky constellation.
On the one hand there is obviously immense value to doing useless things (almost everything I ever learned was from doing useless things) and I think it is impossible to begrudge them in any way. But again and again I see people who are doing nothing else with their immense talent and whose entire life revolves around a singular vanity obsession (video game speed running, as just one example).
Surely, there has to be some reason that these people won't/can't live out their obsessions in a way that both financially benefits them and society at large.
Well gee maybe NVidia has it wrong asking for Masters and PhD's with a background in semiconductor devices to even be able to play ball! NVidia's wrong!
They're so wrong about what they need they're only the 4th most valuable company in the world.
OR doing stuff like that might be clever but doesn't translate to useful skills or products?
Valued at a stock exchange != valuable.
That builder might just be the wrong suspect in this two-party relationship issue.
Maybe your products need more awe, your attitude needs more respect and you might just give it a try to look at the person and not just see their exploitable potential as a start.
With your kids, reward them with more responsibilty, choice and partial ownership of your household and its direction and decor, and it might actually work out. Share your assets and see what they will be used for by those you see so much potential in.
In a way that is what those interships and simple tinkering allowed when companies were smaller and the industry was less complex. Finding ways to encourage them and supporting their ideas instead of looking for work force for your own projects might just be a real investment in everbody's future.
You might just have to give up the idea that it's now your turn to lead (from that inherited spot).
It just has always been your turn to add value.
Invest your (real) assets.
> I offer several potential answers:
4: The ability to find obsessive geniuses with projects is greater thanks to cheap social media, but most of them (still) aren't born into the entrepreneurial class which has the economic safety-nets and social connections etc. for creating an actual business and retaining control of it.
If working for nVidia was non-stop fun, they wouldn't need to pay people. They could charge for it.
Let's try another analogy
But even corporate work can be fun if you approach it in a detached way while understanding (accurately) that it doesn't really matter. This is a privilege you have when you don't have children or debt.
I think this bears expanding on. Building video cards in Minecraft, you don’t have to do what you’re told, and there’s no project managers or HR.
> Why are you building a graphics card inside minecraft instead of inside nvidia?
Minecraft is more enjoyable
Minecraft is more addictive
Minecraft found them first
They don’t know the latter option exists, or how they would do it, or think they’d fail at it
This idea where "why don't you just overcome all the stuff in your reality that is holding you back to be like all the people who don't struggle with these things" is just such a fundamentally idiotic brainspace.
Then they bring up names like Carnegie, Ford and John Rockefeller and how early they got started working and comparing that to themselves how they would "have killed for a tech internship at 14". Carnegie born 1888, John Ford born 1894, John Rockefeller born 1839. They weren't even born in the CENTURY that our concepts of work and education come from let alone the millenial shift in technology that changed literally everything about how we evaluate and view people.
But sure, an internship at 14 at FAANG is feasible if your own parents know someone in that space, you have a school that looks at that as an opportunity and you have enough pre-existing access to technology and knowledge to do ANYTHING at one of these companies than fetch coffee or whatever the equivalent of stacking paper is these days. UGH!
If there was something besides getting an investor who will take over control and make your stock useless by any means possible... then maybe builders would participate more?
Bring back high school and junior high shop classes, along with the obligatory grizzled shop teacher who dispenses cautionary tales ("Yeah, I had a student with long hair who leaned over the drill press that way. Scalped herself." "Yeah, I had a student who spilled some molten aluminum in his shoe. Learned to do the Highland Fling without any lessons.")
Those used to be available to all students. Now, when they even exist, they're shoved off into "vocation" programs, which in practice serve as a dumping ground for those deemed unfit for a college education (its own form of bigotry... you can't be a skilled machinist, programming CNC tools, or even machining by hand, if you're stupid).
I, for one, never wanted to craft stuff with my hands. Isn't that's what machine does for you.
The same reason people cook fancy dinners, or knit, or paint -- the desire to create.
> I, for one, never wanted to craft stuff with my hands.
You're not everybody.
I imagine most of the stuff will be collecting dust almost all the time, especially as the safety requirements will preclude students using them without supervision.
No, of course not.
> Have you gone around asking people how much of them will craft anything with their hands without a lot of guidance?
I do in fact know dozens of people who knit, paint, cook, engage in home improvement projects, sew, and do many other things with their hands, with essentially zero "guidance".
Are you claiming that you do not?
However, trying to manufacture some widgets for sale is a futile activity for most of the people.
Just like the other examples, what's wrong with creating things for yourself to make your life easier?
I know many engineers that use their CAD skills to design 3d-printed objects. Not once had they thought of monitizing their creations; they simply use it to make their own lives easier and improve QoL.
But not in a school machining shop since that's a very niche skill. You don't need to machine widgets for your home that much, it is a marketable skill with poor market.
They're not going to wait around for a financial opportunity, they're just going to go ahead and build.
Some of them are going to start early too.
People are trying to screw you financially all the time anyway.
Might as well build whatever the fuck they want.
So what if it's world class?
As long as it doesn't cost hardly anything or require other people's money, look what can be done when some of these outstanding efforts reach a milestone.
The leverage is through the roof.
Just imagine if some of these people had actual capital to work with.
Sheesh.
Naturally, it's all about the terms, always has been.
Nothing but an indictment of capitalists who don't know how to do their part and leverage technology as good as they should.
The builders are there, they have not left the building.