Comment by mykowebhn | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mykowebhn | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Yours is a heartfelt, sincere take on a successful 21st century career in tech, but I feel it is so one-sided.

Yes, you seem to have benefitted greatly, but your examples of efficiency and availability are flawed. For example:

"apps on phones that can know my tastes and preferences": I don't see any benefits. When Youtube recommends for the billionth time a stupid soccer short because I previously watched one soccer short, I want to scream. Also, privacy or lack thereof.

"hailing a cab virtually": made possible due to full-time workers who have none of the benefits of full-time workers, in other words, exploitation.

"a bonkers level of selection of goods to all consumers": One word that encapsulates the other side of your "bonkers level of selection"--Temu.

"low friction same-day delivery": Made possible due to our reliance on fossil fuels

"far greater access to online services including education and financing": I'm not sure about the financing part. Education? Yeah, if I want to learn about something like video-editing. But I could've bought a book on that in the past and probably learned it much more in depth. If I wanted to learn something like German Idealism, not so much.

I think your pocket book has benefitted immensely, but all of the other benefits don't seem like benefits to me on a macro level. But kudos to you for doing so well and believing the world partakes in your good fortune.

There seems to be an argument here against markets, energy use and entertainment. While criticism is legitimate, little there is related to tech specificially and it is more a complaint against the construction of modern society from the 1700s onwards.

Amazon, Uber, etc. are more platforms than markets.

That’s a pretty cynical view. In essence, what you’re saying is “all the things you care about are not things I care about and/or actually despise.”

And that’s OK - you don’t have to work at Amazon! But the implication is that the OP has the “wool over their eyes,” so to speak, and I think that’s unfair. They’re allowed to love their job and find it impactful, even if you don’t. :)

It’s possible I misread this somehow, so if that’s the case, apologies in advance.

It's not cynical to point out external costs, the alternative is to take corporate propaganda at face value without ever questioning if things are right or not.

GP isn't arguing for subjective preference but objective value. People are of course allowed to find their work impactful. Doesn't mean it actually is.

What do you do that is so pure it doesn't have externalities?

Let they who work on a product without externalities cast the first stone

The opposite, as it is a privilege to work somewhere without externalities.

The privilege of ignorance? Because no such thing exists, unless of course you are ignorant of the externalities which is very likely.

As they say, ignorance is bliss.

I read it as the privilege of being able to choose a lower paying job (that lets you sleep better at night, be more fulfilled, etc)

It's a privilege because the number of roles with no externalities are limited

People working on functional programs, of course.

Academia or journalism. Or maybe a lobbyist

Degree matters. Working at a missile factory is worse than working for Amazon is worse than working for a public library.

Working at a missile factory could be one of the best/most important things you do with your life. Anti-air interceptor missiles save innocent lives every week in Ukraine, for instance.

Well, if you are R&D, you may be working on a ~~missile~~ drone project for Amazon. So, one and the same.

Whoops. Should have remembered not to offend the pro-war crowd here on HN.

Ask your friendly neighborhood Ukrainian refugees if they agree with that.

You want me on that wall, you need me on that wall, etc.

Nicholson was still the bad guy.

You are stating as fact what is in fact your (naive) opinion.

The fact is that the degree of harm matters. My opinion is that weapons of mass murder have made the world worse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com