It's a natural selection mechanism whereby poorly run companies will fail extremely quickly.
These are bad companies with horrible leadership that are wasting resources. Their existence is a net negative to society and our industry. Good bye to the garbage Klarna's and DuoLingos. No one will miss you.
Sure, but at the short term cost of engineers' livelihoods.
Or were you thinking C-suite would be held to account for the failure?
Poorly run companies can be an opportunity to direct development towards whatever I'm curious about, and that's usually beneficial to both parties.
I needed to look up phoresy and loved it! Thank you.
You just need investors and consumers to allocate capital to their competitors. The flow of capital and consumer preference is a decentralized communication method. Price signals, supply and demand, and government regulations are a form of stigmergy.
Who gives a crap if bad companies fail or don't fail? And for that matter how is it good or bad for you and me if bad companies fail or succeed despite being poorly run?
I'm curious about the context of your judgment.
If a CEO is making a tech product, but knows so little about tech that he's replacing engineers with 2025's AIs, we're all better off if that CEO goes and does something else, and those engineers go work for technical people.
Temporary stability is not a substitute for long-term prosperity. Creative destruction.
If we accept that we should be productive, then it seems easy to justify that engineers should be working at good, well run companies producing real value for society.
In practice having worked in financial services and ad tech, at high salaries in each, it was absolutely the equivalent of intellectual digging of ditches for pay. The only job I ever had that felt productive was in academia, and the pay was off the charts low.