There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Does technology actually add value to the world?

I had a long and intresting conversation with my therapist just now. I’m not comfortable sharing exactly what we were talking about but I can rephrase it: basically I was complaining that tech companies don’t want to innovate.

I’ve been trying to bring new technologies to my boss because I thought it would give him a better opportunity to realize value from the products I’m creating/maintaining for him. That’s what I understand is my purpose in the workforce. I’m a programmer not a salesman I can’t go out to the market and get him the money so he can pay me with something, I can only make things put things in his hands for him (or hire someone to) to go out and collect the money we deserve (deserve within the limits of market demands and the nature of the product, not the labor invested). But he doesn’t want them… well he does when he needs them but I miss way more times than I hit which is making my professional feelings feel less valuable. And if I’m not valuable enough then I can’t work doing what I love.

When I started working I went in with a plan to upgrade and modernize everything I touch. I still believe that to be the case, or like… my “purpose”(as an employee not a person). But every company I’ve worked for so far has been running old ass shit. Springboot apps, create-react-apps, codebases in c and c++, no kubernetes, little to no cloud. And it feels like everything that tech companies want me to do is maintain and expand old existing codebases. And I understand why, I know that its expensive to rewrite entire code bases just for a 20% efficiency boost and to make it easier to add upgrades every once in awhile. But noone is taking advantage of innovative technology anymore and that’s what’s concerning me.

In my therapist’s opinion he thinks we as a soceity are not taking 100% advantage of technology we have. I can’t go into too many details bc our conversations are private but at the end I agreed with him. I’m seeing it now in my working day but he convinced me that it’s everywhere. Are people actually benefitting from technology enough such that nobody actually needs to work to maintain a long and healthy life?

Lets say that no, technology is underutilized in our soceity. Does that mean that if we use technology more we’d have enough value in the economy to pay everyone a UBI? Could we phase out the human workforce to some extent? Or do we actually need more workers to do work to make the value, in which case we can’t realistically do UBI because people need to get paid competitivily to do the work.

Lets say that yes, we are taking all advantages of technology. If so than there should be enough value to pay a UBI. But we don’t have a UBI, so why? If the value exists than where is it? I don’t believe its being funnelled into the pockets of some shadowy deep-state private 4th branch of government. If it was than there’d be something to take, is there? Are we sure that its enough?

Basically I don’t know if technology generates value.

Think about it like this

If its cheaper to use technology to grow an acre of corn than to use people, is that subsequent output of corn more valuable or less valuable because of the technology. And if you believe that scaling up corn production to make the corn just as valuable as if we didn’t have technology then you agree that the corn is now less valuable. If self-checkout machines are replacing cashiers, does that mean that the cashiering work being done by the machine is more valuable to soceity or less?

This is basically end stage capitalism. We need to recognize if the work we do for soceity (whether you derive personal fulfillment or not) is actually adding to soceity or not. I’d rather not give up my job as a programmer just so I can do something more valuable, but I might have to if that’s the case. And I feel like most people in the world are thinking like that too. Is soceity trying to hang on to the past, or do we just not understand the future?

Sorry for the wall of text. I feel like this might be to philosophical for this community but I couldn’t find a better place to post this. If you know of a better community for this discussion to take place then I’ll consider moving this post based on the comments already posted. Thank you for reading this and I’d love to answer any question you’d have about my opinions/feelings.

hellothere , (edited )

There’s a lot here. Some I can comment on and some I can’t. Some bits are simply how you are viewing the world, and differ to how others view it. There is no possibility for objectivity there, and are better suited to discussions with mental health professionals.

For my sins, I’m a Product Manager. While I have a background in engineering (having done a CS degree and taught myself to code in my teens), I have never held a job as a developer.

As such, I have conversations pretty much every day with developers, dev leads, people with “architect” in their title, CTOs, etc, all of whom are considerably more technically literate than I am, about what new technologies we can take advantage of. Some times it’s me asking them, sometimes it’s them asking me, but one thing is always constant. Time, risk, and cost of implementation is what matters most.

The majority of the time, when I am approached by Devs, the conversation goes along the lines of:

  • Dev: "there is this awesome new thing we absolutely need to use now"
  • Me: "OK, what are the benefits?"
  • Dev: "it makes X, Y, and Z so much easier and save us time doing them"
  • Me: "OK, how long do we spend doing those things currently?"
  • Dev: "eh, well, I don’t know exactly, but it’s, er, it’s loads and doing this will save us that time and it’s great and we need to do it now"
  • Me: "yeah, I get that, but how much time do we actually spend on it?"
  • repeat forever

In short, the benefits have not been quantified, and the costs ignored.

Other times, the change that is being suggested doesn’t align with the current business need. I’ve had to reject suggestions to refactor systems because we’ve literally been down to the last few pay cheques, and we need to focus on revenue generation. This massively undermines the person making the suggestion, because it shows they are not understanding the actual priority of the business.

And other times still, it can be simply a pipedream. I once had a dev lead stand up and scream at me across a desk because I didn’t agree with him that we immediately rewrite our entire app in Swift, on literally the day Apple released the beta back in 2014, and I had had the gaul to suggest that he needs to come up with a plan to iteratively develop some new, low risk, functionality in the language first, before saying he wants to spend “at least a year” doing a complete overhaul, and nothing else.

This is not to say that developers are idiots or anything. The vast majority of the discussions I have had with all my collegues across my career have been good, thought provoking, and helpful. But that doesn’t mean they always get what they want, and nor does it mean I get what I want. I have definitely rejected work where that was the wrong decision, and I’ve suffered the consequences of it. I’ve also definitely accepted work that ended up being a complete waste of time.

None of us are perfect.

If you are finding that your boss is always rejecting your suggestions, I would suggest you need to consider these things:

  • have you quantified the benefits and costs?
  • are there competitors who are already doing this thing? If so, who?
  • does the suggestion align with the strategy / focus of the business?
  • have you identified a small increment / proof of concept / mvp, that takes a few hours, or days, or a sprint, to demonstrate potential value?

If you can explain the potential value, how it helps the business get to where it wants to be faster, and how you can identify unknown unknowns through low cost and quick to develop POCs, then you may be able to get buy in.

If you can’t, or don’t know how, then there are plenty of resources available. A good starting point would be to read The Lean Startup.

It is considerably more likely that the problem is with your skills of persuasion, and writing business cases, rather than all of technology being worthless.

Lastly, regarding discussions with professionals, one bit that did concern me is this

In my therapist’s opinion he thinks we as a soceity are not taking 100% advantage of technology we have. I can’t go into too many details bc our conversations are private but at the end I agreed with him. I’m seeing it now in my working day but he convinced me that it’s everywhere.

My experience with therapists, and in discussions with friends who are qualified pshrinks, is that a therapist should never try and convince you of anything. Their job is to structure conversations you are in essence having with yourself. They may repeat your previous statements back to you, in a way that requires you to reconcile potentially conflicting views or opinions. They may even challenge your assertions and get you to explain more thoroughly your views. These processes may well cause you to change your views on things.

But if your therapist is actually trying to convince you of their world view, you need to get a new therapist.

danhab99 OP ,
@danhab99@programming.dev avatar

Thank you for your perspective as a product manager. You gave me some insights that I have seen happen to me, but I never really understood why. I wish I had more visibility over my company so I can understand some of these things, it would be better than just accepting it as “boss knows best”.

I’m gonna take some notes from you before I try to convince my boss of a really cool idea I have for my company.

is that a therapist should never try and convince you of anything

Ehhhh IIIII wanna defend my guy. My therapist is the greatest conversationalist I’ve ever had. All of my sessions revolve around me asking him to convince me of whats right in the world. If I agree that he’s right I make a change and more than 80% of the time I see a clear benefit. He’s not trying to convince me that he’s right because I asked him too, because when I did try that he’d refuse or just wouldn’t, and I’d count that as a loss from his end. He can’t always win for me but when he does, its a real good win. So I guess the word “convinced” might not be as accurate as saying “we walked through this conversation until I got to a place of understanding”.

hellothere ,

I’m gonna take some notes from you before I try to convince my boss of a really cool idea I have for my company

I say this to my junior Product Owners a lot, don’t go in to that conversation with the view you are having to convince/pursaude them of anything. It sets it up as combative, has the implication that you are right and they are wrong, and that something in their plan needs to change. They will sense that, and will be much more defensive.

To be clear, I’m not talking about literal code changes here, but the current initiatives / projects / bets (whatever word you want to use) the company is planning on doing.

Instead you should demonstrate how your idea fits in with the current strategy of the business. Show them that you know where they are wanting to get to, and show how this idea gets them there. Go in to that conversation with a sincere intent of collaboration.

That way you don’t need to convince anyone to change anything because they are still getting to the same destination, and you’re showing them a quicker route through the bushes.

If they say no, ask them politely to explain their reasons so you can be on the same page. Do not argue, just listen to what they say. They will be telling you what is most important to them and the business in that reply. It literally doesn’t matter if you agree with them or not, they are telling you the constraints you need to operate in.

After the meeting, use that knowledge to reassess your proposal, and think of ways you could modify the idea, or what information you presented alongside it, to get it accepted. If you still don’t understand, then ask further questions about that bit.

Remember, it’s about collaboration.

He’s not trying to convince me that he’s right because I asked him too, because when I did try that he’d refuse or just wouldn’t, and I’d count that as a loss from his end. He can’t always win for me but when he does, its a real good win. So I guess the word “convinced” might not be as accurate as saying “we walked through this conversation until I got to a place of understanding”.

I’d argue the same applies in therapy too. It may be worth exploring why you seem to have a pretty darwinian view of thoughts / opinions being demonstrably right or wrong. In my experience the world is much greyer.

I am glad however that your therapist is doing something that has been requested, rather than anything else (even if it does seem to be rather atypical).

bigkahuna1986 ,

But if your therapist is actually trying to convince you of their world view, you need to get a new therapist.

I’m glad you said this because I thought I was the only one.

AA5B ,

have you quantified the benefits and costs?

Great line! This is key to persuading your management to try new things. Newness for its own sake isnt always worthwhile: what value does it add? How does it profit your employer? How does it provide more value than your pay?

I’m in a great spot right now because I’ve been able to persuade them a lot. My focus is maintainability, security, ci/cd, all of which my employer sees the value of. However I have found these old orphan projects that need a lot of work. While I was able to persuade of the benefits of improving things being worked on, how can I persuade them to spend efforts on things just sitting and rotting, bringing in money at no cost for years? I’m just letting those go as not worth the value, any security issues not exposed to the public or customers

Anyhow, I’ve been talking to another group and we have a great idea, and even a hook to sell it to management. However it’s a bigger initiative than anything I’ve tried, will cost more effort from more people, so yeah …. I’m in the same boat at a new level, trying to figure out how to sell it to leadership

habanhero , (edited )

There is a lot to unpack from your post. First of all, there is no doubt that technology in general adds value for the human race - like the another commenter said, foundational things like fire, tools all the way to the zipper and buttons you have on clothings, umbrellas you bring into the rain, the video chats you have with loved ones during COVID - those are all the fruits of technology.

But if you get down to the particulars, value can be very subjective. Some people value fancy new tech sneakers, primate NFTs whereas others value new computer vision technology or a new programming language. So are certain technologies adding value? Depends on who you ask.

As for who is capturing value in a capitalistic society, I think you already have the answer. Simply put, if your company operates at a 50% efficiency and you bump it up to 70% with tech and automation, rest assured that you are going to see job cuts to “become lean” and to “do less with more”, followed by increased targets to produce more. You are not going to get more leisure time but instead be asked to push ahead until you hit the physical limit and break.

danhab99 OP ,
@danhab99@programming.dev avatar

Simply put, if your company operates at a 50% efficiency and you bump it up to 70% with tech and automation, be assurance you are going to see job cuts and increased targets to produce more

And there’s the point. I do not disagree that technology puts people out of a job. What I want to understand is whether or not that technology is creating more value. And if so than more technology means more value which means we can eventually get to a place of so much societal surplus that we can reorchestrate soceity to enjoy the benefits of it. That’s the end stage of capitalism, it will become outdated eventually. Capitalism is a growth phase, and growth hurts, I’m the last person in the world to deny that.

The reason it ends is because there are people who are poor and sick and starving and I AM NOT OK WITH THAT! If I was than capitalism can persist, but I don’t want it to because I don’t want my fellow Americans, my fellow people, to suffer. There’s no way to acknowledge my priviledge enough when I say that yeah, people have to suffer for all of us to grow, and it hurts that some of those people won’t be there with us in the end, and it’s terrifying to think that I could be one of those who don’t see the end.

So that’s where my question is. If a company experiences a +30% efficiency boost due to technology, does soceity benefit from it?

habanhero ,

What I want to understand is whether or not that technology is creating more value.

I think the question to ask is value created for whom. Based on my personal and probably biased opinion, value is not created for the greater good but for the capital owners and shareholders.

And if so than more technology means more value which means we can eventually get to a place of so much societal surplus that we can reorchestrate soceity to enjoy the benefits of it.

Again, my opinion, but it’s not in the DNA of a capitalistic society to have surpluses so someone will capture it and try to squeeze out more. So in the event of a seismic technology advancement, my dystopian view is that the poor will not reap much benefits, and instead of billionaires, we will have trillionaires.

So that’s where my question is. If a company experiences a +30% efficiency boost due to technology, does soceity benefit from it?

I think if there is a counterbalance to capitalism and corporate greed then yes, some of that value will come back to society. Perhaps an improved medication at cost, better transit, emergency response technology… But if we leave it in the hands of capitalists they will enrich themselves very quickly.

phoneymouse ,

How is create react app or spring boot outdated? These are well-maintained frameworks. What would you replace them with?

There is a new framework every 6 months. Newer isn’t necessarily better, as plenty of new frameworks don’t catch on and die. Companies cannot just change their stack every 5 years even. It is not only expensive and time consuming, it requires hiring people with special skill sets that aren’t transferable to other apps in the company.

MaryTzu ,

Agreed.

I also would like to add that a lot of old tech is reliable and limitations are well known and accounted for. New tech has inherent technical risk, you don’t always know what you are getting and behaviour can be unpredictable.

danhab99 OP , (edited )
@danhab99@programming.dev avatar

How is create react app or spring boot outdated

CreateReactApp was actually declared deprecated in favor of Next.js. I guess I think of springboot as outdated because we have much better ways of routing an HTTP request through buisness logic, going maximum k8s ingress is my preferred way, it scales way better than a springboot monolith.

Edit: the source of why I know CRA is deprecated

There is a new framework every 6 months. Newer isn’t necessarily better

“Newer isn’t better” is exactly the reason we have so many frameworks and technologies. When filtering a liquid you have to put pressure on it to push it through the filter. Just the same with technology, it’s more like an idea, you need lots of ideas to put pressure on the others to find which one is the best one. Springboot came from a time when there were less framworks to choose from, that’s the only reason its big, not by merit.

It is not only expensive and time consuming, it requires hiring people with special skill sets that aren’t transferable to other apps in the company.

I don’t agree that that’s the case anymore. Most softwares deployed today are so platform agnostic that the only thing limiting where it can run is the nature of the software itself. It doesn’t make sense to run an android app on a cloud vpc because litterally why would you? But since the advent of React, 99% of all UI components we see on screen can have their source in a library the app pulls from, then it could be an phone app, or a website, or a desktop program. Docker revolutionized how code runs on computers so now you can write any buisness logic in any language and then shop around for the cheapest cloud host or onprem hardware you want, you no longer have to consider the computer when writing code*.

I don’t believe programmers should be specalized, this litterally only comes from my experience and my opinion, but frankly whether its code to display things on screen or get data from a database or do some deep introspective calculation, it’s all the same code, even if its a different language. There’s a difference between buisness logic and implementation, any programmer should beable to put together any sort of buisness logic they’re asked to do.

pineapple_pizza ,

That post about why CRA is depreciated was a great read, thanks!

bigkahuna1986 ,

There is a new framework every 6 months minutes FTFY.

Seriously, there’s so many to choose from and so little return on investment. Even migrating my work away from Java to NodeJS I am struggling to realize the efficiency gains because new tech is always has a learning curve.

anlumo ,

Java to JavaScript isn’t exactly an improvement.

originalucifer ,
@originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com avatar

dont blame the tech. blame the humans. humans suck, but not all, not even in aggregate. were nicer than we know, and were actually getting better!

that said, there is a small subset of outwardly powerful humans who deeply suck. these are the set who think that billionaires should exist. that the next quarters profits should come no matter what. i dont know what can be done about that other than humans regulating humans, which is difficult when you need to regulate the powerfully sucky.

its not a technology problem we have, its a human one.

SnotFlickerman ,
@SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Exactly. It’s a handful of private companies with oodles of money who are specifically choosing to develop technology that extracts the most from their customers, instead of developing technology to help people.

It’s isn’t glamorous, and it doesn’t pay well (or at all) but there’s plenty you can do with programming that are unequivocal good things for the world.

danhab99 OP ,
@danhab99@programming.dev avatar

there is a small subset of outwardly powerful humans who deeply suck

Yeah the deep shadowy cabal of suited white men pulling strings. I’ve heard of that and I disagree with it. I don’t think it exists. Maybe there are some big people who basically own their industry, but I refuse to accept that they exist outside of the media and insurance sphere. Media has no power unless government reinforces it, and we regulate the shit out of insurance companies. Now that’s not to say that we don’t regulate insurance enough, there’s plenty more control we the people can and need to take. Maybe there’s one or two other industries that are owned by a powerful person. But I refuse to believe that my government that I pay tax to, vote on, and listen to is too weak to snuff out a company that grows to the size of a government. FAANG is 10% as powerful as the US Federal government and I refuse to accept that it’s more.

We’ve seen our government repeatedly stomp out monopolies in the US and outside of it. There are plenty more to stomp out, but just because it hasn’t been done yet doesn’t discount the strength of us Americans projected by our government. We can change, and its hard.

originalucifer ,
@originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com avatar

you misunderstand.

were not talking about some shady organization. these are CEOs, politicians, heads of state, etc. it isnt some organized cabal. its just terrible humans who dont understand/care that they cause the suffering in the world with their own inherent selfishness.

SnotFlickerman , (edited )
@SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Most “technology” these days are hardly more than gimmicky baubles that don’t actually bring much value to, well, anything really.

Look at all the Alexa devices. Amazon literally cannot figure out how to make a profit on it and they’re quickly trying to make it a footnote.

All that hardware dedicated to Alexa will be soon a pile of garbage.

But here’s the rub…

Simple technology is still technology. A hammer is technology of an early human era. We’ve only been in the era of modern medicine, for example, for hardly 100 years. When you talk about “technology” you’re talking about way the fuck more than just computers and technobaubles.

When it comes to medical tech alone if you consider how many diseases we’ve wiped out, and the new advances we continue to make in medical science (RNA vaccines, recently an entirely new class of antibiotics), the idea that these don’t contribute to our quality of life is a joke.

Medical advances and advances in food technology and food cleanliness have 100% improved the lives of people all over the world. We went from terrible infant mortality rates 200 years ago where half your fucking kids will die before adulthood to people basically choosing how many kids they want because by and large, most of them will make it to adulthood and onward. It genuinely wasn’t that long ago that our average life expectancy was a lot shorter.

Now, the bigger question is a societal one: How to we ensure the new technology that really brings value to human life is distributed equitably? Because currently, it really fucking isn’t.

As for you and your job: Technology and programming itself isn’t useless at all. It’s what it’s being used for that is at issue. There are plenty of things a programmer can do that benefit the world, they just won’t be the kind of job that pays well. Amazon, for example, isn’t going to pay you money to change the world in positive ways, they’ll pay you to make Amazon money. All companies are like this. We all have to have a day job, so my suggestion would be to find out how you can use your skills to help the world equitably (maybe contribution to Free Open Source Software, for example) in your spare time, and then save money with a goal to use your skills more equitably as a life-goal.

FoldIt and Folding@Home were both great examples of programming, games, and genuine forward-movement scientific research. Maybe you could contribute to new groups like this, with the aim of benefiting everyone with their research.

Some folks help the world through what some consider illegal means with their programming. Anna’s Archive, Library Genesis, and Sci-Hub all exist with the purpose of giving people access to information. They use programming and networking skills to get around network blocks and so on.

Programming skills can be used for all kinds of good. You just have to choose to follow those paths.

danhab99 OP ,
@danhab99@programming.dev avatar

I think you’re right.

TBH I can’t even see the real value in companies I see listing jobs on the job sites. I’ve been trying to talk any path, anything just so I can work. But what good is my work if it’s not actually working for the rest of the world. How can I secure my next hit (writing code presses my happy button, idk why I just accept it) if I’m working for someone who noone actually needs? I want to make a change for the world because I need to make a change for myself. I need to work because working feels good, it wakes me up in the morning, it gives me focus, it gives me a sense of success and I actually cherish it. Every little line of code I write is mine, that’s why I cryptosign my commits, so they’ll always be mine.

Maybe its actually not me, it’s the people I can work for.

SnotFlickerman ,
@SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

TBH I can’t even see the real value in companies I see listing jobs on the job sites.

I agree, it can be discouraging, but the reality is we all gotta pay bills and eat. We gotta have a paycheck to put food in our stomachs and to give ourselves the opportunity to make our own goals outside of this framework we’re given.

It’s okay to take a job that isn’t benefiting the world if it means it’s a path towards you benefiting the world, you just can’t let yourself get caught up in the grind and remember its your personal goals of self-fulfillment and fulfillment of others that matter more.

It doesn’t mean you can’t work a job or not excel at your job. You can absolutely do both but also be willing to keep that thought at the back of your mind “Everything I do here is in pursuit of doing more and better, on my own.” Hell, if you are successful enough, that’s often option to use your largess to create your own non-profit aimed at helping others, or creating a new business for a market you know is under-served.

We can’t escape the reality of needing to eat and pay bills. We can accept that a lot of the jobs we work won’t give us some of the human values we all generally need to feel fulfilled (autonomy, mastery, purpose), but that doesn’t mean we can’t find those avenues for fulfillment elsewhere, outside of the business and working world.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •