Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

  • Hacker News
  • As an old school Free Software kinda guy, I was a little shocked at the lack of enthusiastic support for "if you do not own the source code, you are not in control". From where does this apathy come?
  • I hope this guy gets an option to inherit the FSF.

    But in a way that does not diminish his work on Zig.

  • I once had an argument with a close friend of mine while earning her PHD in a non-computer engineering field. It was about the semantics of "Computer Engineering" and "Software Engineering", or any variant involving computers. Her argument was that every (virtually, I think?) other engineering discipline requires a certificate after graduation to ensure their competency. Every since then I've also argued for similar industry standard certifications for Computer and Software Engineers. I was a hiring manager for over a decade at a well known MNC, so I can attest that this doesn't, or didn't exist (since the global mass-layoff). I tried to improve interview standards in the past and help establish some forward momentum, but pulling-the-ladder-up and biased-hiring-practices have made this even more elusive.

    Edit: I know there are some certifications that may be required by some software engineers, computer engineers, etc. But this is limited to critical/near-failure-proof systems. Which I willing to wager is less than 1% of those employed in these fields.

  • There was one teacher/dean who was adamant at getting the career out of the "engineering" area at my country's universities and that "Software Engineering" should not exist as a career.

    One funny interaction I remember, MariaDB's Monty came to give a talk and he asked "If one wants to help with MariaDB should they be a software engineer or a computer scientist?" Monty's answer was "you just need to know C."

  • I didn't find any of the arguments for optimism compelling, even if I wanted to agree with the talk's message.

    Free software is about the worst example, as it has inadvertently built the technology that has, more than any other, concentrated corporate power and debased the profession.

  • Free software hasn't concentrated corporate power, explicit policy to enable monopolies did. Without free software, there would still have been consolidation because that was the express objective.
  • [0]:

    > If you refrain from participating in the software of the commons, the only thing that you're doing is surrendering more of our collective agency to abusive centralized powers.

    [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLZwpH5lCD4&t=1622s

  • Open source did that. Free software would have helped prevent it.
  • > Free software is about the worst example, as it has inadvertently built the technology that has, more than any other, concentrated corporate power and debased the profession.

    Can you elaborate on this?

  • What does your alternate timeline look like? Because I'm just imagining if Linux never took off, all internet servers would run Windows or a commercial Unix. That sure sounds like concentrated corporate power to me.
  • This is exactly what I needed, ending my work week for the company, and transitioning to working on my own project over the weekend. Good to know I'm not alone, still dreaming of making things that serve people the way they (the people, not the things) want.

    I hope I can get this out soon

  • I'm much more interested in a realistic bang for your buck discussion about software value for effort and diminishing returns rather than a conversation about whether it's possible to build great software.

    Also notable that not up for discussion was any second order effects about user interaction with software; software always must serve its user in the immediate first order. Why? I suppose it's because if you attempt to examine nth order effects the proposition completely falls apart because the world is much more complicated than "software must serve the end user".

    Finally, the purpose of software isn't determined by the end user, nor necessarily its author. A user can have their goals, the author(s) theirs, the funding body theirs, and so on. The "purpose" is diffused in this way until what's left is what it does. Saying it _must_ serve the user is a principled stance reflecting a world view, but it's just that. That are other coherent worldviews where software has more than one master. Or no master.

  • Yeah, I generally agree with him but there are plenty of fun counterexamples:

    1. You go to the DMV to renew your driver's license at a kiosk there. There's a warrant for your arrest. Should the kiosk serve the user directly interacting with it and print out a new license anyway?

    2. Grocery store: should a self-checkout serve the user and give them free groceries?

    3. ATM: does the user get free money?

  • In a struggle for a gun the gun serves it's user.
  • Does anyone know what the "discord alternative" is that Andrew says he's working on at the end[0] of the video?

    [0]: https://youtu.be/zLZwpH5lCD4?si=45knBo2Hsy_6wjEM&t=2092

  • > “I almost fell into this trap (...) I was raised by conservative Christian parents and thereby had so, so much to learn, and unlearn, in order to date comfortable and confidently.

    Is this engagement bait? Is this a cultural critique? What is meant to be said here? At any rate, this is the kind of speech which will alienate a lot of people. Look, I'm more on the progressive end of things, I get it, but I think this just feels mean and divisive from the perspective of a conservative OR a Christian, and I find that to be a message made in poor taste... which is difficult because this is such a potentially inspiring and positive talk. I lost the energy to be inspired by the talk due to this style of messaging, but I don't think you should have to. I'm just a bit thrown off, I guess.

  • Its a set up for part 4 (27:45 or so) which talks about irrationally choosing to have faith in humanity. I see it as a sort of "full disclosure" disclaimer. I'd summarize:

    > In my past I've dabbled in sorts of faith that I later found to be problematic, but there's also this other faith that I think is good.

  • It's definitely cultural critique that people who don't agree with his broad political stance will find divisive and mean. I also completely believe that Andrew Kelly is talking sincerely about his own beliefs and experiences, grounded in his own life history - that is, I believe that his own experience is that unlearning some of the conservative Christian values his parents taught him made his own dating life better, at least with respect to the different values he came to have.

    I think the lesson here is that you can't divorce a potentially inspiring and positive talk, from the underlying ideological stances that ground that talk, and indeed determine what the speaker thinks count as inspiring and positive. There are a number of points in this talk where I think Kelly's claims that some aspect of computer technology are tempting to blackpill over, are really just that computer technology being useful to people who don't share his political stances. So a listener who doesn't actually share his political stances won't find the argument he is building in those sections of the talk convincing at all.

  • He shouldn't talk about his own experience? Why not? Why is it in poor taste to talk about a difficulty he went through?
  • I liked the talk and was about to post a link to it in the $dayjob slack, but this threw me off as well. Still watched it to the end, and I still recommended it to a friend (along with the Youtube channel of the "Software should work" conf), but I'm saddened that the talk paints Christianity as something that is inflicted upon you and that you should strive to get rid of.

    It's clear that he had a bad experience, and I'm nobody to tell him what to put on the slides and what to leave out, but my impression is that there are lots of believers out there who do cherish their faith, experience it as a very positive force in their lives, and draw from it the power to make the world a better place around them. Speaking for myself, I'd say faith has been a net positive so far in my life.

    by wofo
  • I don't think it's meant to be mean or divisive, he clearly had trouble dating and he feels his conservative Christian upbringing was partially responsible for that. If you think he's wrongly attributing it to those things, fair enough, but his experience is still valid.

    EDIT: just saw your reply to a similar comment below, appreciate your response!

  • This viewpoint is preposterous to me in the first place.

    I am Christian. Everything in the world seems to be falling apart these days and my faith is one of the few real-feeling things!

  • I have so far only completed about 14 minutes of the talk, but I would imagine it to be some sort of relatable analogy which foreshadows what the thesis of the talk is about. The "Christian Parents" are the authority figure and following their rules, lessons, and expectations for dating is a lot like doing only the software engineering tasks that management prioritizes for you. You end up unsatisfied with your life to the point where you become jaded about software (software development is like "dating" in this analogy) instead of learning the skills necessary to wield influence over what you get to work on. I'll watch the rest to see if I'm right.

    edit: it's wasn't just about developing software but also using software. You don't have to accept the bad situation you're in (or the bad software you've been given or told to use). Finally, I'll say that while the speaker's comment about conservative christian upbringing isn't a universal one, it is a widely shared one. If you take offense by it maybe take a moment to pause and consider that maybe the way you were exposed to it was probably more balanced than what many others experience, or in the worst case that maybe your negative reaction to it is a sort of defense mechanism that you've learned to shield yourself from confronting the reality that your own conservative christian upbringing was not so good after all?.

  • This not a rare thing to express. There are a lot of people raised under conservative Christian environments who have spent a considerable amount of time recovering from this. It is not surprising that they feel the need to express something of the journey that has dominated much of their early life.

    Taylor Tomlinson puts much of this into her comedy. She often asks the audience to call out if they were similarly screwed up by their religious upbringing. The is a loud audience response every time.

    While I don't agree with Andrew Kelly's adversarial attitude, I do understand it a little more from the perspective of someone who had to fight his way out of an ideology that will not seek consensus with his values.

    by Lerc
  • Generally agreed with most of the points.

    Building software that serves you only...and then sharing with others is like serving others. It's good stuff and we need more of it.

    I'm not sure how the deconversion of his faith needed to be conflated as related to the main ideas, especially when the next point was about weilding technology for good or evil in the next point as if these aren't pre-existing realities of our world or universe.

  • Yeah, I wasn't clear how his (lack of) religion/faith related to the theme. I like personal details shared thoughtfully in conference talks, but he structured the talk as if those details mattered to the overall message.
  • This was a prelude to his argument for needing a set of moral standards.
  • I really enjoyed this. This talk contains a powerful message of optimism, possibility, agency and power that resonates strongly with me.

    Computers and technology are force multipliers for humanity. As coders, we are lucky to be gifted with such high agency and global reach, all at a fairly affordable price tag.

    I love computers.

  • I loved the talk as well. The recommended music video by Ninajirachi was really cool as well! Have a good day fellow computer enjoyer :)