Hacker News Reader

> Nobody really cared when factory jobs were replaced, or food processing, or farming, or any number of waves of "menial", so called "low skill" labor jobs.

Not only did a lot of people care, it was the basis for all of the modern labor organizing starting in the late 19th century.

Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair

Like your entire post is 100% incorrect and clearly ignorant of the history of organized labor or class consciousness

Edit: It’s not anyone’s fault they are ignorant to this stuff because the amount of anti-labor propaganda is unbelievably pervasive. However it does prevent effective organizing if nobody thinks that there is actual process to organize around, so it just never happens.

The Haymarket affair was a very very long time ago in what was at the time a provincial mid power nation, and despite being one of the buzzword events taught in USA high school history, I would say nobody much remembers or cares anything about it today outside of historian or activist circles where it's seen as some sort of "win".

Labor rights have been polarized through many revolutions and political upheavals in the time since then and yet...all those jobs are still gone and worldwide labor conditions in most places outside of a few small countries still aren't great for working people.

İ don't see how this is an anti labor message, quite the opposite. İ wish people would respect themselves enough to stand up for better conditions, but this starts not with bombs and anarchistic rioting like the Haymarket affair, which was very controversial in other ways, But by simply saying "no" to abuse. Unfortunately when your hungry or scared enough you will say yes to just about everything, and the powerful know this very well.

> Labor rights have been polarized through many revolutions and political upheavals in the time since

Again just totally incorrect and completely ignorant of the history of labor

But go ahead and go off on whatever you think is correct and continue to ignore the issue and then be confused about why the world is in the state

The reason propaganda is so pervasive is because it works and clearly so.

Regimes that killed millions upon millions of people using the banner of "labor" is not polarizing? Political populist parties pandering to the desperate to gain power neither?

I actually have an advanced degree in and personal infatuation with history, so I would welcome proper debate on historical issues. But hand wavy "your just wrong bro cause propaganda" just isn't discussion.

I’m not actually trying to debate you because it would be a waste of my time.

My goal is so that other readers don’t take your statements seriously at all

You're not helping your case by being arrogant. FWIW the person you're discussing with sounds a bit more balanced in their opinions. I am open to changing my mind, but refusing to elaborate because it's a "waste of your time" means conceding your case.

What precisely is arrogant about refusing to give somebody a history lesson about the labor movement when all of the information necessary is available and trivial easy to get?

I have no case to make here other than the one I’ve made: the representation of the labor movement that was made is completely incorrect

Because it runs counter to your stated goal of convincing those reading the conversation to not take your interlocutor seriously. I really think if you're tempted to write a "I'm not going to argue with you" comment you should just not post at all: it damages your position less.

(This is a particular technique that seems to have been picked up because of gish gallops/sealioning where the goal is to just fill up the space and wear down any objections, but I think this cure is worse than the disease: explicitly refusing to engage, even if apparently justified by the expert view of the arguments you are rejecting, really only makes you look weaker, more unreasonable, and more out of touch to onlookers on the fence than walking away. I think it's a real hazard because it's emotionally satisfying to you and people who already agree with you while utterly corrosive to your credibility to anyone else)

Thank you! I have dutifully updated my neural pathways to reflect the fact that nothing, absolutely nothing can be done here!

I shall continue my training watching Karpathy videos and reading Timothy Gowers' blog.

Software engineers are just the first professions on the frontline. So much "work" is repetitive and things like accounting and compliance are often for 60-80% "tick the box" jobs. Legal is another example that comes to mind, I've had Fable 5.1 review contracts before sending it to our in-house lawyer and the quality is easily 85-90% but with a turnaround time of minutes instead of weeks.

AI will have a massive impact, engineers might be the canary in the coalmine but no doubt other profession will follow soon.

To end in a bright note, software architecture and cyber security are going to be growing massively.

> So much "work" is repetitive and things like accounting and compliance are often for 60-80% "tick the box" jobs.

The repetitive nature of these jobs is a red herring, because people are not paid for ticking boxes. They are paid for being held accountable for the implications of the checks not being done.

For example, some roles are restricted to professional engineers and involve basically going to places, doing checks, and ticking boxes in a form. Other roles require a far greater specialization and complexity, but they don't require a professional engineer. Why? Because if your game server crashes no one dies, whereas if an office building falls down them the guys checking boxes will find themselves in a courtroom.

the reason software is first is not because software is the thing that's easiest to do. But in most other stuff it can be much easier to spot the bullshit.

> Nobody will feel sorry for software devs

Software has always been a different kind of creative trade where if you stopped learning and embracing the trends you would get crushed sooner or later - if you just wanted decent paychecks until the end of time and protection by the sheer weight of your academic degree and years of "experience" then software development wasn't the best path forward.

But it often payed better than entry engineering or math jobs therefore many switched to software - although they would have been almost certainly happier staying a profession not so dependent on adapting yearly trends to this extreme. This was the first major lesson i got taught almost 20 years ago here. It was also around that time where i realized most software professionals never belonged in this creative trade camp but still got a lifelong career out of being more or less disconnected with the trends.

They were doing year for year the almost same tasks and collecting paychecks. Which is totally fine as long as there was more demand for writing code than qualified professionals hirable. The trope of ageism in software and silicon valley is as old as hacker news. But there was still some touch of truth to it - you wanted the best developers who never stopped learning, knew that code isn't the goal and didn't think their years of experience are worth anything three years from now on in a profession that's about trends solving business needs and less about formal engineering.

Ah, yes, the “it was bad before so stop complaining” bit of the arguing. Things can’t get better, and we can’t be more empathetic.

I mean, I get, as a software developer, I agree we’ve been in a good position. That’s how we’ve structured the labor market and economic incentives of labor.

Tough times are ahead, but not just for devs. We’re destroying the value of knowledge work while the “land-owners” of tech reap all the benefits. I think it’s okay to be worried for all knowledge workers, _and_ show empathy for similar situations in the past. The working class needs to unite, not start another feud over who suffered the most during labour-replacement eras. Suffering is suffering.

Finally: this idea that developers aren’t the “common man”… I mean, where do we draw the line for that definition? Who truly benefits from AI/SI/whatever if not the elites? And, by contrast, aren’t developers also “common people”, i.e. part of the exploited, albeit somewhat better off, workforce?