viklove

Not sure how you operate, but I've never worked on any project in my 10+ years as a professionally employed JS dev where we've shipped Jest in our release.

I don't audit all the code I run (I don't think anyone does), but I do audit all the code I _release_. What's actually important to you?

React has no dependencies: https://www.npmjs.com/package/react?activeTab=dependencies https://github.com/react/react/blob/main/package.json

If you read the first comment on your link, you'd see why you're wrong:

> That's not _React_, that's `create-react-app`

Yes 20 total dependencies including transients. If a lib has many subdependencies I take this as a red flag and try to avoid it.

Where do you find these guys? I haven't worked on a project with more than 20 dependencies, and usually those dependencies have 0 subdependencies so they're quite easy to audit.

The core of the problem is a profit incentive and an economy based on greed. Our society is designed to extract value, not to offer the best products/services to the general population.

You don't need to be a good algorithm engineer to secure a high-paying job though. In fact high-paying jobs regularly turn away strong algorithm engineers because they can't pass leetcode challenges.

The advice is sound -- if you want money focus on the flashy buzzword thing, not the actually useful thing.

People are really going to dislike what you're saying

2 years ago your AI tools didn't exist, and you're trying to make predictions 5 years out.

I wish I could be as bliss about the whole situation as you are!

I think both you and said poster have misunderstood what "skin in the game" actually means.

> should we stop treating the idea that humans must possess some capability AI can never replace as the starting point for discussions about humanity's future?

> I'm inclined to think we should.

Mate, I think we're not even invited to the conversation. A small group of people are planning humanity's future and they're going to inflict it on us whether we like it or not.

You know, unless someone stops them somehow.

Offshore team absolutely has skin in the game, for the exact same reasons OP said -- they want to keep their roof over their head.

AI will never have this. AI is a product, and it has no motivations or self-preservation. The only goal for the AI is to increase your lifetime token spend to maximize profit for corporation.

What do we need you for then?

> I suspect that this is actually driving the software engineer hiring slow-down

Are we in a slow-down anymore? Anecdotally I feel things were rough Dec '25 - June '26, but ever since August I've had more interview requests in my inbox than I can remember in my 10+ year career.

> the most common type of work in human history

Surprised to see someone casually admit that the most common type of human labor is slave labor.

Weird to put banking and trading on the same complexity level as medicine or ML.

> Capital and connections are open

Disagree

It's not silly, especially when the data shows productivity gains for remote employees.

It's silly to assume people are better at coordinating work in office.

It is about control, even if it's just about controlling how you interact with your coworkers.

Sociopathic billionaires like Musk, Thiel, Ellison, Zuckerberg, and their cohort.

Must just spent over $500M influencing midterms in the US.

They don't want us to have any power left a few years from now, and they're winning.

> forcing employees back to the office so they can be less isolated.

They're forcing employees back to office so they can have more control.

> The companies were always trying to get coworkers together

Sure, get together for "team building" to increase productivity. Just don't do anything problematic like discuss your salary or benefits with any of your coworkers.

Seems like you misunderstood my comment.

Sounds like you definitely don't belong in the US with that attitude!

> and without the extractive institutions we’d spend our time scrabbling in the dirt

The extractive institutions are pleased that you believe this.

You say all that then still land on the same problematic viewpoint:

> a doctor's successful intervention and the divine cause that enables it

For religious people there is always the single factor, and it's always a bit insulting when they remind you they view the world this way.

The part you're not stating is that "what it takes" is (1) a safety net which allows you to take chances without risk, (2) access to capital to get your idea off the ground, and (3) connections to get your foot in the door.

Employees have everything else they need -- intelligence and the ability to put in the hard work. The only reason they don't have the capital and connections is because the existing "entrepreneurs" gatekeep it to minimize their competition.

Brilliant comment. Companies (that are run by executives) hire employees, not entrepreneurs because they want servants, not competition.

The landed elite will continue to defend the only moat they have -- capital and connections. They know they're not the smartest or hardest working people in the room, and if they start to recognize their employees as equals they'll quickly lose their position within their company and within society.

For AI companies to cannibalize the rest of the market, wealthy investors/executives first need to admit that they don't have much to offer society. It'll take a long time for them to allow this to happen, lest their egos (and portfolios) take a hit.

> I have interviewed dozens of engineering candidates.

I have too. Stating this doesn't give you the credibility you probably think it does. Interviewing/hiring in general is a pretty broken process, and extremely susceptible to subjective interviewer bias.

> If someone can't communicate well on technical matters, that's generally a negative.

Your interview method doesn't test if someone "can communicate well on technical matters." I can see why you think it does, but it does not. "Good communication" is not the ability to produce the correct sequence of thoughts/words when given 45 minutes to solve a problem in a hostile environment (surrounded by strangers, with your livelihood on the line).

What you're actually selecting for is a very specific type of candidate who thinks and communicates like you in a way that you can easily understand. You're basically selecting for vibes. And when you structure your interviews this way, you specifically end up preferring candidates who are better at bullshitting and "selling themselves" as opposed to candidates who are actually the most technically sound.

The biggest indictment against your interviewing mentality is that it's limited by how good you are at listening and understanding. You're probably worse at it than you think you are, and spending too much time in the interviewer position and not enough in the interviewee position makes it easy to fall into this trap.

I've interviewed and placed dozens of candidates on teams I've led. I've also interviewed and gotten offers at dozens of companies in the past 10-15 years. The more offers I get, the more I realize how broken interviewing is.

The mistakes you're making won't necessarily cause you to hire bad candidates, but it will undoubtedly allow you to reject/ignore very strong candidates just because they don't talk/think like you. Maybe you have a problem with diversity of thought, but generally that's a desirable characteristic on most engineering teams.

My advice is to spend more time on objective measures, and to check your ego at the door before conducting your interviews. Spending so much time as a gatekeeper makes it easy to get a superiority complex, which comes across quite plainly in your original comment.

> Just make you a more pleasant serf. It literally doesn't matter what you call Elon Musk.

Actions speak louder than words.

> No amount matter how much power you pretend people have with their vote you're still ignoring observed reality.

Voting likely won't get us out of this mess. You'll need to be a bit more creative and... persuasive.

> In your world, someone like Trump could never be elected much less twice.

In my world, Trump was elected twice. Helped by people like you who submit to their power and tremble with awe at their accomplishments.

As long as people like you keep recognizing them as "winners," they will continue to have power over you.

If we all decided to view them as criminals instead of winners, this problem would resolve itself in a matter of weeks.

I'm not sure why you're so stuck on this. Perhaps you still want to emulate them on some level.

I understand what you're saying, this is the part I disagree with:

> I'm just saying that the fact that our system has rewarded the biggest profit-chasers is completely obvious and will not change regardless of what my mindset is.

Specifically the "will not change" part.

It's our system, and we do have the power to change it. First we have to change the way we talk about it. Stop calling them "winners" and stop calling those who follow a moral compass "losers." Call the entrepreneur-types what they are: sad, selfish individuals who deserve no power in our society. They're not winning at anything -- they're dragging our entire society down with them and making all of us losers.