[generalizations]

> Which family. (a) The family of the person doing Y or (b) the families of the persons who fail to ever see the benefit of X or, worse, who suffer harm from Y. If the answer is (b), then not doing Y benefits the most families. Choice (b) fits better with the idea of "doing something important to the world", especially if one agrees that what he is doing now is preventing him from doing not something that is important to the world.

This is how you get neglected kids with parental issues. I've seen it happen. If you're going to have kids, they need to know that they are your first priority, and they need to be treated that way.

> You want to discount the importance of not doing Y/doing X.

Nope. I just want to make the point that however important X is, or not doing Y is, the hierarchy should be family > ( X | !Y).

> It is not either-or question. It is possible to keep a family fed without working on adtech.

If you're lucky. But you're sidestepping my point, which is that if you have a choice between not working on adtech and feeding the family, feed your family.

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

Your "point" is a self-serving framing the issue of working on important world problems versus working on adtech as one of feeding the family versus not feeding the family (starving). You want us to believe "I have no choice". That may be your perspective. Whether it applies to anyone else is questionable. If there are really lots of people working in adtech who are in some sort of "forced labour" arrangement, where if they take another job, their children will starve, then we perhaps we should try to help them. The whole idea is silly. There are millions of people around the world who really are suffering who truly cannot feed their families, for real, and you want us to believe that people who work on adtech, who have the skills to be working on more important things, are among them.

[generalizations]

a) You came up with the example of feeding the family, not me. I'm just using it.

b) I think you have a vastly inflated sense of how much a programming job impacts the world, especially compared to the immediate impact we have on our kids.

c) Stay off the personal attacks, they just make it look like you couldn't come up with anything better.

d) Twice now you've told me what I'm saying. Are you sure you actually know?

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

Instead of stating that you believe that working on adtech is not such an important issue, which is a perfectly valid point view though I may disagree with it, you accused me of "discount[ing] the importance of family". How is that not a personal attack.

You suggested a false tradeoff between not working on adtech and "the importance of family." There is no such tradeoff. A person might even have more time to spend with the family by doing something different.

Forget about the family feeding justification example. It comes from past HN commments I have seen where people are apparently having a crisis of conscience about what they are actually doing for "work" and looking for acceptable "justifications".^1 The question is why work on adtech versus something else. There is a choice. No one is being forced to work on ads. That is the point of the example.

As for the "vastly inflated sense of how much a programming job impacts the world", that should go the parent commenter as he believes he could be doing something important to the world if he was not working on adtech. We cannot assess whether or not it is "inflated", because adtech is consuming his time and energy and denying him the chance to even try.

What I am suggesting is that simply not working on adtech could itself be something important because, from the computer user perspective, adtech is a pervasive nusiance. It is fine to disagree, and even accuse me of being biased towards users instead of developers, but accusing me of "discounting the importance of family" is disingenuous and, IMO, dishonest. There is no such tradeoff.

Programming jobs can and do have an impact on the world. Consider the environment. The energy consumption of datacenters built to store the results of personal data mining for the purposes of advertising. The energy-intensive minerals extraction for mobile phones that are deliberately intended to become "obsolete" after a commercially desirable period. The auto emissions fraud, e.g., Volvo.

1. Another one is "Well if I don't do this, someone else would just take my place." You just can't make this stuff up.