[beecafe]

I don't care one mote about solving problems. I program because it's fun and I'm good at it, so I have no space for bullshit MBA puff like "solving problems" (it's not) "making people's lives better with technology" (it never has or will). So for me working in a place where I get to use the tools I enjoy is more important than whatever flavor of the week justification is given for the rent we are seeking from and new problems we create for consumers.

[NAHWheatCracker]

This is an interesting take to me, because it seems to be how many of my coworkers work. It's not how I think about things.

I enjoy technology, but it's hard for me to just focus on tech without a purpose for using it. All of the projects I'm proud of aren't because of the tools I used. Instead, I'm proud that I delivered something useful.

Yet, I still completely agree with your statements about "MBA puff". I've been on projects where they extol how valuable a project is going to be and it doesn't stand up to a minute of scrutiny. Other projects would be valuable, but never get into the hands of real users.

On the projects I'm proud of, I was directly working with someone who actually would benefit from the project. There wasn't a question of whether it was worth it. The users weren't puffing up the project to be more than it was. They have a job to do and I'm helping them do it better. Interestingly, this also meant that they didn't care how I approached the problem.

The real sweet spot for projects is where working on interesting tech goes hand-in-hand with delivering something useful.

[mwcampbell]

It's unfortunate that this cynicism is so widespread, because technology actually does solve problems and make people's lives better. I suppose I'm lucky to be working in a domain, accessibility for blind people, where this is obvious. But I'm sure there are many other such areas.

[znpy]

It's not cynicism, sadly.

There are a ton of jobs that are tool-heavy, and the "solving problems" only applies to a small percentage of the team.

Some problems should not exist at all and only exists because of the tooling chosen.

Example: A friend of mine works at a company that is running their business on some clown-ish cloud infrastructure, and their SREs have to basically re-invent the wheel to work around the limitations of the cloud vendor the management has chosen (for example: no virtual machine autoscaling, in a cloud environment). Somebody at that company is certainly doing "creative work" and "solving problems" with code, but not those SREs.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

It can, but parent's cynicism is very understandable if one looks around at the hot new exciting technology of today and compares it to the hot new exciting technology of decades past. Pretty much the entire high-paying tech space right now is either solving non-problems or actively creating and promoting problems.

[nominalbkfst]

Its not so much that I need someone to try to sell me that I’m changing the world instead of making a paycheck. But I definitely would rather clean toilets for a cause I love than work with cool tech on a project I don’t believe in or that doesn’t ever go anywhere.

When I was younger my family was really big into riding ATVs. At first it was cool, but then I started to realize we were just going to drive in the same circles at the same parks forever and it lost all meaning to me. ATVs are cool, I still think they are, but without a reason to ride one I can’t imagine spending a weekend in a tent driving around in circles. At the same time I know plenty of people who live for that, so I recognize that we’re all looking for our own things.

[arcturus17]

If software does not solve problems, what are you getting paid for, exactly? For the weight of the line of code?

[willcipriano]

What is a plumber paid for? You tell him you'd like a sink installed somewhere and he installs it. He isn't paid more if the sink is used to wash the hands of surgeons operating on orphans or never used it all. He is paid on the basis of, you want a sink and he knows how to install them.

[mwcampbell]

It seems to me that doing things on demand with no regard for purpose should be the domain of machines, not humans. Of course, robotics isn't yet advanced enough to allow us to meet that ideal in the physical world. But in the software world, the demand for programmers that merely crank out glue code, without understanding or caring about what it's for, should shrink, if it's not already.

[willcipriano]

I know why they are doing what they are doing, I'm just not paid for it. If I was paid by value produced rather than my skills I'd demand far greater control of the business, complete transparency and would refuse tasks that don't generate sufficient value. That just isn't the relationship most companies want, they would like to dictate what I work on and pay a flat rate for it. You can't have it both ways.

[arcturus17]

You want the sink because, presumably, not having a sink - or having a broken one, or an ugly one - is a problem for you.

Are we really discussing this?

[willcipriano]

Sure, but if everyone was able to install a sink the price of getting a sink installed would fall considerably. That indicates to me that you are paid based on the rarity and difficulty in gaining the skill, not the value of the problem itself.

[beecafe]

You don't get paid for solving the problem, you get paid for transforming the problem using software such that people become dependant on software to "solve" it. Now you can charge them for it. You can also insert software into places where no problems have been yet identified, make them dependant on it and then charge them for it.

[Existenceblinks]

This guy knows how business works. If everybody think hard enough, software is not needed in lots of situation. The market is all about forced solution, probably plus some network effect, social value yada yada that keep it alive.

[arcturus17]

> If everybody think hard enough, software is not needed in lots of situation

Yea, if you think hard enough, you can have communications sent by horse, instead of by electronic mail.

[Existenceblinks]

No, your example is daily infrastructure people already have. Maybe I say it too broad, there is layer of tool. You only need a few of them.

[arcturus17]

> your example is daily infrastructure people already have

Of daily infrastructure people already have, because someone dared turn it into software?

> You only need a few of them.

I guess we can keep email, but we should strip all the software layer from waste management plants, or the archiving systems of national libraries and museums, or the operating systems that support the browsers we're typing this from, or the avionics from passenger planes, or whatever you decide is the right number of software applications.

[arcturus17]

> You don't get paid for solving the problem, you get paid for transforming the problem using software such that people become dependant on software to "solve" it

Yes, the entire software industry is akin to crack dealers.