[ChrisMarshallNY]

> They take whatever job pays and spend decades fighting upstream.

I suspect that this affects a lot of folks in tech. There's a lot of money to be made, so people get into it. They don't really like what they do, so it's always a chore. Their work often shows it, too.

I'm retired. I don't have to write software, but I spend more time writing software (for free), than I did, for most of my career.

I like the Integrity part, too. That seems to be something that's missing (from most vocations), these days. One of the reasons that I stuck with my last job for so long, was because the people I worked with, and for, had Integrity, and that's pretty important to me.

[steve_adams_86]

> and that's pretty important to me

The older I get, the more I realize what a critical component of personal and social relationships it is, and how deeply it reinforces virtually everything good in society. There's never a good reason to forgo it, and never a good reason to accept spending time with people who don't have it. It only leads to trouble.

I started my career in ad tech and it was often such abject misery because of this. I couldn't put my finger on it at the time, but a large part of the problem was working with people who had very little integrity. They were great at masking it and presenting a different persona, but ultimately, we did bad things to people and made filthy money. I don't miss anything about it.

[neilv]

Like you, I've found that working with people of integrity (or some qualities closely related to that) is very important to me.

Not in a "new-grad or corporate PR appropriating meaningless platitudes" kind of way. But in a "I have seen multiple times how one untrustworthy person can easily wreck all the work of a team or organization, and make their lives miserable, so averting that is a high priority" kind of way.

Lately, in business context, I tend to characterize what I seek from people as "alignment". I think that many (not all) business people are still willing to buy in on that.

And it will just have to be a given that the company and team goals with which people are aligned are respectable.

What seems to be getting more difficult in the last few years is finding companies with respectable goals. Of course you knew to avoid any company in crypto. But now, with with a new VC gold rush of AI (often involving the same people who were happy to run crypto scams), there aren't a lot of startups that look respectable.

Not all AI companies, nor all companies doing AI, are bad. But how do you find a respectable one, in a gold rush?

[MrDarcy]

> But how do you find a respectable one, in a gold rush?

Look for those who are trying to serve established respectable professions, ideally have already done so for many years or decades. Accounting, Legal, Healthcare, Journalism (in the ideal sense).

Then look at their own mission. Then look at their own work. Do they show their work? Are they open? Do they willingly allow their customers to audit their work product? Does how they talk about their work match the work product itself? Does the thing do what it says on the tin? Are they hypocrites with respect to those they serve or those they manage?

These are my strategies and I’ve found they lead to working almost exclusively with people who have high Integrity.

[HexPhantom]

I especially like "do they show their work?" In a gold rush, obscurity is often part of the business model: vague claims, unverifiable demos, hand-wavy benchmarks, carefully managed customer stories. Companies serving serious professions eventually have to deal with people who ask boring, concrete questions and expect boring, concrete answers

[underlipton]

>established respectable professions

>Accounting, Legal, Healthcare, Journalism

In America, in 2026, this is a particularly dark joke.

[MrDarcy]

I think this is the comment that drives me off this site permanently. It’s been a good decade and a half.

[LeanOnSheena]

I am CPA, former auditor, and a self-taught programmer. I am in a director level finance & technology role at an American, private-equity backed portfolio SaaS company. I have worked with all kinds of finance professionals.

I studied accounting in part because my father was an engineer at a public company that was rocked by an accounting scandal. It impacted my family in many ways for years and left deep impressions on me during my formative years.

There are many CPAs who believe strongly that part of their job is protecting the public interest. I have seen more than a handful go to the mat for things that were highly principled. Sometimes they did so knowing that they were risking their job / career / reputation. It's not a patient dying on the table sure, but I know many who take enormous pride in their responsibilities as accountants. I have seen lots of CPAs standing up for what is right, and I have watched executive teams yield to them almost as often.

It's easy to get cynical, but there's lots of good ones out there.

[esseph]

Why?

[jgalt212]

A lot of America's current problems can be pinned on journalism no longer being a prestige career.

[kaladin-jasnah]

As a new grad, I think a lot of the companies that have respectable goals to me only hire at the senior level. So what am I supposed to do, go do something I deeply disagree with for a few years so I can eventually work on something respectable?

[SoftTalker]

Yes, if that's the viable path. The world isn't a perfect place, and you still need to eat.

Also, you can do your own job with personal integrity regardless of what others are doing.

[kaladin-jasnah]

To be fair, I have done things I don't really agree with in the past morally and I couldn't really stand myself or grow as a technologist. The lack of morality in what I did made me work slowly and poorly. So it makes things hard.

[neilv]

Congrats on graduating.

Like everyone else at the moment, you're living in interesting times.

AFAIK, there are not enough respectable companies for even the senior engineers.

(And you may have already noticed that a lot of companies are run by people who make a half-hearted effort to drape the company with positive PR language. But they'll soon hint at their true intentions with their actions. Even in a brand new startup, you can simply look at equity allocation, to see what the founder actually thinks about warm-fuzzy ideas like social equality and valuing others: compare their allocation of wannabe-billionaire founder shares, to the token amount of peanuts in stock options that they think the first hires deserve if the company is successful.)

The good news is that a lot of people are looking for high total compensation, or career stability, as higher priorities than respectability, so... less competition for the respectable jobs.

One idea: make a ranking list of companies based on how respectable you think they are (recognizing that most have downsides), and then see how close to the top of the ranking you should focus your energies. Do a first shot at this ranking early on (and revise over time based on actions, not overtures), and you might check yourself when a company with low respectability ranking approaches you.

When you find a good company, let people know.

[kaladin-jasnah]

Well, the result of my search is that I'm going to join a PhD program instead (and seemingly not doing something that is a brains-for-cheap scheme to optimize Meta's AI accelerators). I also more or less gave up my interest in doing operating systems as a career for now in the process, as it felt like a mountain to build the embedded systems skills I would need to do something that was "good."

[twoWhlsGud]

Look for companies with big fierce customers. This gives you an ally when you go to your boss to try to get the company to do the right thing. I moved from big tech to big manufacturing a couple decades ago, and it's the best move I've ever made, for exactly that reason.

[HexPhantom]

Maybe a respectable company is one where the answer to "what would make this business more profitable but worse for the world?" is not treated as a product roadmap

[crimsontech]

Totally agree, I took a very well paying job with a company doing what I enjoy doing, but the attitude of the company was very much to extract as much money from the clients as possible. We had three hour monthly call where everyone would take turns to explain how they had upsold or otherwise made money for the company that month, someone from each call would get a token award for it.

I hated it, and wrote my resignation during one of these meetings without even having a solid plan of what I would do next.

A company can make money and provide a good service and experience for clients at the same time.

[SoftTalker]

I'm sure it wasn't common, but even in such a company you could "extract as much money from the clients as possible" by delivering as much value as possible. Doing things carefully, solving problems, going a little above and beyond what was expected to the point that your clients were glad to pay your billings.

Also, it's just two sides of a point of view to see something like "upselling" as pressuring clients into buying things they don't need, or making them aware of things they didn't know you could provide.

[alsetmusic]

The older I get, the more I realize what matters to me as well. I worked a FAANG with a long commute. I then worked a job with a short drive (10m morning, 15m afternoon, both via Uber when it was cheap). I now have a 12m walk to and from. The last one is purely luck, as I didn't know it'd be so close when I applied. (None of this omits the importance of working with honest people who have shared values.)

I am focused on the first part of the original line, however:

> pick the work you’re built for, then aim to be the best at it.

When I was ~20 years old, I thought I should avoid working in a job based on computers. I didn't want my hobby / passion to become my work and ruin it. It took several years to realize that I should obviously be in the space because I was good at it. It still took many years to figure out and understand what fine-grained details about the work must exist to do so successfully. I had some misery before finding what I love.

It's easy to have wisdom after experiencing life for a long time. I'm not knocking wisdom or older people who have it (it's hard fought to win it). I'm just lamenting that it's very hard to know these things before you have experience. What I thought would be my dream job was the one I hated the most.

You gotta do it for a while before you can truly understand what and why you love and hate different aspects of a role. Then you extrapolate after multiple variations before you can really apply the knowledge holistically.

I genuinely feel bad for people who get into the space because money. When I joined, it was still all passionate nerds who were excited about what we were doing. Now it feels like the space is full of people who had to pick from "lawyer, doctor, coder," without really wanting to do any of them. I'm one of the luckiest people in the world since I actually wanted to do this and it turned out to be a good career. What a shame for them.

[HexPhantom]

I think that's why integrity matters so much: it removes a whole layer of moral bookkeeping from daily life

[conductr]

The older I get, the more I feel it’s becoming in shorter supply. Even when I don’t like associating with those that seem to lack it, they seem to find me everywhere I go. This is professionally, as a consumer and even just socially. I’m probably just old and grumpy and this is a yearning for the good old days, but, when I look around it just seems to be getting out of control. For example, politics is huge indicator that exemplifies and reinforces the behaviors.

[SoftTalker]

Weekly church attendance is at all-time lows. Nobody I know today goes to church. It was common when I was a child. And I'm not talking about going to save your soul from damnation, but for regular reinforcement of the Golden Rule, and other wisdom on how to live, and belonging to a group of people who care enough about those things to show up for it on a regular basis.

Teaching of right and wrong in school has fallen off. Anything touching on traditional morals risks being conflated with religion, which is kryptonite in the public schools. So now it's much more about how you feel, and excusing bad behavior because of hurt feelings, "disrespect," or some culturally or socially disadvantaged group you might claim to belong to. The soft bigotry of low expectations. We've stopped demanding that people follow the rules. If a kid got in trouble in school, he could probably expect to be in trouble at home too. Now, it's more likely that the parents will call the school and complain.

[jb1991]

I also think a big part of it is that it’s becoming more and more easy to cheat your way through life in many respects. Many people always chase the thing that makes the most money, and they’ll take every shortcut they can to get it. And the tools for cheating your way through life are evolving. Every aspect of the tool chain.

[mplanchard]

I’m not sure whether it used to just be that everyone had to pretend to have integrity, whether they did or not, since the appearance of integrity was something we indexed on pretty heavily as a society.

I definitely agree with you though: it seems like the need/desire to pretend isn’t even there now much of the time, and I suspect that overall this means there is less integrity: some people who were pretending in the past may have “faked it til they made it,” and even if not, it at least faking it would have led to fewer obviously integrity-less actions being committed in the public sphere.

[matheusmoreira]

> we did bad things to people and made filthy money

I blame society. It systematically rewards sociopathic behavior.

I was raised with integrity and honesty as core values. Every single day I am psychologically assaulted by the fact we not only have all these sociopaths running around but also the fact that they are the ones making it.

It makes me wish I was one of them. Maybe one day I'll finally break and start carelessly exploiting others for my own gain.

[steve_adams_86]

From my perspective, they aren’t making it.

It have a sense of relief that I’m content with so much less. Yesterday I made some sourdough bread and it was so gratifying. They cost around 70 cents CAD when you break down the costs for flour, salt, and energy to cook them. When you pull them out of the oven they do this incredible thing where they crackle and pop as they cool, and the rock-hard crust gradually softens. The smell is incredible. The first slices are always this impossible combination of crispy, glass-like crusts with a chewy, pillowy, delicious interior. It’s so good.

I’m in the worst financial condition I’ve been in my life. I earn less than half as much as I used to. Yet I enjoy things like this, I love my job, I can afford to take care of my family, there are countless things I want to do that I can still afford to do. Explore the outdoors, swim, dive, read, fish, spend time with friends.

That stuff is making it. I don’t need to exploit anyone to enjoy those things. In fact, I can make people’s lives better! I can give my neighbours nice bread. I can share fish I catch. I can take someone to an amazing spot I found.

The world doesn’t ask anything of us beyond that. It’s a choice to pursue more, and it’s a choice to pursue more at the expense of others. I really believe that choice comes with a consequence, too. My impression is that people who choose poorly tend to live hollow and discontented lives. I don’t think there are many exceptions, and when there are, these people tend to share a lot of traits with psychopaths. I don’t envy them either.

[yard2010]

Let me ramble about this: in your position you have to pay a moral price to make more money. It's just logical. But it creates a systemic incentives problem, especially when the cost of living is going up, making the price you have to pay relatively lower, or in other words making you can't afford to not pay it.

I hate this kind of people. But some of them simply can't afford not acting this way, more than you do. Instead, people of power, who can and do set the agenda, don't care about it, because again, incentives problem - they won't change the system to one in which they make less money.

Part of this in my opinion is the fact that the western world ideology, the trash can we are all eating from, is simply money.

I wonder what Slavoy Zizek would say about this.

[armchairhacker]

> It makes me wish I was one of them.

Imagine feeling starved no matter how much you have, knowing the vast majority hate you and would gang up on you, so you form close alliances with others who (like you) would mercilessly betray you if they felt it would benefit them.

Society doesn’t reward every sociopath or even most of them. It rewards people who are smart, disciplined, charming, and (in other ways) lucky.

But society is not the true reward granter, the self is. The real winners are those content with what they have.

[matheusmoreira]

I'm a loser then. I'm definitely not content with what I have. I want more. I want to make it.

[cm11]

Integrity is important and missing. I think there's a contradiction in what you're writing though. Recognizing the importance of personal and social relationships is what's keeping the no integrity people around and/or getting them promoted. It's the networking for networking sake as well as the more mundane social lubricating they do in contradiction to integrity. It's disagreeing with discussions, projects, companies, leaders and going along with it and expressing agreement. It's smiling, being "enjoyable to be around", being naive or presenting as naive, and being easy to work with. And more specifically being easy for the many liars and sociopaths to work with. Caring for personal and social relationships is not inherently reinforcing of all that is good. I wouldn't know how to count, but I feel there's quite a bit of it reinforcing the bad.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

There's a difference between "networking," and "having a relationship."

I worked for a Japanese company, for a long time, and the Japanese were really big on personal relationships.

They weren't necessarily "warm and fuzzy" ones, but they were based on mutual respect and shared interests. I worked with many folks for decades, and we got to know each other well. We didn't always like each other, but we respected and supported each other.

Personal Integrity isn't something that can be faked. If you are in the kind of relationship I just described, fake integrity will be exposed fairly soon.

[cm11]

Yes, integrity is important no argument. I also agree it distinguishes "networking" and "having a relationship." I do think it can be faked though and I think we see plenty of that.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

> I do think it can be faked though

That's because of the business culture we have here.

One of the more amusing things, while I worked there, was watching Americans thinking they had the Japanese fooled.

[solenoid0937]

The funny thing is once I started working on what I actually cared about, my performance ratings went from average to amongst the highest in my org, and while I work a lot more now, I get a real sense of accomplishment at the end of day, and I'm a lot happier. (I always thought this was a cliche until I experienced it)

People around you can "smell" your passion and sometimes it energizes your team. It makes people around you give more of a damn.

You really just have to find something you care about. This is especially easy at the big tech companies, but for some reason, most engineers don't even think about it - they get stuck in this miserable loop of stress and hating their work.

[a123b456c]

It's nice if you find something you previously care about. But it can go the other way too-- you can care more about what you work on. You can focus on the reasons it is good, or efficient, or honest, or solves real problems, or whatever other metavalue motivates you to care more.

[crimsontech]

Same thing happened to me and I feel very blessed to get paid to do work that I would do for free as a hobby.

> People around you can "smell" your passion and sometimes it energizes your team as well.

When hiring I always look for this, if someone is passionate about the work it often means they will put the effort in to be good at it, and it raises the team in a lot of ways.

[UncleOxidant]

> I'm retired. I don't have to write software, but I spend more time writing software (for free), than I did, for most of my career.

Same. Claude/Gemini/DeepSeekV4/Qwen3.6 are enabling me to do way more experimentation than I could do on my own. 10X at least. Not getting paid for any of it, but that's OK, getting paid imposes limitations on what you can work on and imposes responsibilities that I don't care to have anymore. There's a certain kind of integrity in that as well.

[draftsman]

Do you find joy in using LLMs to write software? I tried using Claude/Cursor/CodeX/etc. for personal projects and experimentation, and I found no joy in it. I learned nothing, and when my MVPs were complete, I only had a shallow understanding of how the code that powered them worked.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

I do, but I also use LLMs in a manner that seems drastically different, from most folks here.

I use the standard $20/ChatGPT Pro sub, and run Thinking 5.5 as a chat interface.

I use it like a "trusted personal advisor," as opposed to a "black box employee."

I'm intimately involved in almost every step of the development process. Most of what I ask from the LLM, is function-length snippets.

It's made a huge difference in the velocity and scope of my work.

I have learned that I need to be very careful, though. The LLM sometimes really borks things, and I have to rip out the garbage, and rewrite the code, myself. I can't even imagine the quality of "vibe-coded" software.

[voidfunc]

I like building stuff. I don't care about the code. I convinced myself over 20 years that I liked coding to get myself through the drudgery of corporate work but the reality is the building was the important thing to me. I'm able to build things quickly with AI.

[lelanthran]

> I like building stuff. I don't care about the code.

Sounds like you like having stuff, not building stuff.

[SoftTalker]

It's all a matter of what you have added.

A carpenter can build a house with commercially produced dimensional lumber without having to harvest the trees, cut them into boards of standard dimensions, kiln-dry it, and transport it to the building site. We still say he "built" the house.

At some point, though, it's fair to ask "what did I add?"

If you are directing other people (or maybe robots, someday) to do the actual building, you can't really claim to have "built a house" even though it all happened under your direction.

I guess bottom line for me to feel I had a real part in "building" a thing would be whether I added anything I am specifically qualified or skilled at doing, or did I do what anyone could have done?

[triprjt]

i think he meant having stuff that he brought to life

[coliveira]

But he didn't, it was given to him by AI.

[didgetmaster]

I guess some people only enjoy the destination and don't care how they got there. These people seem to enjoy AI more than the people who want to enjoy the journey along the way.

[skinfaxi]

I'm curious of the places you've found joy while writing software traditionally. For me, it has been in reasoning about the system, debugging issues, and discovering what works. The iterative process of eventually coming to a more complete understanding, as you stand on and build off of your prior understanding.

All of those elements are present for me while using AI to augment my output. I have started using voice to interact with my coding harness though and I think that has maybe influenced my opinion. I also don't let things go fully autonomously and look at the diffs along the way.

[roncesvalles]

Depends on how you use them. I'm a detail-obsessed perfectionist. I believe these qualities are what have enabled me to produce better software than most people. I use LLMs the way I can without violating these principles.

[UncleOxidant]

LLMs have gotten so good at coding I often find it exhilarating. I'm mostly doing experiments in accelerating machine learning in hardware. I can do way more experiments now. As an example: Just this afternoon working with claude to experiment with using a GA to learn a non-uniform 1D CA rules to calculate the popcount function where the GA is running in an FPGA to speed it up. It's non-uniform in that each cell gets it's own 8-bit rule.

[qingcharles]

Absolute joy. It took away all the grind from programming and left only the good bits. For me, at least.

[NortySpock]

I asked the LLM to explain, rephrase, or rewrite things until I was happy. Some examples :

I asked for examples of how the algorithm worked. I asked for examples of how to call the code. I asked for a happy-path unit test and a simple error-handling unit test. I asked it to rewrite something as a pure function. I pointed out an obvious race condition and told it to guard against that issue. I asked it to rewrite a function in the style of this other function. I told it to separate one function into two separate functions that handle the first step and the second step separately.

Etc etc.

If you don't understand it, ask for more or better comments, or better variable names, or cut down the scope into a smaller section, or more examples.

Edit: also I almost entirely leave the LLM in read only mode... I tell it to make the smallest change possible, and tell it I will only copy paste it in its proposed change when I understand the change and where it needs to be made. That way it's my hands on the keyboard, interacting with the code by making recommended changes... 80% of the code is touched by me (via copy-paste) most-of-the-way before I will 'git commit'.

Sure, there was one recursive folder descent function that found the most recent file modification time that I didn't fully understand, but it's self-contained in a function, I don't care to learn every corner of file modification times, and it appears to work, so I left it as is for my static site generator.

[an0malous]

This is conflated by the fact that most people start to enjoy things that give them a lot of money and prestige. Otherwise everyone would be in playing sports and making art, the things kids do before they care about money and prestige

[galangalalgol]

I started programming at 5, making it do what I wanted it to provided dopamine. I never found a sport I enjoyed. I do like painting though. I doubt very many people get into sanitation because they love making toilets clean, but even there I'm sure a few do. Before 2000 I think it was pretty normal for people to select software as a career without considering the compensation as a factor. It wasn't excessively better than other similar choices for one.

[KellyCriterion]

> Before 2000

The salary expectations exploded when the VC/PE-bobos went into the space and started "build-and-sell-high".

Sure there were Billionairs made before tech & internet, but public was not aware of most such transactions.

[galangalalgol]

And that never changed salaries nearly as much in games, embedded, or outside the us. I never worked in any software position adjacent to the online economy, so I never saw any of those wacky salaries.

[KellyCriterion]

> to the online economy, so I n

that term is great, thanks! because: Outside of the "online community", a SWE salary is just a normal salary, all these superhigh salaries only came around the corner when it started to be about "international!" and "global scale!" and "disruption!" (of course LOL) and other things like these.

In the 90s, a "SWE" was just a normal employee doing some IT dev stuf & co, but after DotCom-boom SWE et. al. became the heroes, esp. for scaling and selling companies quickly because they had their MBA-colleagues in mind :-D

[galangalalgol]

Yeah, I work in dsp and embedded typically. If you hit principal or fellow you aren't leaving that much on the table vs anything but a faang, but there is a mid career point where you are making half what you could elsewhere. I don't fully understand the dynamics that resulted in those salaries.

[KellyCriterion]

And to add: Over here in Europe, salaries in gaming & entertainment are amongst the lowest in "software & IT & tech"; sure there are some/few developers who make really good money, but its far off from these crazy salaries in US & co: In EU, it will be very hard to make more than 150.000 EUR before tax in a game studio, unless you are the boss/founder.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

I think they enjoy the money and prestige; not the work, itself.

I get a real joy out of developing software. I have, for all my adult life. The fact that it paid well, was gravy.

I do feel that I was incredibly fortunate to have landed into a field that I already loved. I guess that my loving it, made me much better at it.

Of course, there were lots of "friction points," along the way. Working for myself, in retirement, has removed all of them. The one thing that I miss, is working in a team.

[xg15]

Yeah, maybe a test could be: How much do you enjoy the time actually working on something vs the time going home and enjoying the things your wage enables you to have.

Or as the sibling comment said, do you enjoy the vocation or the vacation more?

(Everything in moderation of course: Even the most interesting and meaningful project will turn into drudgery to some degree, simply due to the amounts of time involved. Also we're in the attention economy, so there are lots of things specifically designed to feel more rewarding in the short term than to work on a long-term project. Maybe the difference is how much meaning and reward there still stays besides the day-to-day drudgery)

[didgetmaster]

I don't think he meant that you should enjoy your vocation more than your vacation. But life is very different if you actually enjoy going to work each day, rather than dreading it.

[Aurornis]

It’s everywhere in tech. Ever since tech became known as the place to be for high paying jobs without requiring too much education or working hours, compared to traditional routes like doctor or lawyer.

The better places to work have some ability to filter it out. Not perfectly, but enough to make it hard to be there if your goal is to max your paychecks while minimizing and/or hating your work.

[mlsu]

What blows my mind is how little people seem to care about integrity. For how little they are willing to throw it away.

[xg15]

I think this even affects people who do see their vocation in tech. The field has become so vast with many subfields that you can easily find yourself in a different subfield than the one you were originally interested in - probably even more so when everyone and everything is pulled towards AI.

[weinzierl]

This is from 1880 and reminds me of something Dostoyevsky had written 14 years before. His quip in The Gambler was even more extreme because he spoke about working hard and saving every penny for generations with the subtext being that it makes everyone miserable.

[HexPhantom]

I think that's a good distinction: not everyone in tech has to be "passionate" in the romantic sense, but it's hard to do good work for years if you actively dislike the underlying activity

[paulpauper]

Given how much these jobs pay, this is not necessarily a bad thing.

[rfc3092]

> I'm retired.

I am not. And I am really wary of retirees giving advice on skipping the grind, enjoy life and choose a warm feeling job. I don’t have a house and if next round of layoffs hits, it is a ticking clock for my family. I’ll take extra bucks please.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

It’s interesting that recounting personal experience is considered “giving advice.”

BTW: I’m not retired by choice. I just found out -the hard way- that a significant portion of today’s tech workforce doesn’t want to work with people with gray hair. It’s a possibility that this could be a shared experience. We all get old, at some point.

I’m extremely grateful to advice I was given, decades ago, about the importance of saving and investing for retirement.