[saschajustin]

Good lord!

Don't confuse envy with hatred. I don't hate old people, I envy them! I envy Wedge Martin who got into tech in a time when it was professionally acceptable and viable to drill down into details. I envy a time when you could have a career based on fundamentals rather than buzzwords and rapidly learning frameworks.

I have tremendous respect for greybeard, which is precisely why I recognize that greybears are NOT all the same.

There are different kinds of greybeards. There is especially a wide gulf between the greybeards that have POWER and INFLUENCE and the ones that have been SIDELINED by other greybeards.

The field is not run by the young. The young dance to the tune of money and expertise. But not all greybeards are allowed into the club of influence.

The ageism is not something that is pushed by 20-somethings. it is pushed by employers and those holding the purse-strings. The employers also pull the strings of the teachers, like my computer science professors (greybeards) who taught us that we should not worry about peeking into the black box. Who taught me the waterfall method. Who taught me the agile method too. Who taught me everything I know.

Powerful and influential greybeards (money & position) taught me everything I know. Other greybeards then get mad at me when they don't like what I was taught.

>If you don't like the way you perceive the game being played, then you are completely free to change the rules of the game.

This is just absurd. No one is free to change the rules of the game, or those rules wouldn't be rules.

The rules of this game are set down by those with the most power. A small handful of elite tech winners at the top of industry, academia, and finance.

C'est la vie

[typicalrunt]

There's a fable, "The Scorpion and the Frog" [1] wherein the moral is (copied from Wikipedia):

The fable is used to illustrate the position that no change can be made in the behavior of the fundamentally vicious.

My point about changing the rules of the game is that if the oppressors are not changing because they have all the power, then don't try to change the oppressors. Instead, find a way to remove yourself from the rules that they created. After all, rules are just constructs and can be changed by anyone.

If enough people stopped allowing employers to push 60-hour work weeks on programmers [2], then we might start to see some change. The way that I stopped employers from abusing my time was to first admit that it was myself that was allowing it to be abused, and then to say no and instead show them what I could accomplish in 8 hours (or 40 hours per week). If an employer violated my rules, I left. That's my rule. It may mean that I miss out on some opportunities, but there are so many more opportunities for people out there that stick to their principles (within reason) and work with other decent people.

Lastly, I'll be more clear. The overall point I'm making to you in this comment and others is that you need to stop thinking in absolutes. There is too much pent up stress that doesn't need to be there, and your life will be a lot better if you stop feeling like things are things are set in stone (because they're not). This is very cliché to write but this is one of the few things that only age can teach you.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

[2] by quitting, talking to labour relations boards or the government, etc. Or, just saying no. It's a very very powerful word.

[saschajustin]

As a millenial who is very familiar with capitalist exploitation of myself and my peers, I am 100% in favor of unionization, regulation, and association.

It's the boomer and Gen X tech people that I talk to who are the most opposed to unionization, talking about labour relations, etc.

Gen X techies in particular have this strange and incomprehensible hatred for unions.

Anyway I absolutely would like to change the rules of the game through collective action. Doesn't seem like it's in the cards though--the tech industry is under the thumb of a much bigger neoliberal agenda--and the string pullers in tech are either:

1. Billionaires who oppose collective action for obvious selfish reasons

2. Strange Gen X anarchist cyberpunks (or something?) who oppose unionization because they think it's somehow associated with communism and goes against the hacker ethos.

[JoeAltmaier]

How about I speak for my demographic of tech people vs unions? Its not some blind hatred of communism, or an independent ethos. Its a professional being reduced to a dues-paying blue-collar guy. Dues that I don't get to say how they're being spent. Its workplaces where I cant start a build because that's another guy's job. Its payroll padding for guys that don't even work there but used to. Its somebody else negotiating my pay at a startup instead of me.

[logfromblammo]

Try playing a game called "Nomic".

The initial rules of Nomic are such that any game of Nomic can be subsequently remodeled into any other rules-based game. It can also simulate the functioning of real-world political structures.

The one unwritten rule of Nomic that cannot be repealed--the one that makes the game fun to play--is that you can stop playing Nomic.

Real life is not so forgiving. You start playing on the day you are born, and you can't stop until the day you die. The people who make the rules have already changed the rules such that you are not allowed to change or ignore the rules. If you try, other people who still follow those rules can receive bonus points for impeding you for as long as you are in violation of the rules.

That's not strictly true. The public set of rules are set up so that you cannot change or ignore them, but there are also multiple secret sets of rules that can be used to change both the public set of rules and the secret sets of rules. But most of those secret sets of rules have rules that prevent people who know about them from revealing anything about them to those who don't.

You couldn't design a game that sadistic. No one would ever start playing it. But here we are, still taking our turns, trying to figure out how to win.

[logfromblammo]

Try playing a game called "Nomic".

The initial rules of Nomic are such that any game of Nomic can be subsequently remodeled into any other rules-based game. It can also simulate the functioning of real-world political structures.

The one unwritten rule of Nomic that cannot be repealed--the one that makes the game fun to play--is that you can stop playing Nomic.

Real life is not so forgiving. You start playing on the day you are born, and you can't stop until the day you die. The people who make the rules have already changed the rules such that you are not allowed to change or ignore the rules. If you try, other people who still follow those rules can receive bonus points for impeding you for as long as you are in violation of the rules.

That's not strictly true. The public set of rules are set up so that you cannot change or ignore them, but there are also multiple secret sets of rules that can be used to change both the public set of rules and the secret sets of rules. But most of those secret sets of rules have rules that prevent people who know about them from revealing anything about them to those who don't.

You couldn't design a game that sadistic. No one would ever start playing it. But here we are, still taking our turns, trying to figure out how to win.

[logfromblammo]

Try playing a game called "Nomic".

The initial rules of Nomic are such that any game of Nomic can be subsequently remodeled into any other rules-based game. It can also simulate the functioning of real-world political structures.

The one unwritten rule of Nomic that cannot be repealed--the one that makes the game fun to play--is that you can stop playing Nomic.

Real life is not so forgiving. You start playing on the day you are born, and you can't stop until the day you die. The people who make the rules have already changed the rules such that you are not allowed to change or ignore the rules. If you try, other people who still follow those rules can receive bonus points for impeding you for as long as you are in violation of the rules.

That's not strictly true. The public set of rules are set up so that you cannot change or ignore them, but there are also multiple secret sets of rules that can be used to change both the public set of rules and the secret sets of rules. But most of those secret sets of rules have rules that prevent people who know about them from revealing anything about them to those who don't.

You couldn't design a game that sadistic. No one would ever start playing it. But here we are, still taking our turns, trying to figure out how to win.

[logfromblammo]

Try playing a game called "Nomic".

The initial rules of Nomic are such that any game of Nomic can be subsequently remodeled into any other rules-based game. It can also simulate the functioning of real-world political structures.

The one unwritten rule of Nomic that cannot be repealed--the one that makes the game fun to play--is that you can stop playing Nomic.

Real life is not so forgiving. You start playing on the day you are born, and you can't stop until the day you die. The people who make the rules have already changed the rules such that you are not allowed to change or ignore the rules. If you try, other people who still follow those rules can receive bonus points for impeding you for as long as you are in violation of the rules.

That's not strictly true. The public set of rules are set up so that you cannot change or ignore them, but there are also multiple secret sets of rules that can be used to change both the public set of rules and the secret sets of rules. But most of those secret sets of rules have rules that prevent people who know about them from revealing anything about them to those who don't.

You couldn't design a game that sadistic. No one would ever start playing it. But here we are, still taking our turns, trying to figure out how to win.