My former company had the brilliant idea to outsource native app development to india. This was mabye 2015 in germany and they tried to roll out the app for several years. There were severe communication and quality problems. Our company wasted massive time on it, until they finally added a single native app dev and we started making progress. We already had like 30 people in tech department and adding a single position was a fucking joke on the payroll.

Any manager that thinks he can beat the value of a single dev with a random ass sweatshop from india is delusional. The cultural difference is massive, quality and work ethics as well. It's a high friction job for a manager. Well at least if you expect a bit of quality and timeliness.

(Sorry for all indians that do a good job, it's just the sweatshop/agency remote software dev culture simply doesn't work. Even a european sweatshop usually delivers worse quality then inhouse devs.)

I’ve worked with great engineers from India/Pakistan. I didn’t hire them, so don’t know too much about the process of how to find them but they were definitely as good as anyone I’ve seen in Europe.

I disagree with most of the article, but your response to that quote is quite a lot. "Purist" doesn't say much without context, but you imply perfection and to a wider degree excessive escalation of not-good-enough. I don't read that at all from it.

I also see the other side quite a lot. People read tickets half assed, quickly write some code and move on. Their first thought is good enough. Which is usually not.

That mindset was born in the VC startup world. Of course it makes sense to shorten the time of burning money and bringing new features to beat the competition. But that doesn't makes it always justified. The tech world has more and more visible problems with security and quality. Good enough plays a part in it.

  > I don't read that at all from it.

That's totally fair. I was contemplating that myself but the fact that they specifically mentioned their manager saying it combined with how the article focuses on being detail oriented (defending that behavior (something I agree with, but needs context)) I felt the inference was justified. But hard to tell without the OP coming in.

  > I also see the other side quite a lot.

This bugs me A TON. But it also feels like these are the ones using these clichés.

From my personal experience, my first thought is always shit. I really internalize the non-existence of perfection. It is equivalent to "I'm always wrong." I find this helps because I no longer think "am I right or am I wrong" but "how wrong am I?". I tend to think this also makes me more agreeable, as I'm open to changing my mind (I'll often explicitly state what will do that). If you want to be "right" and you know you're always some amount of wrong, it becomes natural to do that and it is hard to have your ego hurt when someone points out an error in your logic. They likely just helped you find an unknown unknown :)

  > That mindset was born in the VC startup world.

I think I see what you're saying. Are you referring to 'The Silicon Valley model': "run at a loss, corner the market, then raise prices with your (near or effective) monopoly power"? Setting aside that this feels like metric hacking the economy, I do agree that it incentivizes myopic thinking. "Move fast and break things" is a great strategy when working on tough problems and you're just starting. But it is also a terrible strategy when established. I mean... you just broke a bunch of things and the garbage is laying around all over the place, right? We need the addendum "then clean up, everybody do their share." If this is what you're talking about, I'm in full agreement.

The myopia makes sense for startups, you shouldn't prioritize long term business strategies when you're worrying about your business existing next week. But the momentum of that strategy persisting in established businesses is definitely detrimental. I mean that's one of the biggest downfalls of monopolies. You can make shittier and shittier products because the fewer competitors you have the lower the bar is for "good enough."

I won't be surprised if we see these established players be disrupted. It's pretty hard to do so, but every day average people are getting fed up with the enshitification. It is entirely their battle to lose. I mean we're seeing a big uptick in linux users. As a long time daily driver, I do think linux has gotten better, but I still think the major factor is people just getting pissed at Microsoft. I mean if you're going to be constantly fighting your computer might as well do it on a system that actually lets you control it and doesn't randomly revert your settings, right?

The article glorifies neurodiversity as an wanted trait, which is perfectly suited to build perfect software. There are no downsides, you just have to sooth neurodivergent people somehow with some dim cozy lighting and silence.

I wish some programmers would be more stubborn exploring a problem space. But being randomly obsessed about a detail can also be a distraction. Loosing track of time during an obsessed phase isn't always helpful. All this is also often a easy way to ignore responsibilities of life.

I suggest that all nerodivergent peers go on high alert if they encounter business people and wanna be hustlers that pretend to care.

You are right, an obsessive personality can obsses over perfecting the wrong solution.

Where do you live?

Reality check for those who dream to be off the grid, while still benefiting from the grid they despise.

LinkedIn? I think LinkedIn is the only platform that demands a specific style that is completely alien to the internet.

I wanted to read about their AphyOS operating system, but it seems that information about it is also quite minimal. So I assume an modified stock android, with their services bolted on.

This comment is an excellent example of low quality content. It's all wrong and hallucinated to point out a conflict between things that do not exist. An AI can generate this crap, but only if you ask it the wrong way.

Maybe publishing on HN should have a cost.

Bezos was at least controversial to some when he was amazon CEO, now he started spending his fortunes and looks like a complete douche.

A touch of humbleness creates sympathy with people that cope with reality.

I think moralism is an side effect of the demise of spiritualism in the west. We somehow have to shape moral values, the lack of a framework for it makes it feel blunt and chaotic.

That being said, I find it odd to moralize on moralism. We have way too many people in power that are awful humans and do a bad job and never get punished.

Meanwhile, stealing a car because you are hungry can be the begin of a ruined life.

There is no balance.

(This isn't about buffet, idc, just about your interwoven opinion.)

The point is that moralism makes everyone blind and see in black and white.

Instead of seeing the nuance, you’d see everything that comes out of Elon Musk or Israel whoever you’ve managed to convince yourself is that current villain, as bad - without attention to details. More than that - you’d waste your time arguing whether they are “good” or “bad”, instead of focusing on specific actions, which is what society as a whole seems to enjoy seem to gravitate towards, and what increases polarization and reduce proper discourse.

I have a huge problem with your use of "moralism" as a term. For me it appears to be used pejoratively as an act to weaken the concept of morals at large. (Which isn't your invention but something you probably picked up.)

We made a machine that is driven by emotions and rewards short and exaggerated interactions. On the surface it's black and white, but in each such situations there is also nuanced discussions and people that reflect things. I often also carry such moral debates to friends, I assume others do as well. There is at least a portion of nuance. Saying it's always black and white, is black and white thinking itself.

What I would agree with is that groupthink is a problem. People choose sides depending on who or which group said it. Also virtue signalling, as it's often just (unconscious) reputation management and hinders progress.

It's pretty strange to see "whoever you've convinced yourself is the current villain" next to, you know, actual villains. Who do you think qualifies to be an actual villain, if they don't?

You are clearly describing "villainizing" people or groups. This is actually the opposite of moralism, which would be criticizing specific violations of morals.

Moralism can make people see things without nuance (i.e. saying "stealing is bad" with no regard for the context). This must be tempered. But this is not a good reason to throw out the pursuit of shared moral values within society.

> And what makes you think that you (or any other human) are somehow morally superior and would do a better job if subject to the same environment and pressures?

Morals are necessary for humans to live together. We all shape them, we are all entitled to do so, they are inevitable. We encode morals into laws if we deem it necessary. But that doesn't originate from an individual in a functioning democracy. It's a process, not a individual decision. Each individual can decide to stand for it's own morals. A large public backlash is a sign that you acted against public morals, you don't have to agree, but you have to deal with it. That's how a society works if everyone is free to speak and has a tiny bit of power.

> Sure, but the overwhelming majority of people who steal cars are not starving. And thinking that being poor makes someone morally superior is simply an argumentum ad lazarum, one of the oldest logical fallacies going back to biblical times.

I didn't mean any of that, I don't even know how you come up with that conclusion. My example simply expresses that a simple act of theft can ruin a persons life, while powerful people cause much more damage and get away with it.

(opinion) current "democratic" systems structurally have a tendency to put the worse people at the top (amoral/immoral/corrupt etc.). with that assertion, swapping to random people would probably prove an improvement.

Yes, we seem to lack the framework and vocabulary to discuss morality anymore. You may be right that this is tied to the demise of spiritualism (or perhaps organized religion).