Re: [LINK] Mozilla Foundation lays off 30% staff, drops advocacy division

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

Wolfgang Agnes <wagnes@jemoni.to> wrote:

Same here.  I view the situation as a major sign of failure.  It seems
the whole world is on the same boat, though.  I don't know of any
company that has not bought into all this nonsense---they may exist (and
I hope they do), but surely I don't know the routine of every company
out there.  ``Software engineering'' in the universities are also going
in the same direction.  In fact, one thing I observe in the universities
is that the academics in ``software engineering'' are actually the
manager-types who are not (at the same time) programmers, which is a
terrible sign.  I hope I'm not offending anyone, but it's really how I
think.

>
Academics (as in the people called 'Professor') are actually doing day to
day management of X number of students/postdocs/etc, as well as writing
grants, writing papers, teaching, admin, etc.  Which doesn't leave a lot of
time for programming.  It's the students/postdocs/etc who are actually doing
the programming, so the professor is at best at one remove.  They may have
been programmers in the recent/distant past, but eventually all that extra
stuff crowds out the programming.

They don't really like to do the programming.  If they did, they
wouldn't leave it all up to students.

  [T]he impact of this new approach on my own style has been
  profound, and my excitement has continued unabated for more than two
  years.  I enjoy the new methodology so much that it is hard for me
  to refrain from going back to every program that I've ever written
  and recasting it in `literate' form.  I find myself unable to resist
  working on programming tasks that I would ordinarily have assigned
  to student research assistants; and why?  Because it seems to me
  that at last I'm able to write programs as they should be written.
  My programs are not only explained better than ever before; they
  also are better programs, because the new methodology encourages me
  to do a better job.

  --- Donald Knuth, ``Literate programming.''
  The Computer Journal 27.2, 1984: páginas 97--111.

We also live a certain overconfidence in science.  There are very few
scientists doing relevant work, but there's a widespread belief that
science (and technology) will always solve everything---it's always just
a matter of time; someone will figure it out.  Ask people and you will
see---almost nobody understands anything about quantum computing or
artificial intelligence, but nearly everyone thinks that it's a matter
of a short time and all the quantum computing will be here for the next
revolution.  And I need say nothing about artificial intelligence
because everyone is well-aware about the all the hype.

>
I think that's 'tech', not 'science'.  'Science' is the study of the world -
I don't think we're overconfident about gravity, but techbros may be
overconfident about quantum computing.  They certainly are about AI.

Precisely.

On the other hand, though, I totally understand the fears: academics are
fearful of not having anything to say and managers either invent
something whatever or they have a nervous breakdown out of fear of
losing their jobs.  And some really do.  They have a deep sense of
incapacity: it seems they never find a way to put their lives to good
use.  It's a very sorry situation.

>
I think it's the problem a lot of organisations have that once you get
into the higher tiers you get further away from actually doing stuff, and
perhaps lose touch with how it is done.

That's one way to look at it.  What I really see is that people get
tired.  They lose health---feel tired---, blame it on the age---``we're
getting old''---and so on.  Programming is a heavy activity.  If we
don't stay healthy, we'll lose the energy necessary to tackle it.