Upon further reading, I conclude that he is based

A frequent objection to workplace change comes in the form of a pandering explanation of what companies are for, that corporations are legally obligated to always proceed along the the most profitable path.

I always find it extraordinarily ignorant to hear this parroted by people in tech: it’s literally part of the CS canon to learn about the limitations of hill-climbing as an optimization strategy. But on the other hand, I do understand; the power of just-so neoliberal narrative is immense, filling your mind with pat explanations, cooling off your brain into a poorly annealed solid mass.

The funny thing about corporate determinism that it’s not even true. Folks who say this have rarely run companies, otherwise they should know better. Loads of corporate decisions are made with a most tenuous link on profitability, and some that probably even go against the profit interest. It’s always easy to go in a known-profitable direction, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only way to go, nor that all the profitable directions are known.

Oh snapp

Andy Wingo’s Blog

OK here it is: just pay everyone in a company the same hourly wage.

reading his blog

Quote from his blog

Then, with luck, you meet the world: you build, you organize, you invest, you double down. And in that doubling, the ideas waver, tremble, resonate, imperceptibly at first, reinforced in some ways, impeded in others. The world works in specific ways, too, and you don’t really know them in the beginning: not in the bones, anyway. The unknowns become known, enumerate themselves, dragons everywhere; and in the end, what can you say about them? Do you stand in a spot that can see anything at all? Report, observe, yes; analyze, maybe, eventually; prophesize, never. Not any more.

And then, years later, you are still here. The things you see, the things you know, other people don’t: they can’t. They weren’t here. They aren’t here. They hear (and retell) stories, back-stories, back-back-stories, a whole cinematic universe of narrative, and you know that it’s powerful and generative and yet unhinged, essentially unmoored and distinct from reality, right and even righteous in some ways, but wrong in others. This happen in all domains: macroeconomics, programming languages, landscape design, whatever. But you see. You see through stories, their construction and relation to the past, on a meta level, in a way that was not apparent when you were young.

I tell this story (everything is story) as an inexorable progression, a Hegelian triptych of thesis-antithesis-synthesis; a conceit. But there are structures that can to get you to synthesis more efficiently. PhD programs try: they break you down to allow you to build. They do it too quickly, perhaps; you probably have to do it again in your next phase, academia or industry, though I imagine it’s easier the second time around. Some corporate hierarchies also manage to do this, in which when you become Staff Engineer, you become the prophet.