I think our history books do a disservice when they teach McCarthyism by focusing only on the falsely accused-- many Americans really did support the USSR and some even swore an oath to Stallin. The lesson should be that it was still a mistake to take civil liberties away from these people who passionately supported a horrible cause, not that McCarthyists were just bad prosecutors who arrested the wrong people.
I believe Trump supporters, especially the QAnon weirdos, are wrong to believe the things that they do, but they are less wrong than the people who supported the Soviet Union during its genocidal reign. Unless people are charged and convicted of a crime, their livelihoods should not be taken away by the whims of these powerful companies selectively enforcing their rules. McCarthyism was wrong then and it's wrong now, even though its targets are wrong too.
Hollywood is a private business as well. They were within their rights to make a blacklist. And people cheered on big business for protecting them and snitched on their friends to their employers, just like they're doing now
>Hollywood is a private business as well. They were within their rights to make a blacklist. And people cheered on big business for protecting them and snitched on their friends to their employers, just like they're doing now
I'm not seeing the parallel to Stripe choosing who they want (or don't want) to do business with.
Especially since there is no "blacklist" circulated and used by everyone in that industry.
Stripe doesn't owe anyone the right to use their services. Just as an airline can bar anyone for most any reason (unless that reason is membership in a protected class[0]), Stripe can do the same.
when did I say Stripe didn't have the legal right to do this? I used the Hollywood blacklist as a parallel precisely because it too was a legal enforcement of political speech by a big consolidated industry that had the power to end peoples' careers
All the Hollywood studios (a bunch of different entities) conspired with each other not to hire those people.
Stripe is a single entity and isn't (AFAIK) working with others on the payment processing industry to block a specific set of people/groups.
And it's protected (and IMHO, should be) because it's a political organization -- Stripe has the right (as do you or I) to choose whether or not they wish to support (verbally, financially or through other material methods) any particular political party, policy position or candidate.
Let's say that you own a business that makes t-shirts. And you strongly support candidate X. Should you be required to make t-shirts for candidate Y (candidate X's opponent)?
And if you chose not to make t-shirts for candidate Y, is that morally wrong?
you are being intentionally obtuse. there is obviously a difference between a t shirt vendor and 1/2 of a duopoly on online payments. the other of which also (coincidentally in your view) took the same measures to restrict people from using their services at the exact same time with no realistic alternative
good luck starting an eccommerce business where everyone has to write you a money order. oh and you can't use amazon, ebay, or shopify either
you don't really believe what you're saying do you? that's like telling blacklisted hollywood writers and actors that they can make their own plays in their backyards
But we're not talking about an e-commerce business are we?
We're talking about a candidate's campaign fundraising operation. Which is odd in and of itself, because as far as I know that candidate isn't actually running for any office.
You've moved the goalposts far enough, haven't you?
> are you under the impression that the hollywood studios published an actual blacklist and openly admitted to collusion?
Neither publication not open admission are necessary for a combination in restraint of trade to be illegal, and you'd usually want to avoid them since they make it much easier to prove.
yes but practically big businesses can get away with these types of things without much fuss. even in the case where Apple and Google were caught wage-fixing, and there were emails from the CEOs blatantly colluding to prove it, all they got was a slap on the wrist. So it's effectively legal in my view
The QAnon folks are no less irrational than any other (pseudo-)religious devotees and should be afforded the same protections under the first amendment.
This is like the millionth time this has been posted on this website in the past few days, but the first amendment applies to the government, not private companies.
The first amendment applies to corporations when they use the state to enforce their speech over someone else's. The actual case history surrounding first amendment rights is way more complicated than you're implying. There are situations where the government can restrict your first amendment rights; there are situations where you can have your first amendment rights violated by a company — and seek restitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Can you give me an example of something that has happened recently in regards to QAnon where their first amendment rights may have been violated?
the poster you are replying to seems to be arguing that Qanon people should be a protected class under the civil rights act because it's a hokey pseudo religion with prophecies, shamans, and everything. That absolutely does apply to private companies. I don't really know what to make of that as I am not a lawyer, but I'm not making a legal argument but a moral one.
Internet businesses are natural monopolies and being banned from one can ruin your life without trial in a way that was unprecedented for private companies to be able to do in the past. In the near future somebody who is banned from both Paypal and Stripe will be close to being perpetually unbanked in some lines of work. The way progressives have cheered on giving tech companies this much power over our lives has been dispiriting
>Internet businesses are natural monopolies and being banned from one can ruin your life without trial in a way that was unprecedented for private companies to be able to do in the past.
What solution do you propose? Take away the right of association from one group of people to enable another group?
That seems strange to me. If you allow the government to create a precedent where you can restrict the rights of anyone, then you can restrict the rights of everyone.
What you are saying is word for word the libertarian argument against the civil rights act ("if we have to bake a cake for gay weddings, what if wants a cake for their child bride!"). I happen to disagree with it as it applies in the real world
This argument seems to intentionally ignore that the conservative-led decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled in favor of the bakery.
>What you are saying is word for word the libertarian argument against the civil rights act ("if we have to bake a cake for gay weddings, what if wants a cake for their child bride!"). I happen to disagree with it as it applies in the real world
No. I'm not. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I'll try to boil it down to as few words as possible:
If the government can take away your rights, then they can take away mine too. I don't support that and will defend your rights as vigorously as my own, whether I agree with you or not.
As for the example you give, bakers don't have to bake a cake for gay weddings.
again I'm not making a legal argument but a moral one.
>If the government can take away your rights, then they can take away mine too. I don't support that and will defend your rights as vigorously as my own, whether I agree with you or not.
This applies to Stipe and Paypal too. They can arbitrarily prevent anyone from operating an online business. The libertarian view that you should care more about their right to do that than individuals who will lose their livelihoods with no recourse, is something I'll never understand and we'll never come to agreement on.
>The libertarian view that you should care more about their right to do that than individuals who will lose their livelihoods with no recourse, is something I'll never understand and we'll never come to agreement on.
I'm not sure why you bring that up, since that's not a position that I've advocated, nor is it one that I support.
I find your repeated strawman[0] arguments quite tiresome.
the civil rights act effectively does protect speech with regards to religion and sexual orientation, since the idea that we won't discriminate against those things as long as nobody finds out is not what it means
Work environment matters more than pay, and the pay presumably was very good. Imagine being down the hall from the people who literally started indie game development, or demo-scene royalty.
another round of stimulus checks is going to set bitcoin off on another bull run imo. you could see a drastic effect as soon as the $600 started hitting people's checking accounts
> you could see a drastic effect as soon as the $600 started hitting people's checking accounts
I think it's interesting how true it is that some people just can't stand the feeling of money burning a hole in their pockets.
Based on the furniture set sitting out on the curb at my neighbor's house, they decided a free $1800 was as good a reason as any to get some new furniture.
I guess that's the theory behind stimulus checks, so I suppose it makes sense.
If you make 75K that's more than double the US median personal income and you still qualify for the checks. It's a good living in the US outside of a handful of cities. Also I think a lot of buyers are young people living with parents
Of the thousands of hours I spent playing single player videogames in my youth, a surprisingly small amount was spent having fun or doing anything interesting or challenging. It was mostly just tedious grinding on my overpowered Pokemon (and other rpg equivalents) against helpless enemies so that I could be even more overpowered against them.
I luckily grew out of it, but being absorbed by the pursuit of easy, digital approximations of real accomplishments, to the point where it impedes more difficult pursuits of the real thing in the real world, is a serious issue for many millennial men I know.
I love this comment and I think it touches on something that is really controversial and difficult to discuss on internet forums.
It has become clear to me that for young men of my generation that this type of video-gaming is very much the equivalent of 'doomscrolling' as mentioned in other comments, and is generally pretty harmful. I have so many friends that have improved their lives by following the much-mocked advise 'turn off the game and do something else'. Are games the culture-killing brain-rotting rotten life harbinger that our parents made them out to be? Of course not. Are they the epitome of entertainment and growth that places like reddit make them out to be? No, not really.
I wonder if my desire to grind and or min/max in video games during my teenage years was a proxy for honing skills. Perhaps it's a developmental stage where you actually enjoy the repetition because you're supposed to be developing a skills and trade-craft. But now that I'm older I have little to no interest in such pursuits.
Surely the point is that this developmental ability to persist is wasted on FPS? You could have learnt a musical instrument or developed some other accomplishment that lasts a lifetime. I.e. the real problem is the opportunity cost
> You could have learnt a musical instrument or developed some other accomplishment that lasts a lifetime.
These "classical" hobbies are vastly over-valued in my opinion. I spent almost a decade learning to play violin, and while the appreciation for music has been valuable, the actual skill of being able to play the violin has been largely useless. I also quit when I was no longer forced to play for school, and probably can't even read the sheet music anymore. It's by no means a life long skill like riding a bike.
Phrased another way, I don't see much that validates being able to play a musical instrument as more valuable than being good at a particular genre of video games. Music has existed for far longer, so it has a certain level of prestige as a long-standing part of our culture. Music can be shared with others, although Twitch seems to imply there are a substantial number of people interested in watching other people play video games.
There are various studies about the tangential benefits of music, there are likewise for video games. I don't know that one comes out clearly ahead.
Video games are more likely to give you real world skills. As more and more of the world moves online, skills that you pick up trying to get games to work or trying to make them run faster can be valuable. Online etiquette is another thing you tend to learn (hopefully, instead of just being toxic).
Learning an instrument is also not without pain. When I played, probably 75% of the time I was playing I wasn't actually doing anything enjoyable, I was working on committing a piece to memory, or practicing a piece, or doing exercises to work on my finger strength or flexibility. I don't feel like learning an instrument is less "grindy".
As a counterdote, I both played video games and played music (band, church groups, self-studying) for significant amounts of time in my youth. I still play music today and my only regret is not spending more time on it earlier, whereas I regret spending so much time on video games. The collaboration and shareability of music is unparalleled; I can connect with people and actually create something that is an expression of myself and my collaborators, and even people who've never picked up an instrument can appreciate pleasant-sounding music. With video games, you really need to know the mechanics of a specific game to appreciate someone else's performance, and very rarely do the results of a video game manifest itself in the real world apart from the consequential skills you may pick up.
The problem of quitting music once it's no longer compulsory is endemic and I think more rooted with pedagogy than music itself as a medium. I staved it off because I was largely self-taught for theory and the instruments I currently play (piano, guitar), whereas people who were forced into lessons or only did it to fill an elective slot in school quit once they were able to. I've gone months-long stints without dedicated practice, but to me it's closer to an unforgettable skill than riding a bike is (because I don't know how to ride a bike).
> the collaboration and shareability of music is unparalleled;
Music has been around since the dawn of mankind. Video games has been around 20-30 years?
I will not be surprised when 100 years from now, video games will be the acceptable hobby while playing instruments would be seem as quaint when one can just tweak some params in some AI models to generate good music.
If anything, this statement is a testament to music's endurance as an expressive medium. As mentioned by others on this discussion, video games are largely consumable media with products that don't extend beyond the screen.
The whole AI-replacing-creativity debate is a large can of worms. Yes, there are already generative music models that can create pleasant-sounding music, but for many practitioners, the process is more important than the product. There's a reason people still perform live in front of audiences when it would be more reasonable and convenient to play lossless recordings at home.
> As mentioned by others on this discussion, video games are largely consumable media with products that don't extend beyond the screen.
And the same has been said about the TV. That it would never be mainstream.
My point is that video games is in its infancy. It has potential to be an art form, especially if VR/AR takes off once we get powerful enough hardware.
> There's a reason people still perform live in front of audiences when it would be more reasonable and convenient to play lossless recordings at home.
And there is a reason why people still enjoy playing video games even if people stigmatize it as a time sink. It's not about efficiency or productivity.
Why not extrapolate this argument to non-video games then? Why have card or board games not usurped music as a dominant hobby in the millennia that they've been around?
I won't debate that video games don't have merit as artistic media; some of my favorites from my adolescence have had positive effects on my world view and self in the same way works in television and film have, and I cut my teeth on advanced piano arrangements from video game music (specifically Kyle Landry's). I think that the problem lies in video games being a demanding medium that often rewards mindless grinding and non-transferrable skills. In McLuhan's terms, it's a hot (demanding) medium that only has the benefits of a cool (passively consumed) medium [1].
To say that music will somehow cede to video games eventually, when music has been around for literal eons, is flippant.
I grew up with the standard piano lessons as a kid, dabbled with guitar, but never really got competent at anything. Assumed I was not musical. Until picking up a banjo about 7 years ago.
Some music is about performance, but that requires a level of dedication I don't have. Bluegrass is music designed for a bunch of people to get together and have fun. Some friends of mine picked up guitar, upright bass, mandolin, washboard... and suddenly we were meeting a couple times a week just to play and have fun. It was never a grind.
Child, startup, moving away from my bandmates, and covid got in the way so I'm out of practice, but I'm really looking forward to getting back to it when life returns to "normal".
I guess what I'm saying is - maybe you were playing the wrong music? There are lots of music genres that seem to focus more on fun than grind. Classical violin probably isn't one of them. Old-time fiddle on the other hand...
> Video games are more likely to give you real world skills. As more and more of the world moves online, skills that you pick up trying to get games to work or trying to make them run faster can be valuable. Online etiquette is another thing you tend to learn (hopefully, instead of just being toxic).
This is begging the question more than a statement of real fact. What about magical combat against imaginary enemies, opening treasure chests, and completing collectibles is valuable in the real world? At least learning to play a musical instrument is actually doable in the real world.
One might argue that video games can teach someone to solve puzzles or to strategize towards an end when given a set of strengths and weaknesses, but if you really wanted usable critical thinking out of puzzles, you'd be better off grinding away at LeetCode and HackerRank. Strategizing towards any end requires the specificity of the context, too, and the world in video games is often very far from real.
And besides, if you really believe in video games--are you willing to raise a child to spend his youth and energy on video games instead of learning new skills?
Surely the point is that this developmental ability to persist is wasted on FPS?
Who is to say? FPS games can teach you about your physical ability, practice and teamwork as much as playing football or playing in a band. The physical skills are different, sure, but the planning, teamwork and execution are all very similar (and similar to developing an app with a team). Any of these things could also, well, not teach you much of anything. But is that a function of the game or the player?
The article suggests maybe it's a function of genuinely liking what you're doing vs simply wanting to do it (maybe because of an addiction).
I.e. the real problem is the opportunity cost
The problem with viewing through the lens of the opportunity cost is that it requires some hindsight to be completely evaluated. I played competitive football for 8 years. I wanted to, but I never went pro. You can work hard, put in the effort and still have nothing good to show for it. Today, I feel like I could have better spent that time, because it ate up a lot of it.
Honestly, there is very little else as satisfying as a couple of Juan Deags in a crunch round of a CS match. I've spent time learning other, more respectable RL hobbies, but there's that deep sense of satisfaction they fail to capture.
> Surely the point is that this developmental ability to persist is wasted on FPS?
It's anecdotal, of course, but I always notice vast diffference in spatial conceptualization between people who have played first-person videogames set in complex 3d environments and those who have not. Me and my gamer friends could easily draw you an aproximate map of a location after being there once, correctly oriented by cardinal directions.
As someone who both plays videogames and tries to improve with a piano, think there's a key difference: piano exercises me mentally, I know when I get to a point where my head isn't going to get anything out of more practice for a while, and I want to do something else. I go to bed in a similar state like after going to the gym, that is, eager to sleep and rest.
With videogames, the experience usually is very different. I'll blink, and suddenly it's time to go to bed and my whole free time for the day is gone. I don't want to go to bed because my mind is telling me that there's still more day left, no way it's all done already; so I usually go to bed really late.
Days feel far longer when I'm not playing, in a good way. Gaming is like presing the fast forward button on your life.
I get this too. It's less pronounced if I commit to only playing 3 matches or so (doesn't always work) and check the time in between. But it still feels like autopilot.
Your ability to play the piano is more likely to be of use in social situations throughout your life as opposed to your Counter-Strike skills.
That isn’t to say that getting good at CS is inherently worse. But that as you age and your priorities shift I think piano is something you are more likely to value.
That has been true in the past. But, in the past, there were no computer-based games, nor a computer gaming culture.
Consider the analogy with big game hunting. The image I imagine of a British club includes the heads of a bunch of formerly live animals hanging on various walls. Within that subculture, hunting adventures and stories were very much social currency.
As gamers age, gaming clubs could form as a third place to hang out, and gaming stories would also be of great social value. May not be to your particular taste, but it is just a matter of taste.
Additionally, as knowledge of sporting teams and their performance during current season break down conversational barriers between people living in different parts of the US, knowledge of gaming, and the ability to play with others at any age, could do the same.
There isn’t as strong a general piano culture among a random set of people. Maybe music, but depends on the group. It brought Boomers together, but that essential core value of current music as a glue for a demographic isn’t there as much.
What music does do is directly feed the soul, and computer games aren’t at that level. Yet. Whether they ever can be is an open question. They aren’t an art form. Yet.
Less flippantly, one of them requires consistent improvement or you'll quit - there's no zombie-state when learning piano where you'll be content with sitting at the same level for over a thousand hours. This zombie-like steady-state scenario is very easy with video games; relatively minor skill improvements over literally thousands of hours for the majority of people. No feedback to quit and try something else, unlike the piano where if you have no elegance after a few years you'll be very disillusioned. This disillusionment is a good thing, a necessary part of the learning process which indicates you either need to change your approach or find something else entirely. Video games, in my experience, break this feedback loop: they demand no fundamental progression.
> One of them might get you laid, the other won't ?
as a guitar player, I'm very sorry to inform you that this is not the case. you get a small bump in attractiveness once you master the chords to wonderwall, but after that you don't really make any progress unless your band becomes popular.
as a cs player, I can't say I agree with the rest of your comment either. counterstrike is a very harsh and unforgiving game. plateauing at the same skill level feels very bad. you will get rekt by twelve year olds and they will mock you mercilessly. I would also contest that musical instruments create any inherent drive for improvement. plenty of people just learn the basic barre chords and a couple major/minor scale shapes and go on to happily jam with friends for thousands of hours.
I suppose I should clarify, since you're right about reaching a certain level and being content with it (which is fine, naturally.)
What I mean is that 2000 hours of my life can simply vanish into a video game black hole, absent any other life events. Why? It's possible to play Counterstrike (or whatever) for 14 hours in the day. For a week. Or two. or 52. I've never in my life met a person who can enter that kind of state for 14 hours when playing an instrument, where the ease by which it consumes your life is just so breathtaking. The only two activities I've found which have this addictive ease are generic web browsing (e.g. reddit) and assorted video games - and my life has definitely been degraded as a result.
I mean, clearly FPS is a waste. Civilization and SFII is where it's at. SMB is ok too.
That said, learning a musical instrument does not last a lifetime if you don't keep playing it. The point of learning skills early in life is not necessarily that the skill is useful, it's that you've learned how to learn skills. Which hopefully will be used throughout your life.
If what you learn are songs you'll forget them without practice. But if you learn music theory, composition, improvisation, you'll never forget.
at least that's how I explain my own experience. I routinely go for years without playing most of the instruments I know. Give me a week and I'll be better at any one of them than I've ever been.
Grinding skills in games turned into running through shot simulations to get the best DPS in world of Warcraft, which turned into me learning to write code. The same obsession is there, just instead of being “the best on the server” I get a paycheck.
For better or worse, gaming cultural references are very common and a way to relate to colleagues of the same age. Many would say this is bad and pushes women, older folks and people with very different backgrounds away and creates an exclusive nerdy geeky club. I'm not here to argue that. But it is a useful thing for making friends in practice.
People also often get to know each other through gaming or it is their first interaction with technical things, setting up networking and firewalls for LAN parties, installing and creating mods etc.
Well if that's the best highlight of wasting one's life then its a poor one. In similar analogy you can maybe make some friends by getting addicted to heroin or becoming homeless too.
Just to be clear - I've wasted much of my youth with single player gaming. It was pretty addictive, no question about it. I'll do my best to get my kids have better life than that - no active screen around their young age, being very active in sports, nature, mountain activities, travel around the world backpacking etc. If they will choose to get hooked on games, so be it, but at least I've shown them many other, for me better options.
I remember playing a lot or Warcraft 2, Stunts, Dune 2 etc when I was young. However, what I "wasted" even more time on is writing cheats (Warcraft) and map editors (Stunts) for those games so...
On a side note I tend to think kids have a lot of self regulating abilities but that might not matter anymore since it seems that the brightest minds of this generation are focused on "increasing engagement" and fucking ads...
Just moved to my wife's home country during COVID. I can attest to the fact that online gaming has one of my only ways to "socialise" since I can't go and make any new friends at the moment.
There's a much better way to relate to colleagues of your age, as well as people from a variety of age, ethnicity, and gender backgrounds: sports. Sports have the added benefit of getting you outside and moving when practiced. Women are also almost universally attracted to male athletes -- male gaming nerds, not so much.
Dating someone who plays games is not issue. Most young people of both genders play games. Athletes play games too, there never was any dichotomy between sport and playing video games.
But, dating obsessed gamer is kind of like being alone, except you get yelled at more. If excessively competitive sport dude is asshole to his mates, you don't get to witness that every evening either.
Here in Australia it seems like a month can't go by without a high profile sports person being accused of abuse/drugs/alcohol or other.
Maybe it is something about the ultra-competitive streak - being "driven" - that makes it not nice to be around?
Personally, I gave up playing even the lowest grade of social hockey as people seemed to have forgotten the "game for fun" part and were "playing to win" - including hard shots at your legs, playing on no matter the breach of game rules unless the ref whistled etc.
I think that big stars are something else entirely. They are stars, so their excesses are enabled by everyone in their lives and they experience is "I can do crap and they can do nothing". They also live under high pressure, stress and physical pain.
I mean, people who do sport at amateur level drink a lot too. But, the high sport is not the same at all.
I think high profile sports people are an exception. For one, they're rich/famous/athletic and this leads to women being very forward with them. This run this lifestyle for long enough and they're bound to get into trouble. Add in that a lot of sporting clubs have heavy alcohol cultures and it's even more trouble.
> Dating someone who plays games is not issue. Most young people of both genders play games.
True. But following a sport and being able to hold forth on it competently will allow you to start conversations and engage in connections with a much broader social circle than demonstrating your knowledge of vidya memes.
> It has become clear to me that for young men of my generation that this type of video-gaming is very much the equivalent of 'doomscrolling' as mentioned in other comments, and is generally pretty harmful.
Eh? I mean maybe for the vast majority too much of one thing is bad. For me, personally, almost all of my friendships came from bonding experience over playing video games together (or board games, or card games) and other semi-intellectual hobbies.
Did any of those games or pursuits give me deep marketable skills? Not really. But the friendships gained were invaluable as far as diversity of thought, advice and help given in times of need. I don't regret any of that time spent.
But those were games of a bygone era. Later games (like WoW/Fortine and whatever garbage kids play these days) probably would not have had the same effect.
> The truth is in the nuance
Yep. Gaming is a pretty neutral activity. When done right (challenging games played with the right people) can be extremely rewarding. When overdone, probably worse than watching tons of TV/politics.
> It has become clear to me that for young men of my generation that this type of video-gaming is very much the equivalent of 'doomscrolling' as mentioned in other comments, and is generally pretty harmful.
I'm not sure I agree.
I have always enjoyed games where there is payoff for grinding. Usually, I enjoy the grind element as well. It isn't too far off of the sensation I get when working on a personal project or learning new tech. I used to "doom scroll," but have eliminated my FB and Twitter and harshly curated my Reddit due to the significant stress it was placing on my life. I never really enjoyed seeing what was going on with Twitter, I guess I felt obligated to keep up with things that ultimately didn't matter.
There's always a lot of hand-wringing about what kids and teenagers spend their time doing, and I wonder if it's not just a natural process of your brain figuring out a system, going "oh I see" and moving on to the next thing. Like, in other words, it might not be luck, it might just be the learning / exploration process working normally.
That being said, there's definitely an aspect where video games are a super-stimulus. It's true that video game designers are creating explicit reward loops in a way that, let's say the writers of Gilligan's island were not (to compare hand-wringing about games to hand-wringing about television)
Counterpoint -- the min-maxing is often the interesting part, it's not the destination, it's the journey, or something like that.
By trying to get very good at a game, you learn how to solve problems, and, more importantly, how to learn how to solve problems. It's also often the case that by taking a game seriously, you engage with the community, making friends or at least getting to know people out of your circle.
I've put thousands of hours into several games, and I don't regret a second of that. I wouldn't say that behavior is unhealthy unless it brings you to downright ignore your job/school/responsibilities.
> I wouldn't say that behavior is unhealthy unless it brings you to downright ignore your job/school/responsibilities.
I have a much lower bar because I don't think all video game playing is equal.
My first Pokémon game was one of the more recent ones for the switch. I didn't quite understand how the breeding worked and I was trying to breed a particular Pokémon with high stats. I spent many hours figuring out how it works and writing scripts to figure out what I should breed to get what I want, then more hours actually doing the breeding. I was fully engaged and I would consider this video game playing healthy.
I've also spent many hours just vegging out. A little of that is fine; it's one way I do some thinking. But too much of it and the day is gone and when I stop I feel bad, like I've just come out of a stupor. This, to me, is not healthy, even if I otherwise took care of all my responsibilities.
"I wouldn't say that behavior is unhealthy unless it brings you to downright ignore your job/school/responsibilities."
What if you could have done something more productive or rewarding with your life instead, like developed new friendships or deepened existing ones, learned new skills, or read something that opened your eyes or changed your life?
I've probably gamed as much as anyone here, and I deeply regret wasting so much time on it. Though it wasn't a complete waste of time, as it did help me to learn to manage complex systems (I like complex games) and to anticipate and prepare (I like RPG's and chess), and it also helped me to destress, there was also a compulsive quality to my gaming where the ultimate payoff wasn't all that great compared to the many thousands of hours I put in to it.
> What if you could have done something more productive or rewarding with your life instead
That's a bit unfair, though. The same reasoning applies to everything in your life that isn't strictly work. Gaming did change my life, requiring everything to be the most efficient use of your time is simply unreasonable.
But there seems to be a pattern where many people just really regret the hours poured into gaming but don't regret hours poured into learning cooking or traveling or volunteering at a college student group (say taking photos of events) etc.
There are activities that produce long term satisfaction, while other produce long term regret. I don't regret having gone on a canoe trip but I do regret many hours of playing RTS games.
Maybe it's just me and my brain is prone to addiction to games, but it's a loop that's hard to escape. At first it's pleasurable, then I find myself playing through the night, just one more game again and again, I start to gain weight, sleep in, resent the whole thing but crave the fake-accomplishment and dream with the game. I might be an outlier. It hasn't ruined my life though because I always snapped out of it due to some external event that forced me to stop and then I normalize after some days or a week or two of not playing. But when living alone and nobody stopping me, I have definitely wasted months of my life on such things and have holes in my CV due to it.
Nowadays I just refuse to play games altogether. I miss out on some cultural references, but so be it. Same with TV series and binge watching. I miss out on them and become a more boring person but I just cannot do a little bit of these. If I start I'm useless for days or weeks.
I think your argument is clear and justified. Our brains are not made for videogames - they are just too addicting for many people. I think our societies (as far as i see) haven't really coped enough with this addictive aspect of videogames - be it parents, teachers, politics or specific clinics (well, in some countries there are already clinics specialized for people who are addicted to video games). China is an interesting case study in that they heavily regulate what kind of games people are allowed to play and also how much and at which times. My personal pet peeve with casino [f2p] (including fifa cards) games is another aspect of gaming that has not been looked at nearly enough, so gaming - although doing more revenue than hollywood (might have something to do with addiction feeding...) - hasn't quite grown up.
I think, just like with other addictions, it matters whether everything else is in place in your life. If you have friends and stable relationships, it's less of a risk. The most difficult part for me was while studying in a foreign country, especially after many (temporary) friends left for their home countries and I didn't know many other people.
> What if you could have done something more productive or rewarding with your life instead, like developed new friendships or deepened existing ones, learned new skills, or read something that opened your eyes or changed your life
So the couple years I spent playing WoW back in university did these some of these things for me.
The friends that I played with are some of my best friends 15+ years later with the time we spent playing being a formative part of building those relationships and us still occasionally referencing stories from that time-period. Mind you real-world friends that I later did things like play D&D and other TTRPGs with so I'm not making the argument video games would have been enough on their own.
Getting bored of the time-sink in Wow lead to me investigating game hacking, lead to me learning memory modification and reverse engineering skills, and was my first try at process exploitation techniques all contributing to my eventual career in computer security. That said, I was already interested in the field and if I hadn't been I probably wouldn't have tried those things.
I don't play games very often nowadays but last year, while I was going through a divorce and dealing with depression and some amount of substance abuse in response, playing Disco Elysium was very relevant and contributed a ton to working through the thoughts and emotions around what I was going through. It helped me pull myself out of destructive patterns and I consider it one of the more important pieces of fiction I've experienced personally. That said, it is more or less a really complex illustrated choose your own adventure book so its not quite what most people think of when they think about "video games".
If my qualifications don't make it clear I don't think my anecdotes count as data nor am I discounting your personal experience, but I do feel the time I spent playing video games have been a net positive for my life.
I can certainly relate to this, my poison of choice was diablo 2. At first playing and discovering all the various items and stats was fun. Killing monsters and advancing was fun. At some point it just became a habit, then towards the end it became a chore. Yet I still spent endless hours doing it. For me at least it could probably been classified as an addiction.
There were some fond memories from it, and there were certainly many enjoyable moments. But it was certainly not done in moderation. I'm also glad I pulled out of it, and didn't get into a similar situation with a different game.
Diablo 2 is exactly the kind of game I felt like a pointless time sink. Your character gains new skills, but you? Not so much. At least playing a competitive FPS (or something like Starcraft) you're gaining skills.
Usually I'm mostly done after beating a Diablo game a couple of times at various difficulty levels, but I still find them fun to play periodically. I think the fact that they become tedious after a while is not a bad thing since otherwise you'd never stop playing! They are also fun and easy games to pick up and play with friends or family (especially D3 in couch co-op mode.)
Regarding game vs. IRL skills, I enjoy Guitar Hero quite a bit, but Rocksmith actually improves your ability to play a real guitar.
Rock Band drums are pretty close to electronic drums though, and vocals are actual vocals.
And as I've mentioned, Ring Fit Adventure (which I'm still playing) kind of levels you up. I found similar effects with Wii Fit, where years after stopping playing (and switching to non-balance based exercises) my sense of balance was surprisingly better than it had been before I started playing the game. I expect other physical games like Dance Dance Revolution are good for physical coordination, and I expect twitch games such as FPSs are good for eye-hand coordination and reaction time.
Yeah, I definitely felt the pull of the first thing, and after a while resented it, because I felt like I was being manipulated.
I definitely think there's value in the second thing, though. Basically, I used to tell people that I play video games "socially" -- until a few months ago (when I decided to actually skill up on Starcraft 2), I almost never played video games unless it was with a group of other people.
I haven't had a grindy experience in most single-player games, but MMOs have perfected the grind system to keep players in the game and spending money (particularly in a subscription MMO.)
Oddly enough, I tend to enjoy the repetitive activities of MMOs such as gathering, crafting, and simple quests; they put you in a sort of relaxed flow state and you get to see the game turn from day to night as other players and monsters wander by. You also end up exploring more of the game world in detail and noticing interesting details that you might miss otherwise. Daily quests are repetitive but they have a bit of variety because you have a different set of players every time.
I wonder whether MMO players might be good at real-life grinds that seem tedious but are actually worthwhile, such as exercise.
As a data point, I'm still grinding away at Ring Fit Adventure, which is fun and seems to be beneficial to fitness in terms of increased strength, balance, and energy after several months.
I haven't managed to enjoy grinding housecleaning yet but I might if I can figure out how to gamify it....
I got to this point with games a few years ago. My coworkers (all big gamers) were amazed that I would wait for games to be on steep sale or just play older titles. My first job out of high school was working in a game store where I fell into the rat race of having every shiny new thing I could afford and getting hyped up on the hyper competitive nature of everything.
Really, it was Destiny 1 and Halo MCC that broke me hard of this habit. Between the games being broken or lacking, and me not enjoying the PvP aspect of Destiny 1, I just stepped away from it all.
Now I am content to game for the sake of burning time. I don't like PUBG, but I have it to play with friends while we drink beers and shoot the bot infested unranked, the final moments are tense and fun and if we fail at least we had the fun of getting there.
I got XBOX game pass and just pop in games to try them out now, no worries or hassle of returning since it is Netflix style gaming.
Even on my phone I have loaded up old games where I turn on cheats for mad fun. I am currently playing Pokemon Sun and whenever the baddies start a match with "I am stealing your Pokemon" they face my 100% started with 100% critical chance and I just lob a Master Ball and steal their Pokemon. I enjoy walking through walls and just being ridiculous in it while still enjoying the story and atmosphere of the game. (all the fun, none of slowness inherent in those games).
But I do agree. I don't know how many times I would work my 9-5, try and game some, get upset at the losses, and just wallow out the rest of the night, skipping other stuff I wanted/needed to do. The highs certainly weren't worth the lows.
Part of why when folks say video games aren't addicting, I ask why CoD put in the prestige system. It keeps hitting you with that dopamine of 'yea, just unlocked something' which constantly throws you back into combat where something else gets unlocked.
> Part of why when folks say video games aren't addicting, I ask why CoD put in the prestige system. It keeps hitting you with that dopamine of 'yea, just unlocked something' which constantly throws you back into combat where something else gets unlocked.
It's also part of the competition. It's called "Prestige" because having a lot of those levels is meant to be prestigious. For me, it was closer to an MMR Ranking or KD Ratio. It's less about collecting the icons, and more about getting some form of external validation that you were a better player than other players. Of course, Prestige is a bad indicator that you are a better player than other players, but it allows people who aren't good but have a lot of time to compete on some level.
If this were really about "yea, just unlocked something" I would expect better rewards. I haven't played the new CoDs a lot, but from what I remember, the rewards for prestiging were largely meh, and you get most of them from low levels of prestige. If you hit prestige 99, you've done a lot of prestiges without any unlocks (other than the bars next to your username, which no one ever looks at).
There is a psychology behind "obtaining bigger numbers" being a never ending goal. (Aside: I mean, why does Bezos even work anymore?)
And then you have Universal paperclips... a game largely designed around increasing a number - and that's it. No 3D graphics, some bits of text every now and again.
> I luckily grew out of it, but being absorbed by the pursuit of easy, digital approximations of real accomplishments ...
The really harmful thing might be the artificial meaning this creates,
which might be at the end more addictive than the fun.
I never really was addicted to games. The funny thing is, I could only
play games that were really fun for me, because of the game mechanics or if
they had some interesting new aspects. But this kind of fascination never
hold that long and after that the game play just got repetitive and
tedious, at which point I just stopped playing.
Therefore also most games that contain a lot of repetition feel just
pointless to me.
I think there's something interesting here with how different people respond to 'fake achievement'. For me FPS games were fun because it was a little competition between players (also I was often interrupted growing up and short rounds are better for this).
After trying WoW and having to walk 30min to pick up a feather and bring it back then do the same for an acorn I lost total interest in ever playing again. That might be all the time I had to play that day.
I suspect some people get more of a positive feedback response from seeing numbers go up than others. I think MMOGs can also have a social component that keeps people coming back to do shared events which is probably stickier than the fake achievement bits.
I'd be curious if people really vulnerable to fake achievement would also be successful if they could create a fast feedback environment for themselves with something other than the game as the goal (since they're clearly amenable to that kind of motivation).
For me, the difficulty is on the other side. Even outside of games it can be hard to find something that feels like it matters and is important (even if you can make money and be otherwise better off in your life by doing it). Curiosity can also pull you in a thousand different directions.
Figuring out what you want is hard, figuring out how to move in that direction is hard, then actually getting yourself to focus and do the work is hard.
When the search space of what's possible is so big, it can be difficult to coordinate. I think games reduce that to something extremely narrow. For some that's effective, for me the illusion is obvious and unfulfilling.
Today I tend to like one-off indie games driven by story (like Firewatch). I feel like I get more out of it.
> For me, the difficulty is on the other side. Even outside of games it can be hard to find something that feels like it matters and is important (even if you can make money and be otherwise better off in your life by doing it). Curiosity can also pull you in a thousand different directions.
Yes, pretty similar for me. Therefore I quite envy people that can get
that much out of just games, and I'm even struggling to find something in
the real world.
I think the modern kind of work can feel quite pointless, because being
just a part of a complex machinery can make it hard to see what you're
really provoking. And if you're a bit of a misfit for the modern culture,
can't get meaning out of money, status and career, then also these
game-like achievements aren't an option.
But life in general is just quite strange if you think long and deep
enough about it. So it's pretty nice if you can loose yourself in such a simple
thing as a game. I really think that being able to look at life as a kind
of game makes it a lot easier, because taking it really seriously is just
too painful.
Well, seems to be one of my more melancholic days. ;)
It may be trite, but it seems like strong social ties, community, and having a family are pretty key to filling that gap.
I suspect it’s a built in sense of purpose from millions of years of selective pressure.
Other things like novelty seeking, learning, getting better at crafts help - but looking at people that feel generally content, investing in a good partner and having kids seems like the surest way to fill that purpose.
Lots of ways that can go poorly (I think mostly people choosing their partner poorly or for stupid reasons), but if it goes well I think that’s probably a critical piece.
> It may be trite, but it seems like strong social ties, community, and having a family are pretty key to filling that gap.
That's certainly true, and without my partner life would be a lot more bleak.
I've a bit of a hard time with communities, because I would really like to be part of more, but have often issues with their narrow mindedness, which seems to be the needed bound of communities. Well, also being a bit of loner doesn't help connecting to a community. But nevertheless I've a strong emotional desire to be part of one.
It might be one of these mismatches, when your desire and the reality just aren't compatible.
It could also be that you just haven't found a community that you like yet.
I like HN (most of the time), Scott Alexander's blog, and LessWrong.
It's hard to find the same kind of thing in-person though, plus have to overcome the social anxiety/social skills bit of actually finding and going to a place with new people which is an entirely separate (though worthwhile) skill.
I haven't succeeded with this either (though I like the people I work with).
And then there came along games that were more forgiving and you could just play and if you died, respawn.
but then other games replaced things with: fight, get loot, sort and rearrange inventory, possible weapon swap, go back to town and sell inventory, etc..
I guess it's better that the current crop of phone games with grind (shortcut available for purchase!) , grind (you really should buy this convenient feature), grind, ...
I did enjoy factorio. You have to periodically re-invent yourself. But then what do you do after launching a rocket?
I think people who have a healthy relationship with games agree with you, but for me, the obsessive grinding only made the games less challenging/fun, with no reward except larger numbers on the menus-- like if the reward for the Marshmallow test was just that you got to look at a bitmap of a pixelated marshmallow on tv.
Videogames are not all bad, and of course there are many healthy and successful people who enjoy them and appreciate them as works of art. But for me personally, I regret that I spent so much time doing busywork for an unpaid job that I didn't even enjoy.
The Marshmallow Test looks kind of classist, or even racist (not sure if "racist" is the right word for it, maybe "orientalist" would be better).
Yes, if you live in Stanford or in a country that has an institution like Stanford then most probably "passing" the marshmallow test means waiting for a longer period in order to get twice the reward, but I dare say not a lot of countries/societies afforded that luxury until not that long ago (many of them still don't), in their case waiting for longer in order to get twice the reward might mean that you'll be dead by then, or evicted, or you had to escape the communists/the criminal right-wingers/the islamist beheaders/what have you.
You definitely have a point.
Though one thing I never understood was grindy type games. Growing up playing with my mates, Mario, Zelda , street fighter then Goldeneye, Tony hawk's. We just never came across them. Then final fantasy 7 came along, I remember my friend just left it back to the shop. Turn based combat and experience points made no sense to us at all. Few years later I tried playing Knights of the old Republic, it didn't feel like a game. It just felt really odd and awkward to me. Skip forward few years and this type game is huge. I don't get it and never will I guess! The bit I really don't get is you don't get better at the game by becoming more skillful but instead by spending time increasing xp on grindy tasks. One thing about games though, they can be sort of mindful: recently I went through a really hard month at work. I found playing old Ps1 racers helped me quickly unwind before bed. (Wipeout and gran turismo 1)
I'm exactly the opposite. I hated playing MarioKart, SuperSmash Bros, etc. because the game felt pointless and un-winnable. These games were based on acting fast and building up reflexes. Since I was only borrowing my friends' game consoles and they could practice whenever they wanted, there was no way I could ever catch up.
I loved planning the most efficient/comprehensive path to achieve a goal in World of Warcraft or Knights of the Old Republic and then executing on the plan. I could think about what I wanted to do when I didn't have access to the game. Playing the game was really only an afterthought to test out the plan I'd come up with.
I stopped playing Ultima Online (same led designer as Knights of the old Repbulic iirc) when I did the math and realized to become Master Alchemist, I would have to mix 3000 potions, always with the same repetitive clicks.
Every game can become grindy if you abuse them. I used to play counter strike and I would just grind grind grind. Playing deathmatch again and again, practicing your aim on specific maps (aim_usp, aim_aztec, etc.)
But this is a different definition of "grind". After spending an hour practicing your aim on a specific map, your aim will actually be better. That's not any different than spending an hour practicing shooting hoops from a specific angle / distance, or spending an hour practicing musical scales.
I think when most people talk about "grind" in games, they mean activities that are genuinely only time-wasters. You don't gain any skill (other than patience) from killing your hundredth goblin or clicking "harvest" on your hundredth field.
Another way to look at it , I tend to be very good at math. As a kid I could easily do somewhat complex equations in my head, to the frustration of my teachers.
this is what I don't get though. Why mortgage your future earnings to take a MOOC from a random startup employee when you can get the same from a world class professor for free?
The idea before was at least partly that you get a great deal more structure, feedback and accountability than you do in any university. Now that all seems to have been jettisoned but a learning community with a schedule and a curriculum is worth something. Udemy courses plus a knowledgeable lecturer and a lot of TAs who know the material less well but can solve most problems and a schedule of full time study/building for nine months would absolutely be worth Lambda’s upfront or ISA cost for a lot of people. I paid £10,000 for a Master’s that was basically a textbook subscription service with access to past exam papers and two graded essays per module.
Because most people can’t. Self-directed learning is brutally hard and most people can’t do it even with a detailed road map. Without even that the competition rate will drop even further. To a first approximation the only people who complete MOOCs are those who already have degrees. The kind of people who can compete freecodecamp by themselves are very close to the ones who can work through a Math textbook by themselves, doing all the exercises.
If you can't do that then I'd argue you're not cut out to be a developer. As someone doing hiring I would never hire someone who had difficulty in doing any of the things you mentioned are difficult. You've basically listed the things I value in a hire.
If you're self motivated enough to follow a curriculum on your own, you're probably much better off using online resources from MIT/Stanford/Harvard which are not only free but much better quality.
The learning environment described in the linked thread (200 students per teacher, plus blind leading the blind with volunteer mentors) sounds terrible at any price including $0.00. Many MOOCs have community boards, TA's, interactive assignments and cost little or nothing. If their plan is to just bundle that same experience with a job placement sales team and a private slack, then they'll just be yet another for-profit credential mill
Couldn't agree more. In fact, most students will look for outside resources because Lambda's resources are poor. In fact, one of my instructors shares a PDF of Grokking Algorithms to his students because the school's CS content is lacking.
Not really relevant but I'm basically the only person I know that thinks it's the coolest thing in the world that I can open up my computer and watch a lecture from MIT/Stanford/Harvard etc. in almost any thing I want. Such a great time to be alive for self-motivated people that like learning stuff!
Because I was once a five year old who didn't know how to stop when someone told me no, and it brings back shameful memories when I see the same behavior from grown men.
again I asked one question. I was only a little bit curious because op's experience sounds a lot like what my friends and I did when the iOS app store first came out in college, so I was just wondering what platform people were having that experience on these days.
I see you are committed to being angry online so I won't stop you from following your passion, but I hope you see eventually that it is strange behavior.
Maybe not at Stripe, but a lot of big tech employees (especially at Google and Facebook) would get substantial paycuts if they got paid for the value they brought to the company rather than the market price ("as little as they can get away with").
the average FAANG engineer does a shockingly small amount of work that has any impact on revenue
The average FAANG engineer is partially being compensated for NOT working at a competitor- i.e. the best talent is also the biggest threat and if there isn't a salary cap then the NY Yankees are sometimes going to sign redundant players just to keep them from improving competitive teams.
This arguments fails on so many dimensions that it must just be a meme. I’ll use Google as the example. For it to work Google has to be able to monopolise the buying of talent.
Most damning, the premise itself is self defeating. Somehow Google is picking the most talented people (delivering far in excess of say $1M marginal returns), yet somehow it is paying well below that to steal that talent and furthermore Google is then wasting that talent (employee delivering value below their pay+overhead). To assume Google chooses to waste talent merely to achieve some low value outcome (damaging a competitor by $1 doesn’t magically enhance Google’s returns by $1 so the factors are way out here) seems to assume the Google is somehow acting against their best financial interests. I don’t think Google is as poorly run as that.
Also:
1. Occam’s razor: Could it be that a Google is actually getting good value by paying very high salaries?
Yes. The average revenue per person for Google is about 160G$ / 115kiloemployees = 1M4 per employee. I do note that using an average is silly because the value distribution is not flat, but neither is the employee salary distribution flat. But the figure is so large, average does say something useful for back-of-envelope calcs.
2. Can Google monopolise by buying power alone?
No. Other companies have similarly high returns per employee (Apple is 260G$/160kiloemployees, Netflix is 20G$/20kiloemployees) so for Google to outbid them, it needs to outbid above the marginal revenue per employee, which clearly is well above a 600k$ salary.
3. Can Google corner the market for talent by restricting supply?
No. We know that there are plenty of talented developers because Google isn’t the only company making over $1M revenue per employee. Google employs about 115000 people. Let’s say 50000 of those were “overpaid“ to remove them from the competitors. If the total pool of equivalent talent were as small as 250000, then Google couldn’t monopolise talent. Yet other companies with high revenues per employee have a sum total of employees higher than 250000. Furthermore Google’s returns per effective employee become ~$2.8M/employee, so Google can obviously afford to pay $1M for talent it really wants!
Your sports analogy fails because sports are designed to be zero-sum where there can be only one winner, so the best player can capture more of the winnings.
Current employees are not the only revenue generators within a company, especially in a high margin monopoly business. Most of the value in Google was created over a decade ago when they achieved market dominance so revenue per employee is an unhelpful metric in their case.
I don't disagree with your other points, just the first.
However making the argument that the marginal gain from an employee has to exceed the marginal cost is much more difficult, so using an average is just a fair proxy for making the point.
My assumption is that Google are smart enough to know extremely well their marginal gain, which must be an upper bound of what they would rationally pay for an employee (salary plus overhead plus opportunity cost plus variance).
Anyone that thinks a Google is employing people at a loss to cause damage to other businesses is a double plus badthinker IMHO.
Key word was 'partial'- in no way do I believe that they want valuable employees completely sidelined- just that if they are paying slightly above market and are carrying slightly more employees than they really need, it ends up being neutral or a net benefit to Google to do so.
That seems like a weasel-word, and “partial” was not the gist of your comment, and I have seen similar comments to yours like it is a meme.
Your implication is that the pool of talent is limited and that there is some sort of zero-sum game being played.
The pool of talent is clearly not limited and there are multiple indications of that e.g. a rockstar developer would be employed at rockstar prices of millions (or signed on at millions as per your sports analogy).
If Google were to take a talented person out of the pool, the loss to the competitors is the marginal difference in talent to the next lower talented person.
Put simply, the variation in measurement of talent is large, and training can make huge differences to talent levels. Your premise can’t work without some sort of perfect oracle.
That isn’t to say it doesn’t happen at some microscopic level, or that it doesn’t happen with some particular individuals... Edited: there are just too many sensible reasons why I think it couldn’t happen systematically.
Sure, if you treat and account for engineering like a cost center. The reason big tech companies are so successful are precisely because they treat engineering like a profit center. Though sales may be the organization actually bringing in revenue, without a product, they wouldn’t have anything.
Well of course you need a product. What I'm saying is that the median engineer at Big Tech does very little to influence it in any meaningful way(at least that was my experience, and people I know who have worked at Google/Facebook)
A tremendous amount of value was created by the early engineers of course and they still have top performers shipping new things. But as somebody who worked at one of these companies early in my career well after its monopoly was established, I felt like I was just given busy work to do.
This doesn't line up with my mental logic. If the companies are paying X amount, they have to be getting at least that much value back, or they wouldn't have that position.
Now sometimes after a new CEO or an acquisition you do see some internal shuffle and some positions deemed redundant are removed, but that's rare, and generally the positions are transfered from one less profiting category of the company to another.
So from my point of view, you could argue that the employees are worth ("value of company" / "number of employees") - "value of patents" - "value of brand recognition" - "value of production equipment".
I would bet that, especially at FANNGS, that equation would result on a much higher compensation per employee then what is currently given.
The reason people arn't being paid that amount though I believe is due to investors having the option to invest in someone else.
As an investor (an employer is an investor into an employees career). You always take a bigger cut of the value of what you invest in, and you're allowed that leverage because you tend to have the option to not invest in some particular X, and have a plethora of alternatives you could invest in as well.
Thus as en employee we tend to be paid market rate, instead of by value, because there are other possible employees who could provide similar value that be willing to undercut you.
If companies go full remote, it could mean that there are even more options for employers to hire someone who could provide the same value and is willing to undercut you, for example if they have a much lower cost of living, they might be happy with a lot less money.
My bet will be that if remote dev work becomes the norm in the industry, you'll see compensations level off, Bay Area compensations will go down as employer can hire from cheaper places, and places that currently had low compensations will increase, because local companies will now have to compete for talent with big companies like FANNG.
> If the companies are paying X amount, they have to be getting at least that much value back, or they wouldn't have that position.
Tech companies are in the business of creating new products. Hell its practically the name. All companies use technology, technology companies are ones that create new technology as a core aspect of what they do.
Predicting what new thing will be valued by the market and what won’t is a very hard and unsolved problem.
So just like the VCs that funded them, tech companies adopt a throw shit at the wall and see what sticks approach.
They can do that because the scale of users that can use your work is enormous. Getting it right in software can make up for a lot more of getting it wrong than in most industries.
“the average FAANG engineer does a shockingly small amount of work that has any impact on revenue”
In stark contrast to the average pre-ipo company engineer who has rarely discussed this “revenue” business and certainly not its even more shy friend, “profit”
