The signs of techno-feudalism have always been around in fragments (platform/cloud landlords, rent-seeking, gig work, ...), but the promise of hitting gold, the idea of democratized innovation, and the reliance on mass tech labour fueled the techno-optimism. Now, the heavily power-centralizing nature of AI and the shrinking reliance on tech labour have diminished the optimism.

That might change if geopolitical tensions fragment the global supply chains.

As a parent, I found "The Anxious Generation" by Jonathan Haidt insightful and eye-opening.

It’s absolutely insightful for adults as well. Especially when paired with the other horsemen of the attention apocalypse “Dopamine Nation”, “Irresistible”, and “The Shallows”.

Returned my treatment of the internet from “the thing” to just another tool.

Mathematics doesn't need to remain backward compatible.

IMO math is backward compatible by default unless you change the foundational axioms (rare occurrence).

In particular you can most of the time define morphisms between concepts.

It's wrong to assume the owners will share the productivity gains with everyone, especially when reliance on labour will be at its lowest, and the power structure of a data/AI economy is more concentrated than anything we've seen before. IMO, the assumption that some form of basic income or social welfare system will be funded voluntarily is as delusional as thinking communism would work.

Do you mean the bubble in the financial markets, or disillusionment of capital assuming they get to lay off half the employees for the same output?

Can I ask what drew you to civil?

For sure. The engineering jobs typically have a lower pay and you'd have to start out as a junior, so higher income won't be a reason for the switch.

The delineation between programming and software engineering is arbitrary at best. Everybody understands the "engineering" in software engineering has nothing to do with other certified engineering practices, so the hair splitting here strikes me as mere gatekeeping of titles. Responsibility and accountability for outcomes have always been a requirement regardless of the title.

Probably worth clarifying with GP what responsibility and accountability they’re referring to.

Where I live, if an engineer signs off on a bridge design and the bridge personally collapses, they are personally liable for harm done to folks on the bridge. As far as I’m aware software engineering does not have something like that.

It's a rather awkward role as you have to carve out a maker's schedule within a manager's schedule [1]. As others have mentioned, it only makes sense as the person ramps up for full management or decides against that career path.

[1] https://paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html