Hey guys,

I switched my major my last year of undergrad from graphic design to applied computer science. With the big change I was not able to do any internships and now having trouble landing interviews post grad.

Anyone have any recommendations for good first jobs? I don't have any income requirements just would prefer full-time.

I live in Washington DC for context. Still working on programming skills through certifications but not looking for a software engineering job until further down the line, just needing anything in the field to get out of my retail leadership role.

I’m an early career FDE at an AI startup (i know, so unique right) and received an equity package of something like 0.0002% (might’ve been more like 0.0008% as employee #30 with a 1 year cliff and 4 year vest

this means i’d get paid out 1mil for a company valuation of 5bil right?

When I joined the company, I was pretty unaware of how equity at startups work. Now that I’ve been here for ~8 months and am working like 60-80hrs per week, I’m just trying to make sure that i’m not crazy thinking that I’m kinda being scammed, right? 😭😩

My LinkedIn feed is full of oh no I just got laid off from Netflix. If anyone is hiring please help.

OK getting laid off sucks. Fine, whatever. But some of these people have been there for a lot of time, 5+ years. Plus a pretty good severance package. They shouldn't have to worry about a new job for years. Yet they're on LI already desperate for a new job.

I was laid off once making nowhere near FAANG money and only got something like 2 months severance. Even then I wasn't desperate to find something right away as if I'd be homeless. I had enough put away to go without working for 9-12 months counting severance and unemployment.

It's bizarre to me. Did they all just blow through the money? Are they workaholics? What's going on here?

Edit: Lots of comments talking about what their expenses are. My point isn't that. It's they should have put away $100sK a year. They should have 7 figures in "the bank". Which is more than enough to pay a mortgage or whatever.

And if so, which one was it? Did you qualify for higher paying jobs? Was the hiring process faster for you?

TL;DR: Research suggests years of previous work experience barely predict job performance (r ≈ 0.07). So here's my hypothesis: randomly selecting 100 applicants out of 1,000 might be almost as effective as filtering them through an ATS, at a fraction of the cost and with fewer built-in biases. I can't test this without real hiring data. Can someone who has access to it try? I'd genuinely love to be proven wrong.

I've been looking into research on the predictive validity of hiring criteria, and stumbled upon something that I find both fascinating and slightly hilarious.

A 2019 meta-analysis by Van Iddekinge et al., covering 81 independent samples, found that previous work experience had a correlation of roughly 0.06 with subsequent job performance. Even relevant previous experience had a correlation of about 0.07.

Now, correlation isn't predictive accuracy, and those numbers don't mean that experience is entirely useless. But they're remarkably close to zero.

Which got me thinking.

Suppose you have 1,000 applicants for an engineering position, and you can afford to evaluate 100 of them.

Your ATS filters by years of experience, perhaps alongside other résumé criteria, and selects 100 candidates.

I propose a competing implementation:

bash shuf -n 100 applicants.txt

That's it.

If years of previous experience have almost no predictive relationship with actual job performance, then selecting candidates based on that criterion should offer very little advantage over random sampling.

And random sampling has some rather attractive properties:

• Computational cost is effectively zero.
• No elaborate infrastructure or language models required.
• No arbitrary preference for prestigious employers, uninterrupted careers, or people who've spent exactly seven years writing Java.
• No systematic discrimination introduced by the selection rule itself (though existing biases in the applicant pool remain).
• Everyone eligible has a chance to be evaluated.

Of course, I'm talking about using random sampling instead of weakly predictive résumé filters, not instead of assessing candidates. Hard requirements that are genuinely necessary for the job can still be checked.

And there's a distinction worth making: ATS products do more than filter by experience, and this research doesn't establish the validity of every possible ATS configuration. My hypothesis concerns systems that rely heavily on years of experience and similar résumé proxies.

Here's the experiment I'd love somebody to run.

Take 1,000 real applications. Apply your normal screening process and select 100 candidates. Independently draw another 100 at random from the same eligible applicant pool.

Have both groups undergo the same blinded, job-relevant technical assessment.

Compare:

1. How many candidates meet the assessment threshold?
2. How many strong candidates did the conventional filter exclude?
3. How much did each method cost?
4. Does conventional screening provide enough additional value to justify its complexity and cost?

Ideally, we'd eventually compare actual job performance too, although that would require a more involved study. Passing a technical assessment is only a proxy.

I don't have access to hiring datasets, so I can't run this myself.

But I'd be genuinely curious whether someone in recruiting, HR analytics, or an engineering organisation has access to the data and would be willing to test it.

I'm particularly interested in the economic question. Even if conventional screening performs slightly better than random selection, is that difference large enough to pay for the screening machinery?

We're currently discussing LLMs, AI-powered candidate ranking, intelligent ATS systems, and all sorts of elaborate hiring technology.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering whether we've established that the machinery we're trying to improve actually beats a random number generator by a useful margin.

Has anyone tested this against a random baseline? I'd love to see the results, including results that prove my hypothesis wrong.

Reference: Van Iddekinge et al. (2019), A Meta-analysis of the Criterion-related Validity of Prehire Work Experience, Personnel Psychology.

https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12335

I work significantly faster with AI. Not “we can lay off half the team” faster, but the difference is there. At the same time, even colleagues who long dismissed the possibility are now starting to worry about their jobs.

There are two things I don’t understand:

1. Why lay off developers instead of building more with the same team?

If a team gets more done with AI, why not develop more products, ship features faster, and take market share from competitors? Why produce the same output at a lower cost instead of aiming for more revenue with the existing team?

2. How much additional pressure can better models actually create?
For many of my tasks, AI already produces nearly perfect code and integrates it well. If that already works, the additional productivity gains from further improvements should eventually get smaller.

So why do we expect continued job losses as models improve? Am I underestimating how much can still be automated beyond code generation itself?

Something else that makes me skeptical: some companies also automate reviews and testing once those become the next bottleneck. I worry about technical debt, while we developers barely get a say in these decisions.

I see the productivity gains. What I’m missing is an explanation of why they should lead to less demand for developers. Where is the flaw in my thinking on these two questions?

Hey guys it's ya boy, how do I get a job in producing lights for theatre productions or concerts? Preferably in Europe if you guys have some tips for that. Do I need a specific education or just contacts? I have some experience in avolites and Qlab, and a tiny bit of experience in producing. I wanna make light shows for EDM or designing lights for theatres. Anyway have a lovely day, also completely unrelated love the shirt. Is it new? Love the colors/design:)

She said her main job as a programmer now is basically code reviewing and controlling her AI agents for quality control.

And when I look at many devs nowadays, their job is the same like her, review AI code and control their AI agents.

However, I've also heard that some companies are rehiring employees, so I can't make a final conclusion about the job market is gonna be good or bad in the near future lol

Ps. Today Netflix just fired 6% or 10k of their employees tho.. so this is another sign that demands for programmer is going to be lower.

Ps2. in case someoen curious what video im talking about. it is this
https://x.com/poteto/status/2102050467505430555/video/1

I’ve spent around 8 years in software development, mainly working with .NET, C#, backend systems and AWS.

Almost two years ago, I stepped away from coding to take on a leadership role in a commodity trading company, handling commercial operations, business development, procurement and sales.

Over this period, I’ve also been getting hands-on with AI tooling, LLMs, local models and agents, building small tools and experimenting with what’s possible.

Now I’m at a crossroads.

I enjoy technology, but I’ve been away from day-to-day software development for nearly two years. Going back means refreshing my skills and catching up with how much the ecosystem has changed. At the same time, my business experience and growing interest in AI have opened up other possibilities.

I’m considering a few options: returning to .NET development, moving towards AI engineering, finding a role that combines technology and business, or continuing to build my own tools.

If you were in my position, what would you do next?

Would you go back to software engineering, make a serious move into AI, or take advantage of the combination of technical and commercial experience?

I’d genuinely appreciate some honest perspectives, especially from people who’ve made a similar transition or have hired for these kinds of roles.

People often say "programming languages don't matter," meaning a good dev should be able to pick up anything. I agree—up to a point. But there's a big nuance people miss: how well do you actually know the domain?

Think of it this way:

If you’re a backend dev switching from Node to Go, you're learning new syntax, but you already know how APIs work. It's an easy transition.

If you’re a Node dev staying in TypeScript but switching to infrastructure automation, you already know the language, so you can focus entirely on learning the new domain.

But if you’re a Node dev switching to Go for infrastructure work, you're learning the syntax, the domain, and the tools all at once. That's a massive hurdle. It's like trying to cross greased monkey bars.

The ramp-up time is way longer when you're learning both the language and the concepts, which is why I don't buy the blanket "languages don't matter" claim.

What about AI? Some say it makes the language irrelevant since it can write code for you. AI is great for syntax, but if you don't understand the domain, how can you even tell if the code it's giving you is actually good? Just because it runs doesn't mean it's the right way to build it.

AI can help you write code, but it doesn't automatically mean you know how to check if that code is right.

My main point:

I think developers need some kind of solid foundation to start with.

If the language is new, knowing the concepts helps.

If the concepts are new, knowing the language helps.

But if both are new, the learning curve gets a lot steeper.

I'm not saying developers can't learn a new language and a new domain at the same time. Obviously, they can.

I'm saying employers need to account for that extra learning time instead of expecting the same productivity and onboarding speed as someone who already knows the language or the domain.

So maybe "programming languages don't matter" is a bit of an oversimplification.

Maybe a better way to put it is:

"Programming languages matter less when the underlying concepts are familiar."

I'm curious what other engineers think. Have you ever had to jump into a project where both the language and the domain were new to you? How did that affect how long it took to get up to speed?

Over 25 years of experience in the field.

I have experience in all areas of IT although most of my recent experience is in software dev/database work.

My last job was a remote gig. I think it would be tough to find something like it.

I'm getting calls for IT support/System Administration type roles. Those are pretty much the only jobs I'm seeing in the area I'm in.

A little less money and not remote but at least the commute isn't too far away.

If I couldn't find something remote, it would be a 90 minute commute to the city for a software dev job.

At this stage in my career, perhaps it's time to lower my expectations?

A couple years back, there was news of mass layoffs every week at tech companies, but I’m not seeing those news anymore. Has the layoffs slowed down?

Do you guys know the best sites for mock interview questions aimed at Computer Engineering Positions? Such as ASIC, verilog, Embedded.

Leetcode and interviewcoderhq are primarily geared towards pure software

I have around 10 years of experience in QA automation, including Playwright, TypeScript, API testing, CI/CD, and SQL.
I’m interested in transitioning to a Forward Deployed Engineer role, particularly in AI/LLMs.
Is this a realistic career transition?
What skills should I focus on to make the switch?
Any advice from people who have made a similar transition?

My 2017 MacBook Pro 13" 16gb is on its last legs, so I'm looking to upgrade.

I bought it back when I was a student, before any of the AI stuff. I completed my studies but never went beyond that. I'd like to get back into web dev and start looking for a job. My tech stack was full-stack web dev using React JS front end and Node JS backend; I'll likely be using the same, at least at the start.

I know I'll need to use AI if I want any chance of finding work. I'm aware of Cursor, Claude Code, and Codex, and will be using one of them. Any advice on which? What plan should I go for, or is the free version enough? Is the base MacBook sufficient for this?

• M5 MacBook Air 13"
• 10-core CPU, 8-core GPU, 16-core neural engine
• 16 GB Unified Memory
• 512 GB SSD
• $24.99/month for 36 months, 0% interest

I've read a bunch of Reddit threads, and most comments advise at least 24 GB, sometimes 32 GB. Some even suggest getting the Pro instead (too expensive). I don't plan on running a local LLM, so is anything more than 16 GB necessary? I figure a 512 GB SSD is enough; my projects will be on GitHub. I was using pnpm to save on disk space.

afaik everything I was using was Homebrew + pnpm + VS Code + ReactJS + SASS + Node Express Server + Insomnia REST + Web Browser with multiple tabs open. So it would be that + an AI assistant. Maybe Docker too; I don't have experience using it yet, but I assume I will.

I will be using this laptop to study again, create projects for my portfolio, and do coding interviews when I start applying. No heavy video editing/raw photos/3d modeling... Strictly web dev work to find a job. I can bump up the specs, but would rather not waste money if it's not necessary. Not concerned with future-proofing.

Also, if anyone has any general advice, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

I live near DC, and nearly every tech job I see near me on Indeed and LinkedIn requires a clearance, and I don’t have one. Has anyone in this area had luck finding a job that doesn’t require one? If so, how did you find it?

Apologize for not naming the company to avoid doxing myself, since I'll mention the role in details. I got 2 offers, one from a big US fintech and another from a well known noSQL provider, both mid-level.

• Fintech: 260k TC, 3-day, nice office with lots of freebies. I also see some people there who from a really cool startup I know which strong engineering culture.

• NoSQL: 210k TC, full-remote, 2 annual company-wide paid in-person trip (COL dependent, so this is because it's based in the same city as the fintech). From the interview the vibe definitely seems more chill here, very cool people.

For what it's worth, fintech is 3.5 while noSQL is 3.9 on Blind/Glassdor. Both are actually quite the same for me, I don't mind 3-day or 50k less for remote, or a bit worse WLB. Now the technical part is where I can't decide.

• Fintech: Basel monorepo build team, owns the infra and CICD velocity. It feels platform engineering.

• NoSQL: C++ networking/transport layer, consensus protocol? It feels more coding

I have been positioning myself and learning more in platform engineering SRE cloud stuffs. I aim for responsibilities that AI can't be trusted with.

Which one offers more engineering mobility and fundamentals ? I'm not sure what the prospect of C++ is in that regard. I'm a bit afraid that the C++ role is too coding and more prone to AI ? But Basel monorepo also seems very big-tech-only.

I appreciate all the insights.

I’ve spent around 8 years in software development, mainly working with .NET, C#, backend systems and AWS.

Almost two years ago, I stepped away from coding to take on a leadership role in a commodity trading company, handling commercial operations, business development, procurement and sales.

Over this period, I’ve also been getting hands-on with AI tooling, LLMs, local models and agents, building small tools and experimenting with what’s possible.

Now I’m at a crossroads.

I enjoy technology, but I’ve been away from day-to-day software development for nearly two years. Going back means refreshing my skills and catching up with how much the ecosystem has changed. At the same time, my business experience and growing interest in AI have opened up other possibilities.

I’m considering a few options: returning to .NET development, moving towards AI engineering, finding a role that combines technology and business, or continuing to build my own tools.

If you were in my position, what would you do next?

Would you go back to software engineering, make a serious move into AI, or take advantage of the combination of technical and commercial experience?

I’d genuinely appreciate some honest perspectives, especially from people who’ve made a similar transition or have hired for these kinds of roles.

3.5YOE as an engineer and just recently got laid off from a Fortune 50. While I do feel somewhat relieved (the writing was on the wall for months), the thought of sending dozens of applications into an abyss feels rather daunting.

I know the job market is rough right now but for those of you who were laid off within the last year or so, did you find a light at the end of the tunnel? Especially those who are mid-level and not quite senior (but not entry-level either).

I remember that the meta used to be that to differentiate yourself and improve your CV to land your first job or intership, you had to have a strong showcase of technical personal projects. However, I feel that this has stopped being the case.

I mean, somebody can just create a few beginner-level personal projects by just using AI. Has that made personal projects less relevant for hiring?

What can someone do now instead?

I haven’t even been out of college two years, and I’m getting overwhelmed and on the verge of losing it. We hired many with 10+ years of experience in cloud and all those fields and they DONT KNOW ANYTHING. They don’t know terraform, vpcs, any kind of networking.

Yet they have titles like senior ai/cloud buzzwords while I’m literally an associate and I do all the work.

I feel miserable, every time I say something I need to repeat it 10 times, they still won’t get it. They nod and say they got it yet when something is due they reach out a day before.

I’m just miserable and I feel like I’m about to lose it, I’m constantly getting messages and meeting invites from people to explain things. Which I KNOW THEY WONT PAY ATTENTION OR LEARN.

WHY AM I TEACHING SENIOR ENGINEERS THINGS AS AN ASSOCIATE.

bro im so fucking tired of business people and their corporate bullshit man.

like genuinely as a technical person why the fuck am i expected to understand half of their business domain too?? im a software engineer. i got into engineering because i wanted to work with technology, build shit, solve problems, work with systems and infrastructure and all that. not become some fucking MBA guy who spends his entire day talking about business goals and market positioning and whatever the fuck.

i didnt sign up to be a software engineer + business analyst + product manager + marketing guy + project coordinator + professional powerpoint presenter all at the same time bro 😭

why does knowing how to code suddenly mean i have to do five other peoples jobs too??

and the worst part is you cant even just build the thing properly. no. first you have to understand what the business wants, then why they want it, then what the customers might want, then what the market wants, then what the stakeholders want, then what some other person thinks the stakeholders might want. BRO JUST TELL ME WHAT THE FUCK THE SOFTWARE NEEDS TO DO.

what about the actual engineering side of things?? architecture, maintainability, performance, security, reliability, making sure the thing doesnt fall apart in 2 weeks?? does any of that matter or not??

apparently it only matters if you can fit it into a business presentation.

AND WHY THE FUCK DOES EVERYTHING NEED A MEETING.

you need to change one tiny feature? meeting.
need to discuss the feature? another meeting.
need to make sure everyone is aligned about the thing discussed in the first meeting? ANOTHER FUCKING MEETING.

then someone sends a meeting summary about what happened in the meeting, then you have a follow up meeting to discuss the action items from that summary. im not even joking what is this shit 😭

BRO JUST SEND ME THE REQUIREMENTS.

write down what you want. tell me what the problem is, what the system should do, and let me figure out how to build it. why are we spending an entire hour discussing something that couldve been explained in like 5 minutes??

and then after 3 hours of meetings people wonder why the actual work isnt done yet.

BRO WHEN THE FUCK WAS I SUPPOSED TO DO IT??? DURING MY LUNCH BREAK??

i swear some companies care more about looking busy than actually getting shit done. your calendar is full, you're on calls all day, writing updates, making reports, explaining what you're gonna do, discussing when you're gonna do it, then discussing the discussion about what you're gonna do.

WHEN DO I ACTUALLY GET TO DO THE FUCKING THING.

apparently doing the work isnt enough anymore. you also have to constantly prove that you're doing the work. like if im spending 4 hours debugging some weird issue and finally fix it, thats apparently less impressive than spending 4 hours making a powerpoint about how we're gonna fix it.

and then there's the fucking corporate language.

"lets circle back"
"lets take this offline"
"we need better alignment"
"lets leverage synergies"
"we need to drive impact"
"move the needle"
"cross functional collaboration"

BRO WHAT ARE YOU EVEN SAYING. CAN YOU JUST TALK LIKE A NORMAL PERSON FOR ONCE.

if something is broken just say its broken. if you want something fixed then tell me what needs fixing. if a decision needs to be made then MAKE THE FUCKING DECISION. why does every sentence sound like its being announced at a fortune 500 shareholder meeting??

AND WHY DOES EVERY LITTLE THING HAVE TO BE A HUGE DEAL.

its a favicon bro. A FUCKING FAVICON. its a tiny icon in a browser tab. why are we acting like we're launching a new fucking country over it.

its a small UI change and suddenly we need to discuss brand positioning, user perception, business objectives, visual identity, market strategy and whatever other shit people can come up with. BRO ITS AN ICON.

sometimes a button is just a button. a config file is a config file. a small technical change doesnt need a strategy document, stakeholder review, roadmap, presentation, committee and six people giving their opinions.

WHY DO WE KEEP TURNING SIMPLE SHIT INTO CORPORATE PROJECTS.

and everyone has an opinion even when they have absolutely no idea what the technical consequences are.

someone just randomly goes "why dont we add this feature?"

bro do you even know what adding that feature involves?? do you know how the existing architecture works? what dependencies it has? what it could break? have you thought about testing, security, edge cases or maintenance at all??

no. you had an idea in a meeting and now its somehow my job to make it happen by tomorrow.

and if i explain that the idea is technically bad then suddenly im being negative. im not being collaborative. im not being solution oriented. apparently im resisting change.

BRO IM TRYING TO STOP US FROM BUILDING A PIECE OF SHIT. HOW IS THAT A PERSONALITY PROBLEM.

sometimes a feature just isnt needed. sometimes the existing solution is fine. sometimes we should finish the thing we're ALREADY BUILDING before adding 10 more features to it. but apparently saying no is illegal because someone already promised it to a client without even asking engineering if its possible.

and OH MY GOD THE FUCKING DEADLINES.

business people promise things to clients or executives or investors before even talking to the engineers who have to build the damn thing.

then they come to us like "we need this by friday".

BRO YOU MADE THAT PROMISE. WHY THE FUCK AM I RESPONSIBLE FOR IT??

you cant just make up a deadline, ignore how complicated the thing is, skip the technical discussion and then act shocked when someone says its not realistic. software isnt magic. servers arent magic. putting a date on a powerpoint slide doesnt magically make a system reliable.

and rushing shit doesnt always make it faster either. sometimes it just means more bugs, more technical debt, more outages and more work later. guess who has to deal with all of that? THE SAME FUCKING ENGINEERS.

then when something breaks suddenly everybody cares about reliability. suddenly everyone wants a technical explanation. suddenly its "why didnt we test this properly?"

BECAUSE YOU SPENT THREE WEEKS CHANGING THE REQUIREMENTS AND GAVE US TWO DAYS TO BUILD THE ACTUAL THING YOU ABSOLUTE GENIUS.

and even when we do exactly what they asked for we still somehow get blamed.

they tell us to implement something in a certain way. we explain why its a bad idea. they insist anyway because theyre the decision makers. so we do it.

then when the result is bad its "why did the engineering team build it like this?"

BRO THAT WAS YOUR FUCKING DECISION. WE LITERALLY TOLD YOU THIS WOULD HAPPEN.

YOU ASKED FOR IT. WE EXPLAINED THE PROBLEM. YOU SAID DO IT ANYWAY. AND NOW YOURE BLAMING US??

HOW IS THAT FAIR.

and the double standards are what really piss me off. engineers are expected to understand business requirements, customer expectations, marketing, budgets, deadlines, product goals, stakeholder priorities and whatever else.

but do business people put the same effort into understanding engineering??

do they know why database migrations need testing? why deployments fail sometimes? why architecture matters? why a feature that sounds simple can need changes in like 4 different systems? why you cant just keep adding shit forever without thinking about performance, security and maintainability??

sometimes they dont even wanna understand. they just want the result.

they want everything to work perfectly, instantly, cheaply, with no bugs, no downtime, no delays and unlimited changes. apparently we are supposed to provide infinite flexibility for free.

and when reality doesnt match their expectations they look at engineering like we personally betrayed the company.

BRO WE BUILD TECHNOLOGY. WE DONT GRANT WISHES.

AND NOW WE NEED DATA ANALYTICS BEFORE THE PRODUCT IS EVEN FINISHED????

IM BUILDING A WEBSITE BRO. LET ME FINISH BUILDING THE FUCKING WEBSITE FIRST.

how am i supposed to give you meaningful analytics when the product isnt even done yet?? how am i supposed to tell you how users are interacting with something that isnt even properly available to users??

let me finish the implementation. let me test it, fix the bugs and make sure the system actually works. THEN we can launch it, get actual users, collect data and see what happens.

thats literally how this works. theres a difference between planning ahead and demanding results before the conditions for those results even exist.

but no everything needs to happen at the same time because someone wants to show progress in the next business review. we need analytics, we need a dashboard, we need a report, we need metrics, we need a presentation. THE PRODUCT ISNT EVEN FUCKING DONE YET.

and thats what makes this whole thing so exhausting.

everything is a performance. you cant just do the work. you have to talk about the work, document the work, present the work, justify the work, defend the work, explain the work, then explain why the work took so long to people who dont even understand what the work involves.

you can spend an entire day solving some horrible technical issue and nobody really sees how much work went into it because the end result is just that the system works. which is literally the point.

but someone spends an hour presenting 6 slides with all the right buzzwords and suddenly they look like the most productive person in the room.

WHY DOES THE PERSON TALKING ABOUT THE WORK GET MORE CREDIT THAN THE PERSON WHO ACTUALLY DID IT??

why does everything need to be explained in terms of business impact before people can respect the technical work?? why cant good engineering just be valued for what it is??

why cant i just be good at my fucking job without learning corporate politics as a second career.

i dont wanna spend my life learning how to sound impressive in meetings. i dont wanna spend 20 minutes carefully wording one sentence because somebody might get offended. i dont wanna negotiate over every little decision that shouldve been a straightforward technical discussion.

i dont wanna pretend every tiny task is some strategic milestone either.

its a feature, not an initiative. its a meeting, not a sync. its a problem, not a "business blocker". its a normal engineering task, not a value driven transformation or whatever the fuck you call it.

I JUST WANNA DO ENGINEERING.

i wanna open a terminal, connect to a server, configure linux, build infrastructure, write automation, debug systems, optimize performance, figure out how machines work and solve actual technical problems.

i wanna build something, make it work, test it, deploy it and know i did a good job. thats it. thats the whole fucking point for me.

i wanna be judged on my technical skills, my engineering decisions, the quality of what i build and whether the systems actually work. not on how good i am at presentations or how well i can make a status update sound impressive.

i dont want my entire career to revolve around keeping people happy with slides, meetings, reports and random business demands.

and honestly i wouldnt even mind moving away from software development if thats what it takes to get away from this shit. power plants, industrial automation, embedded systems, networking, operating systems, infrastructure, robotics, hardware, whatever man. ANYTHING.

i just want a technical environment where the engineering is actually the main thing. where people care about how stuff works and building it properly.

and yeah obviously i know every engineering job has budgets, requirements, safety rules and people you need to work with. im not expecting to sit in a cave and never speak to another human being. i understand business requirements exist. im not saying engineers should completely ignore users or the people paying for the product.

BUT BUSINESS SHOULDNT BECOME THE ENTIRE FUCKING JOB.

not every technical decision needs to turn into a political negotiation. not every small change needs to become a major initiative. not every question needs a meeting with 8 people. and please for the love of god stop making promises on behalf of engineers and then acting like its our fault when your made up deadline isnt realistic.

give me a reasonable problem. tell me what needs to happen. let me use my technical judgement. give me enough time to do it properly and let me take responsibility for the result.

IS THAT REALLY TOO MUCH TO ASK??

i chose computer science because i liked computers. i wanted to understand technology and build shit. i didnt choose this so i could spend my entire life participating in corporate theatre.

LET BUSINESS PEOPLE HANDLE BUSINESS.
LET MARKETING PEOPLE HANDLE MARKETING.
LET PRODUCT PEOPLE HANDLE PRODUCT STRATEGY.

AND LET THE FUCKING ENGINEERS ENGINEER.

give me a technical problem, give me the tools, give me the time to solve it properly.

then please just leave me the fuck alone and let me do my job.

no more corporate bullshit. no more meetings that couldve been an email. no more buzzwords. no more turning every tiny thing into a massive fucking deal.

JUST LET ME BUILD SHIT IN PEACE.

I graduated with a business degree, and took up this role in IBM Pre-Sales called "Business technology leader". Its a bloated business, and the work is not that interesting, but whatever, its experience. I start doing it and three months in, they reorg the entire org, and I am on a new team now with a "Platform Engineer" title.

Ok, nothing too bad, I got a CS minor so I can handle technical stuff too. Then a month later they transition me to a "Strategy Designer" role (cause there were too many platform engineers), and idk wtf that even is. I don't get good reviews cause I'm not good at this UI/UX design role (that I think is BS and for which I never signed up for in the first place and have no background or desire to be in). I go on medical leave.

After two months I come back, and they've reorged again in the meantime, with my title being "Client Value Engineer". At this point I am put on a PIP within a week of returning (cause my feedback during the designer role was bad). The PIP made no sense whatever, which I wasn't surprised by, they do stack ranking and prob just wanted me out. I take it and leave.

So here I am, with 1 year of experience that I have no idea how to explain on a CV, since I did not have that much work to do (cause after each re-org nothing happened for a few weeks which people were figuring stuff out) and the team didn't do much either so I can't put down what they did on my CV

What do I do now?

I am a computer Engineering student in my 3rd year of Bachelor's degree. I have not studied well till now, and I am way more behind some of my peers in learning to code.

I know what domains exist, what we need to know to enter them, What are the tools, frameworks and technologies used in those domains. But I don't ACTUALLY know them. I even lack the knowledge of CS fundamentals like DSA, OOP, OS, CN, DBMS, etc. I know a little bit of Java, Python, JS, HTML, CSS, C. But don't have fluency in any of them.

So, Whenever I search about any career on reddit, It says that it is dead. For example, I have searched for some careers like,

-Data engineering

-Product Management

-Business Analyst

-Web Development

and many more...

I know PM or BA are not purely tech careers, but They are one of the domains I searched for and Found "... is dead" Posts.

My questions:-

1. Why is it like that? Is it true or they're just over exaggerating?

2. Are all pure-tech and "semi-tech"(just coined a word for this post) careers doomed because of AI?

3. How can you survive and dream of a long term career in tech while there is a heavy AI influence in every tech domain?

4. Do all these careers need constant new learning of tools and technologies outside of your work once you get in?

I am very confused Regarding my career direction now, Therefore I am looking for advice.

Thank you for your answer and time in advance. I appreciate it.