My take on how a decade (or more) of using cloud services for everything has seemingly deskilled the workforce.
Just recently I found myself interviewing senior security engineers just to realize that in many cases they had absolutely no idea about how the stuff they supposedly worked with, actually worked.
This all made me wonder, is it possible that over-reliance on cloud services for everything has massively deskilled the engineering workforce? And if it is so, who is going to be the European clouds, so necessary for EU’s digital sovereignty?
I did not copy-paste the post in here because of the different writing style, but I get no benefit whatsoever from website visits.
I disagree. On paper that sounds good, but I firmly believe good engineers are curious, so they’ll learn a lot more than necessary to do the job.
For example, when I worked at a company that designed antennas as a software engineer (built something tangentially related), I didn’t need to know anything about electrical engineering, but I was curious so I asked a ton of questions and now I know a fair amount about EE. These days I work in a very different domain and still ask a ton of questions to our domain experts. In my own field, I look into all kinds of random things tangentially related to the tools I use. In each case, that curiosity has come in handy at some point or another.
In each role, I can tell who’s there to clock in and clock out vs who is genuinely curious and looking to improve, and it’s the latter group who tend to produce the best work and go on to great roles after leaving our company, while the 9-5 warriors who just focus on the requirements tend to do pretty mediocre when it comes to advancement.
When I hire, I look for that curiosity because you never know what you’ll need to know to fix a prod issue quickly. My esoteric knowledge about SSH helped keep my team productive for a few days when IT was being slow revolving our issue, and likewise we’ve had quick resolution to prod bugs because someone on the team knew something random that ended up being relevant. That’s what I mean when I say I look for a diverse team, I want people with different strengths who all actively seek to improve so we’ll have a good shot at handling whatever comes down the pipe (and we get a lot of random stuff, from urgently needing to embed 3D modeling tools into our reporting app to needing to embed complex C++ simulation code or rewrite Fortran code into our largely CRUD Python app).
Most of these cases of “focus on one niche” are often symptoms of lacking curiosity and just wanting to tick boxes to quality for a role. I’d much rather someone miss a few important boxes but tick a lot of random ones because they’re curious; they’ll take longer to on-board, but they’ll likely be more useful long term.
I don’t work in the security space, but I think the same applies to most technical fields. Breadth of knowledge in an individual provides depth of knowledge in a team.
But, did you ever use a Smith’s chart to assist in antenna design / analysis?
Yeah I don’t think we actually disagree much here. :)
I think my angle is just slightly different? I see that ease of access (eg cloud) make it possible for a lot more uncurious and clock-out people to enter the field and pass as competent. To be honest, even the modest introduction of auto-formatting editors are easy to see as good and useful, but I also feel that they allowed shoddy work to look passable at first glance. AI will make this a lot worse.
But as for the actual people who have it in them to be competent, people that were always there and still are, cloud is not going to make them worse.
I guess my point is that it’s harder to suss out the actually competent people if they’re able to build a good portfolio using tools. AI makes this harder, since they can sound more competent than they are, and them a few months down the line we need to discuss them leaving the org.