What isn't? I see trying to deliver value in spite of an dysfunctional organization a part of my job description.

That's probably true for typical people. There are exceptions like John Carmack and Jon Blow, who can code for 10-12 hours a day and who are running a mini-crusade on Twitter against generalizations like that. In general, I think you're right though - if you're such exception, it should be fairly obvious to you that you're exceptional in this regard and the rule does not apply to you.

The one tech giant that is IMO delivering a product that meets minimum quality bar is Netflix. I've never seen a bug in their service. Having said that, what they do is simple compared to what other tech giants do, but then again, even a audio/video streaming service can be completely screwed up (see Windows app for Amazon Prime Video).

In general, software development is very hard and the way these companies do it - with a team of always-new engineers (few people stay on a team for more than 2-3 years and thus few people understand what's going on on a deeper level), with apparently little testing - is not conducive to quality products. [1] Also, the recent trend of microservices means basically companies have given up on delivering a cohesive, tested product - instead every team if deploying their crap to prod and hope they don't introduce bugs that break downstream consumers - and downstream consumers protect against that with failover in circuit breakers etc. It's basically as if the companies admit that they don't know how to do cross-team coordination, quality assurance etc. and every team is fending off for themselves.

[1] IIRC someone from Microsoft openly admitted that the reason for why they decided to make Win10 a Frankenstein with two different UIs stitched together was that nobody understood the Win7 code any more (relevant people changed teams/left company), so any rewrite to use Win10 widgets was out of question.

1. Speculation. People just see it as another asset class that can be blown up and sold to the greater fool.

2. Artists trying to monetize their digital work this way. Up until NFTs arrived, digital art had very little market value (due to ability to make indistinguishable copies of the original at zero cost). Some artists hope that the NFTs will be the vehicle which allows them to cash on their digital work.

3. Money laundering and similar usual suspects.

> My bet is that he will be remembered as a capital figure for putting half of the planet on a smartphone

He may be remembered for that, but that's because people's poor ability to assess real impact. Similarly, far more people know about Elon Musk than about Norman Borlaug - with the latter being much more impactful.

I wouldn't call him that. He's in second/third leaguer at best. His impact on the world was minor. He deserves biographies for sure (people with much less accomplishments get them as well), but let's not compare him to his contemporaries who were truly important historical figures of that time, like Nelson Mandela or Lech Wałęsa - people who radically changed lives of tens of millions of people.

In general, impact made by individual businesspeople is not that great, because all they do is follow market trends, which makes them fungible -i.e. if Jobs didn't push Apple to make iPhone, some other company would come up with the smartphone later on (the next step in technical/scientific progress is a logical consequence of the previous steps and is usually spotted by multiple companies/people at the same time).

Whereas in politics, the world is not an unidirectional march towards more progress, and, depending on actual leaders, things can get much better or much worse. So, a given leader makes much more of a difference. For example, if Hitler didn't want German race to dominate the world and didn't start WWII, tens millions of people would not have died - that's a huge impact in comparison. The Nazi party and even WWII could still happen without Hitler existing (somebody else might start the party to harvest all the German resentment of that period), but perhaps he'd be less rabid than Hitler, which would result in much less death - hence the actual delta of Hitler is huge. Even deltas of vanilla American presidents are much greater than Jobs'.

them?

- Hire someone above salary bands allowed by HR for full time employees (the salary bands are quite optimistic/unrealistic and are way too low for senior talent). That's probably most common cause in Europe.

Plus, let's face it, most devs are fungible commodities and don't have much bargaining power on top of the prevailing market rate. For devs, most bargaining power comes from domain expertise, but d.e. severely limits the scope of the job search - i.e. you may be limited to only a handful of companies worldwide which would be interesting in paying extra for that expertise. Chances that any of them do "meaningful work" AND allow part-time are close to zero.

Watch a documentary about rural parts of third world countries, they're much closer to "basic survival" than pampered middle-class members in the West. For reference, in China, not that long ago people were subsiding primarily on rice - that the majority they ate every day throught all of their lives. Not to mention, they went hungry quite often (but not often enough to starve to death). That's "basic survival".

Here in the West, we can cut out so much fat out of our lives without really losing out anything truly substantial. For example, check out this guy: https://earlyretirementextreme.com/. He's living in Chicago on $700 a month, around half of which goes to health insurance and real estate taxes. But, people think it's "hard" or "miserable", and they prefer to chain themselves to their full-time jobs for decades so that they can fly on vacations, get new shiny cars and go to McDonalds every other day. That's the choice I wrote in my OP.

Many people in the US could easily have 10h work week, if they could just reign in their creeping lifestyle inflation and live like people did at the end of 19th century.

Instead, most people opt to work more in exchange for significantly more comfort and pleasure. It's an unconscious choice for most - they can't even fathom living beyond a certain standard, so they in essence HAVE TO work fulltime. But the option to work less is there, they just don't realize it is.