Why representation, storytelling, and creative risk matter just as much as code in today’s tech industry.
In this exclusive interview, Mediaplanet sits down with Gazi to explore her unconventional path into software engineering, the power of digital storytelling, and how representation can reshape the future of tech.
Your journey into software engineering has inspired many young people. What first sparked your interest in tech, and how did you navigate your early career path?
My gateway into tech was not because of some grand epiphany. It was actually Tumblr.
As a pre-teen, I was obsessed with customizing my blog theme, experimenting with HTML and CSS without even knowing what they were. I just wanted my digital diary to look exactly how I envisioned in my head. That was my first realization that code is just another artistic medium. You type something into a text editor, and suddenly a completely new reality exists on the screen.
The early career phase, though, was far less magical. The job market really breaks your initial infatuation with tech. I did not have AI tools to debug my code or explain jargon instantly. I faced rejection after rejection from larger tech internships. I took unpaid roles simply to gain experience and build credibility.
It was frustrating, but I knew experience would compound over time. Eventually, those early sacrifices led to paid opportunities. Gathering proof of ability mattered more than immediate compensation, and in hindsight, that bet paid off.
You’ve built a large online community by making software engineering relatable. Why do you think digital creators play such an important role in shaping the next generation of engineers?
The tech industry has a habit of guarding its gates with dense jargon and an air of sterility. Digital creators can act as translators.
I try to take what feels opaque and make it land with real people. When I document my life, I want people to see that software engineering is not a soulless mechanism people choose for a paycheque. Coding is, and can be, a real extension of being human. To be human is to engineer – to pick up a rock and realize you can use it to make fire.
There is currently a disconnect between how tech is perceived and how it is lived. When people see engineering intertwined with artistic projects, life transitions, and storytelling, it disrupts the stereotype of the traditional engineer. By making the medium relatable and fun, we invite a completely different kind of mind into the space.
Ultimately, I hope to reach someone who would never have seen themselves in engineering. And maybe that person goes on to create something cool, especially something I couldn’t have built myself.
Diversity in engineering continues to be a challenge, especially for women in tech. What has your experience been, and what do you think would genuinely move the needle?
Navigating this space as a brown woman often feels like operating with a smaller margin for error. When you are consistently the minority in a room, a single mistake (or even just a bug in your code) can feel like it reflects on more than just you.
There is also the online side. I have had people dismiss my tenure at Google as a “diversity hire,” which is ironic. My name reads traditionally male on paper. My resume contained no gender indicators. I went through the same interview process as everyone else.
To genuinely move the needle, we need to expand what an engineer is allowed to look like. Not only through formal initiatives, but through visibility. When someone sees a person who feels familiar to them building things, it can rewire what feels within reach.
Instead of treating diversity purely as a hiring problem, we should see it as a cultural design challenge. The question shouldn’t only be “How do we bring more women into engineering?” but also “How do we reshape the environment, so more types of minds want to stay?”
If you could change one thing about how engineering is taught or perceived in Canada, what would it be?
I would reorient it around the “why” before ever touching the “how.” Right now, the structure can feel disjointed. You’re handed these blocks of discrete math, advanced calculus, and abstract theorems in isolation, without a clear sense of what they’re ultimately building toward. I spent years manipulating symbols on a page without really understanding what they were meant to weave together. It’s like being taught how to perfectly chop vegetables for four years without ever being allowed to taste the soup. That was more difficult for me as a visual learner.
I didn’t truly grasp the nature of what I was learning until I stepped outside the lecture halls. It was through self-study and falling down online rabbit holes (like watching visual explanations of concepts like gradient descent from creators such as 3Blue1Brown) that the abstract suddenly became tangible.
I think schools need to prioritize that holistic big-picture understanding from day one: showing students where concepts fit, why they matter, and how they connect to real systems. In a way that students can answer their own “why?” questionsand trace the reasoning until it feels trivial.
How do you stay up to date with constant changes in programming languages, frameworks and tools?
I do not try to memorize every framework or chase every new release. Technology moves too fast for that to be sustainable.
Instead, I follow curiosity. I pick a problem I want to solve and intentionally choose a medium that makes me uncomfortable. If I usually build web applications, maybe I’ll try building an iOS app next.
It’s about treating technology like a wardrobe. You can wear the same outfit every day, but you learn more when you mix, match, and experiment. By constantly shifting the context of my projects, learning happens organically as a byproduct of creation rather than a chore.
Frameworks change, and languages evolve. The skill that compounds is learning how to learn.
What has been the most surprising lesson you’ve learned while working in the tech industry?
The illusion of autonomy.
From the outside, big tech appears to be a playground of limitless innovation. On the inside, individual decision-making power can be quite small. Even leaders at the top operate within the constraints of revenue and user metrics.
There is a paradox. You are given tools to run experiments at a massive scale, yet ideas that do not clearly map to engagement or monetization struggle to gain traction.
Over time, I have come to appreciate constraints. Sometimes they can sharpen it. Working within real-world impact, real users, and real stakes forces you to think about what actually matters.
For more information, visit https://www.gazijarin.com/.
