My networth increased by $600k in the past year, but my actual income after taxes was a quarter of that. I haven't sold and collected gains, but it still feels like I "made" that much money in that span of time, especially since most of the appreciation came from RSUs. I'm just choosing to not convert it to cash.
It comes with test suites, so that gives you a base to start from. You can at the very least do trial-and-error and come up with some heuristics on the fly. You're at a huge disadvantage to someone who has some familiarity but can convincingly play it off as being a newcomer, though.
I don't mean this to be a callout, but what do you mean you led teams as an L4? Even if you were unofficially leading them, you get caught in the politics trap of not being able to claim any credit for having done so, because that means the higher levels in the workstream weren't doing their jobs, and you can't write that down or say it outloud. This is a problem in every hierarchical organization, and learning how to navigate it is unfortunately a part of the leveling process in itself when you are starting from a lower level versus being hired into a higher one.
Why can't everything you just described be done by someone who doesn't have the CEO legal title? The CTO can be the CEO in title, but fulfill the duties of both, with consultation from the "CEO" (pick whatever title you want). Basically inverting the non-technical-founder / CTO relationship, in favor of the technical founder who needs non-technical expertise and guidance, but still wants to maintain overall control of the business.
Something I want HN's thoughts on: Does a 7% pay gap matter more or less between low incomes and high incomes?
I'm looking at the bar chart with median annual earnings and a earnings gap percentage. The first gap is 7% (misleadingly labeled as 93%...), which does seem somewhat high.
But then it's for $33,598 vs $31,288. A difference of $2310, an amount that your average Bay Area FAANG SWE earns in two workdays or less (when counting amortized RSU vesting and bonuses).
You could argue that every single dollar matters for someone in that bracket. But what about when the 7% difference hits someone who is making over $500k a year in the Bay Area? Then it's a $40,000 swing. Most of that will get eaten up by taxes anyways.
Which one is worse? I would say the $2310 difference, since the $40,000 is really closer to $20,000 after taxes, and having $220,000 a year after taxes vs. $200,000 doesn't make a huge difference when you're competing for homes that cost $2 million dollars or more.
It would sound way worse with the title "x outearn y by $40,000 a year in the Bay Area", but only to people who don't realize how bonkers the financial scales are here in comparison to developing parts of the country.
>I would be very surprised if you say literally this and get results. No self-respecting company or manager is going to invest in talking to you if you describe yourself so overtly mercenary.
It paid significantly less than other engineering fields, and much, much less than specializations in finance, medicine and law (which artificially constrain supply through various gatekeeping mechanisms) up until recently, when the wage-fixing and anti-poaching policies were quashed.
There were also two periods in the past 25 years where it was very difficult to find work, especially for entry-level, without there being an especially large glut of engineers. Dot-com bust and the 2007 recession.
I've been wanting to do an online MSCS program for years, but it probably won't happen anytime soon. I looked into WGU, but I didn't like the lack of accreditation.
I found one school/program that seemed fair in terms of cost and time, but I couldn't fully test out of all of my pre-requisites, and I would still have to spend a considerable amount of time (and money) doing community college courses.
I just can't justify the time and effort involved when it would do nothing for my career at this point. I'm already at a top employer, top 5% income, a ridiculous upward trajectory that beats out all of my friends with a CS degree, and I'm basically set for the rest of my working life if I just keep doing what I've been doing for the past five years.
Coworkers have always assumed I had a CS degree, and have been surprised when they find out that I don't. I've grinded leetcode twice in the past, and when I'm in interviewing shape, I perform as well as someone with a CS background, and that's the only thing that really matters.
The main benefits I see at this point are that it would help for immigration, but I'm confident that the United States will remain the best market for software engineers for years to come. I'd rather invest the time in learning Mandarin, which I think will become increasingly important for software engineering. I at least have a non-STEM undergrad degree, so immigration wouldn't be impossible. The employers on my resume mean more than any CS degree would in the US market, but I don't know how true that is in other job markets.
For people who don't have experience, and especially for those doing the typical college path from ages 18-21, a CS bachelor's is great. You get priority for internships (a huge advantage over people from non-CS backgrounds, and the most significant IMO), a network of peers, and you have the opportunity to land in FAANG straight out of college, which means you'll be able to retire early if you want to. If you don't, you still get the other two.
I started my career late, but if I had the opportunity to go back in time to when I had just graduated from a non-STEM program and trade two years of working for a CS degree, I wouldn't do it. I don't think I would be as successful as I am now if I had done that.
Things would be different if software engineering had gatekeeping similar to what's seen in other high-paying fields like finance, law, and medicine. The only real form of gatekeeping is the aforementioned prioritization (and sometimes even exclusivity) for internships.
The best employers don't care. People will stop asking once you have FAANG experience, but once you do, why would you want to work at the places where interviewers ask that question anyways?
Not sure how you got that impression. I like my hobbies. Your presented hobbies != your actual hobbies. I'm just sharing advice that will potentially better your odds.
I'd argue that the modern definition has nothing to do with immigrant status, and is entirely about whether or not you can pass as a native English speaker. It just so happens that most people who have accents are immigrants, and you can reasonably assume that anyone who didn't grow up speaking English as a native language is going to have an accent.
You are not a fob if you moved here from China at 9 years old, didn't read or speak your first word of English until then, and have no discernible accent as an adult.
No one would call a Hong Konger with a HK English accent a fob either.
>but I think that's quite different from what was originally intended by "interesting" in this thread.
Is it? Being interesting is a competition. You are competing for the interest/attention of others. How interesting you are depends on how much better or worse you rank compared to others, in regards to the factors that make a person interesting. Relationships, friendships, jobs -- it's all competition for limited resources.
>"Say it's your hobby"... I suggest actually finding a hobby. Because it will make you happier, not because it will make you "look interesting".
Obviously you should have hobbies for the sake of personal fulfillment, and I don't see what would make you think I feel otherwise. But your hobbies are also part of your personal brand, and a factor in making you interesting (or boring), so it's important that you project as someone who has interesting hobbies (whether they actually qualify as hobbies or not, depending on the time and effort/money that you invest). Right? People list their hobbies on dating profiles. People (usually) talk about their hobbies on first dates. It's not uncommon for hobbies to be a discussion during job interviews.
>Some of it might make you attractive to certain people
Yes, hopefully (but not assuredly) attractive to certain people that you want to attract in the first place.