if you're actually struggling to get people to interact with you the way you want, I think the real problem is your expectations of other people. if they miss the plot, it might be because you timed the conversation poorly, or because you talked to the wrong person for what you need.
this whole post reads like it's coming from someone who sees people as tools to get what they need. the reason I talk to people when I'm struggling with a problem isn't for reference, but for connection, and to get my own wheels turning.
I'll grant that it's interesting to think about. now that LLMs exist, we're forced to assess what value human brains provide. it's so dystopian. but there's no other choice.
something about this doesn't quite sit right when I consider my experience with negotiating for roles at startups. I agree with the approach for big tech, but it sets a weird tone for working closely with a team if you just spent a week stressing them out and shaking them down. I've done that negotiation for myself, tried to hire people who did it to me, and I've watched others go through it. it always leaves a funny smell with the team, because at the startups I've been involved with it's kind of rare to play hardball.
just my experience. I am more on the mission-driven end of the why-do-you-work spectrum, it's not just the money for me. and I've gotten bitten in the ass by the sharks who sit on the board and hand down layoffs, I know it's how the world works. just speaking about the small teams where you are negotiating with the overworked hiting manager.
I think about this a lot as I get older. what I've realized is that being young (like under 30) is a pretty big deviation as far as physiology goes. the rest of life is a long slow decline, so you gotta set yourself up to manage it.
I am so sorry for what's happening to this man, and I hope he finds peace in his last days.
the economics, ethics, and effectiveness around early approvals are really difficult to manage. companies have a strong incentive to get earlier approvals. but once the cat is out of the bag, it's hard to get it back in. if a sub-standard drug makes it to market and gains wide adoption, it makes later drug trials of more effective drugs really hard. where's the outrage for potential beneficiaries of better therapeutics?
I don't mean to say this man and others shouldn't get a chance at a hail mary when they're staring down death. just, it's risky business for others in the future. I hope the best for him and others.
overall this is great. but I'm surprised that meeting acceptance criteria is under "implementation" and considered less important than api design. I agree that api design is harder to change later on, but the most important question is, does the PR solve a problem that currently exists? if it does, then you can think about whether it does it well.
it makes me wonder if the product/engineering split has grown wider than it should. we really should be pretending we're product managers more.
20% seems like an underestimate, especially if you consider a lack of knowledge of how to use one's computer to highest efficiency.
also, most platforms suffer from feature bloat without a cohesive user experience. probably because they are trying to capture the widest audience, without carefully planning alignment/integration across features.
one things that's missing is the ability to ignore politics. you have to know what hills to die on, when to enforce boundaries, when to back off, etc. also, having to make decisions, argue for them, and be accountable to them, without fully understanding all the details. I found these things to be far and away the most stressful parts of management.
if you're trying to build a product, code is a liability. not sure that an esoteric codebase is the best signal to candidates that the bottom line is solving problems for stakeholders, rather than beautiful code.
it's really interesting how polarizing of an issue this is with engineers. I definitely think it's a good idea, but you can really mess it up royally with bad implementation (plus there are scaling considerations). considering how polarizing it is though, it might be one of the best signals to attract the kinds of engineers who care about how their product is used.
actually I think the best targetting is for all engineers to play a support role with their stakeholders, whoever they may be. devops supporting with full-stacks, data eng working with DS, (these already happen), and UX working with the masses.
ha, boston, climbing obsession, career pivot to software eng... are you me? did mark twight also have an oversized impact on your life? I burnt out on alpine climbing and never got anywhere close to elite, but I feel the exact same way. wouldn't trade a minute of sitting out bad weather in a tent.
are we talking about project names or the names of classes and objects?
if it's projects, ideally the long-term architecture is well enough understood to give the thing a whimsical yet meaningful name (ideally not cryptic). building a page caching service? call it gutenberg or something to start. when it inevitably grows past scope, it's ok. no one will care if gutenberg also handles analytics callbacks or whatever.
classes really shouldn't change in scope, ideally, so it's probably better to be a bit more specific to their purpose.
overall this is a good hot take, if a bit broadly put.
I've worked with a number of northeastern university grads, and they are consistently well prepared. NEU has co-op program, a standard part of their undergrad, where they get like a year of experience before graduating (5-year undergrad is the norm). who knows if the school is what creates the difference, but grads are really well prepared in general.
I think the state of things is pretty good overall. most of my anxiety comes from this fear that I'm not gonna be an owner of what we've built if they're the one making all the decisions. it's silly, but letting go of that isn't easy. 'preciate the thoughts.
I think it comes down to jevon's paradox--if your demand is unbounded, making production more efficient doesnt reduce inputs, it makes you produce more. in the case of k8s, more reliable, more scalable, etc
how much of the uproar over this is about implementation vs intent? disinformation isn't worth being returned when the user is seeking information. like if you are looking for the health impacts of soda, you probably don't want coke writing your answers.
I'm all for neutral platforms, but it feels like you either opt out of editorializing and end up with trash driven by SEO, or editorialize and marginalize some content producer or consumer. any play feels like a losing move from the business's perspective.
I think remote work makes more sense the more stable the development pathway is. the more cross function work, the more uncertainty, and maybe the higher the required velocity, the more important it seems to be able to have impromptu discussions. I find I spend a few hours a week just catching up on things I'm missing in the office while working remotely. and when I do go in, I'll learn something that causes a total pivot in my understanding of a business need.
that said, I never have had as much deep focus as when I'm working from home, in particular in the evenings. really important discoveries are made there too. so I think having both is optimal. and above all, having a flexible job is something I've come to expect for work-life harmony.
I really don't think you can measure developers by their productivity. the impact of productivity is predicated on design meeting requirements, the accuracy of requirements is predicated on stakeholders knowing what they need.
the only quality that matters is how effective the software is in its business function. how effective does it make stakeholders? how well does it capture engagement by users? the right question to ask changes in business context, but if you can't answer it, you might as well throw darts and flip coins. if you can measure the impact of their code before and after deployment you might have a chance, but it's probably hopeless.
as far as I can tell it boils down to a subjective and qualitative assessment of developer performance. you can also take the contrapositive: where would we be without this person? how long would we have taken to get there without them? what would we not have learned without this person?
I'm nervous about the implicit bias that comes with this kind of perspective, but I think it's the best we have for now.
this is significant when you consider historical context. this was a common view held in the 50s, but over time, maximizing shareholder value over all stakeholder value became the dominant concern. it's good to see the intent swinging back. sure, it's just words right now. when we see worker salaries grow to take up a larger piece of the pie, we'll know they mean it.
this whole post reads like it's coming from someone who sees people as tools to get what they need. the reason I talk to people when I'm struggling with a problem isn't for reference, but for connection, and to get my own wheels turning.
I'll grant that it's interesting to think about. now that LLMs exist, we're forced to assess what value human brains provide. it's so dystopian. but there's no other choice.