Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My Time at Snap

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 264 posts

Re: My Time at Snap

#81

Post by whynaut »

eternalny1 wrote: post #41

Great read ... but the one thing that stood out to me is a LOT of remote time that doesn't seem to have been agreed upon in advance, such as in the hiring contract. At first I just read that time was needed "around the holidays", then that somehow was 5 WEEKS of remote time, then there was Easter time in Florida, then there was additional "weeks" during the annual summer trip to Florida, then there was an anniversary…

It says in a few parts that this was agreed on at hiring. Should probably also be in writing, but that doesn’t excuse them from deciding not to honor one day.

Re: My Time at Snap

#82

Post by whynaut »

bestest wrote: post #74
leni536 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too risky for falling asleep.

I believe the fact that you might fall asleep when you simply lie on a bed at work indicates that there are some timing issues in your daily lifecycle.

Normally i’d agree, but they had 2 hour sprint plannings.. for a sub-team..

Re: My Time at Snap

#83

Post by bluesign »

whynaut wrote: post #81
eternalny1 wrote: post #41

Great read ... but the one thing that stood out to me is a LOT of remote time that doesn't seem to have been agreed upon in advance, such as in the hiring contract. At first I just read that time was needed "around the holidays", then that somehow was 5 WEEKS of remote time, then there was Easter time in Florida, then there was additional "weeks" during the annual summer trip to Florida, then there was an anniversary…

It says in a few parts that this was agreed on at hiring. Should probably also be in writing, but that doesn’t excuse them from deciding not to honor one day.

Actual it seems like, he agreed with customer ops manager about conditions, but HR didn't assign him to customer ops, but to another engineering department.

So basically, such an important thing for him, he should have confirmed about the conditions with the new manager at least.

Re: My Time at Snap

#84

Post by neuronic »

huhtenberg wrote: post #17
dangwu wrote: post #16

> ...the workload we had mostly kept us working separately on our own tasks with little room for interaction. It wasn’t uncommon, for the first part of my time at Snap, to get up in the morning, drive to the office, go through the work-day in the same room as two other people but rarely speaking to each other, and then drive home... Sadly, I find this to be all too common in the industry. It’s super isolating and dep…

This actually sounds like a near-perfect setup to me. Get it, program, get out. If I want to socialize, I'll do it outside of work.

What a horrible working style.

You can be very productive while being social as well. In fact, the shittiest projects have consistently been those where people don't communicate and communication includes a human factor, starting at the most basic level.

Why? Because fundamentally we are social animals and opening up to this circumstance will allow meaningful, project-related communication at a much more useful level when you previously connected at a human level.

I find it exceedingly weird when you have next to no interest in the people you work with for 8+ hours every single day.

Re: My Time at Snap

#86

Post by golergka »

neuronic wrote: post #84
huhtenberg wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This actually sounds like a near-perfect setup to me. Get it, program, get out. If I want to socialize, I'll do it outside of work.

What a horrible working style. You can be very productive while being social as well. In fact, the shittiest projects have consistently been those where people don't communicate and communication includes a human factor, starting at the most basic level. Why? Because fundamentally we are social animals and opening up to this circumstance will allow meaningful, project-related communication at a much more useful level…

I'm on the same team as you - that's why I can't really work remotely - but let's acknowledge that it's a personal preference. People are different, much more than we can usually imagine. You can't tell another person, whom you really don't know that well, what she can or cannot do; and different projects require different people and different models of communication.

Re: My Time at Snap

#87

Post by tomp »

untog wrote: post #58
curiousgal wrote: post #19

Tangent. How is it logical to deprive people from access to a booth just because people in a wheelchair can't access it? That's like banning computer screens because blind people can't see them.

Well "logical" just leads us down a weird path here. Is it "logical" to hire disabled employees at all? It's a lot of work to make your office accessible, so the "logical" answer would be to only hire able bodied people. Thankfully the world doesn't actually work that way. We make buildings accessible because it's the right thing to do, and because society has decided that excluding people (who are already greatly di…

> We make buildings accessible because it's the right thing to do, and because society has decided that excluding people (who are already greatly disadvantaged) is wrong.

Is it the right solution though? Does it make sense to spend 1% of GDP on something that helps 0.5% of the population (I'm making up numbers here)? Is this really the most cost effective solution? Wouldn't it make more sense to e.g. give disabled people a Basic Income (social support) enabling them to not work, instead of forcing every employer to spend time and money on making the workplace accessible (even though 99% of that effort will be wasted)? It might be cheaper to hire 2 musclemen to carry a disabled person around, rather than renovating each historic building to add ramps and/or elevators... Yeah, I agree that there are non-monetary effects as well (people socialising and/or feeling useful) but there's probably decent solutions for those as well...

Re: My Time at Snap

#88

Post by tomp »

paxys wrote: post #42
curiousgal wrote: post #19

Tangent. How is it logical to deprive people from access to a booth just because people in a wheelchair can't access it? That's like banning computer screens because blind people can't see them.

You don't see a problem with part of the workforce not given equal tools and opportunity to be able to do their job as well as others?

Yet workplaces are allowed to "discriminate" against unskilled and stupid people...

Re: My Time at Snap

#89

Post by DoreenMichele »

tomp wrote: post #87
untog wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well "logical" just leads us down a weird path here. Is it "logical" to hire disabled employees at all? It's a lot of work to make your office accessible, so the "logical" answer would be to only hire able bodied people. Thankfully the world doesn't actually work that way. We make buildings accessible because it's the right thing to do, and because society has decided that excluding people (who are already greatly di…

> We make buildings accessible because it's the right thing to do, and because society has decided that excluding people (who are already greatly disadvantaged) is wrong. Is it the right solution though? Does it make sense to spend 1% of GDP on something that helps 0.5% of the population (I'm making up numbers here)? Is this really the most cost effective solution? Wouldn't it make more sense to e.g. give disabled pe…

Does it make sense to spend 1% of GDP on something that helps 0.5% of the population (I'm making up numbers here)?

Some not made up numbers for you:

Roughly 15-20% of people self-identify as handicapped. At least one study suggests that up to 60% of the population has some degree of impairment and would benefit from more accessible design in the world generally.

This fits with my observations. Most people who are only mildly impaired actively distance themselves from the label as it is stigmatizing. People only embrace the label of being handicapped or disabled if they need so much accommodation that it is worthwhile to put up with the bullshit that goes along with having a stigmatizing label.

See also:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19815635

Re: My Time at Snap

#90

Post by untog »

tomp wrote: post #87
untog wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well "logical" just leads us down a weird path here. Is it "logical" to hire disabled employees at all? It's a lot of work to make your office accessible, so the "logical" answer would be to only hire able bodied people. Thankfully the world doesn't actually work that way. We make buildings accessible because it's the right thing to do, and because society has decided that excluding people (who are already greatly di…

> We make buildings accessible because it's the right thing to do, and because society has decided that excluding people (who are already greatly disadvantaged) is wrong. Is it the right solution though? Does it make sense to spend 1% of GDP on something that helps 0.5% of the population (I'm making up numbers here)? Is this really the most cost effective solution? Wouldn't it make more sense to e.g. give disabled pe…

What if those disabled people want to work, though? Why should their opportunities be limited to basic income when you and I do not have the same limitations? Would you not find being carried around by two musclemen to be humiliating? Are these musclemen accompanying you to the toilet?

As you admit you're making up numbers... is there any evidence that these costs are killing businesses? Snap could most certainly afford to do it without thinking twice about it.

Post reply on HN