Developer won’t get hit by a bus, they’ll get hired by Netflix • Hacker News Board

Re: Developer won’t get hit by a bus, they’ll get hired by Netflix

#421

Post by oblio » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 9:52 AM UTC

odyssey7 wrote: post #89

rl1987 wrote: post #19

Realistically speaking, isn't getting hired by Netflix et. al. a practical impossibility for 99+ % of software developers?

Back-of-the-envelope. In 2014, Google had around 28,500 software developers. [1] In 2016, it was estimated that the US had around 3.87 million professional software developers. [2] So around that time, about 0.75% of all software developers in the US worked for Google alone. If your organization employs a few dozen skilled developers, there is a very strong chance that some of them could find a placement within FAANG…

Only some of those employees were in the US, though. So probably the chance was 0.5% or lower.

Re: Developer won’t get hit by a bus, they’ll get hired by Netflix

#422

Post by ninkendo » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 11:16 AM UTC

pandaman wrote: post #81

ninkendo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Webster’s dictionary describes language as it is used, it doesn’t prescribe definitions. Citing a dictionary means nothing in a debate of whether we ought to use a word in a certain context.

It means something when somebody does not know the way the language is used.

Every person in this discussion understands how language is used in this context. The discussion is on the merits of whether we ought to use a word in a specific context. Appeals to authority like saying “but everybody uses that word” are completely beside the point.

You’re in 100% agreement with myself and GP if you say that “poaching” is commonly used to mean trying to hire someone from another company. But that has nothing to do with what GP is talking about. They are saying they really wish people wouldn’t use that term, despite it being commonly used.

Understood?

Or maybe you already knew that but really like putting people down on the internet.

Re: Developer won’t get hit by a bus, they’ll get hired by Netflix

#423

Post by mumblemumble » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 12:28 PM UTC

perl4ever wrote: post #409

mumblemumble wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the only people anywhere. The only people on the job market. So the skills in question, while niche, still enjoyed a supply/demand ratio that ensured that the structural unemployment rate for people who had them was 0%. And most companies know to get who you can and then make sure they stay happy. Unfortunately, large conglomerates tend to be very credientialist. So leadership positions tend to be filled with peo…

>on the job market. That's a very nebulous term, as this whole thread bears out. I feel sometimes like my comments are abducted by aliens.

Perhaps we understand the word differently.

To me, it isn't particularly nebulous, it just means, "People who are currently looking for a new job." Which would roughly be composed of people who are currently unemployed, and people who have jobs but are looking for a new one. I suppose the developers in the story I relate would actually be sort of the latter group looking to avoid becoming the former group, but that's perhaps diving a little bit too deeply into the semantics for a conversation that doesn't involve someone playing bongos or a djembe.

I suppose you could expand that to include, "People who are happy with their job, but could be lured away if you offer them enough money." But it's pretty obvious that that's not a useful subcategory of people for the purposes of the company in the story I'm relating.

Re: Developer won’t get hit by a bus, they’ll get hired by Netflix

#424

Post by naveen99 » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 12:31 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #416

naveen99 wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hedging is not arbitrage. There is no free lunch.

In this case it is free arbitrage. This is because if the stock goes way down, and you are 1 year into your 4 year vest, then you can leave the company, and get a high compensation package somewhere else. Do you understand how this makes it so you have free downside protection, from those other 3 years, because you can leave and get the high salary somewhere else, if the stock crashes?

High package elsewhere is not free money... Also leaving the company isn’t free (you lose unvested shares, atleast). this isn’t arbitrage. even arbitrage usually has some carrying risk in between the two transactions.

Re: Developer won’t get hit by a bus, they’ll get hired by Netflix

#425

Post by naveen99 » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 12:34 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #419

stale2002 wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case it is free arbitrage. This is because if the stock goes way down, and you are 1 year into your 4 year vest, then you can leave the company, and get a high compensation package somewhere else. Do you understand how this makes it so you have free downside protection, from those other 3 years, because you can leave and get the high salary somewhere else, if the stock crashes?

Since RSUs vest over time, the penny-for-penny equivalent financial transaction for receiving $100K worth of RSUs over 4 years, would be for me to receive $100K of cash compensation over 4 years, and using it to buy stock (That I can't sell for X months). There's no advantage to RSUs. Cash is better in every way, because, at worst, you can invest it in the exact same allocation that your RSUs are invested in. Any gai…

The advantage if you are definitely going to invest the cash in the same company is you get to invest pretax with rsu’s probably.

Re: Developer won’t get hit by a bus, they’ll get hired by Netflix

#426

Post by ryathal » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 12:36 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #304

game_the0ry wrote: post #23

I agree with the author's point about using popular tech stacks to alleviate the ramp-up time for new hire productivity, but that is not the optimal solution. The optimal solution is for management to not let high-productivity talent from leaving - increase their comp to whatever offers they might get in the open market. That's how labor economic works - it's a market. Investment bank and management consulting figure…

The optimal solution is for management to not let high-productivity talent from leaving - increase their comp to whatever offers they might get in the open market. That's how labor economic works - it's a market. Life is not that simple, and cannot be boiled down into "it's a market." People are messy. They leave companies for all kinds of reasons. They just broke up with someone and want to start a new life. They do…

Very few reasons for leaving aren't connected to an implicit "and I'm making more money." Very few people take significant pay cuts for reasons that don't boil down to "obscenely toxic workplace."

Money and Management are the real reasons people move, everything else is an outlier.

Re: Developer won’t get hit by a bus, they’ll get hired by Netflix

#427

Post by ryathal » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 1:13 PM UTC

roland35 wrote: post #134

vkou wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - ownership of the product and process I work at FAMANG, and I feel ownership over my product and process. I set priorities for it, I set how work will get done on it, my team collectively determines what kind of processes we follow, and my manager just sanity checks that things are on-track. > - less red tape and politics Red tape, sure, politics, there's no guarantee of less politics in a smaller company. If anyt…

I don't mean to generalize that Big Tech has awful work life balance or other problems (I am sure it is mostly the opposite!), but rather there are lot of things smaller companies can and should offer to be more appealing.

The few places I've seen that try to push the benefits/perks angle vastly overestimate their superiority and value of those things. 10-20k a year for 5 years buys a lot of food, gym memberships, tickets, drinks, swag, etc.

Re: Developer won’t get hit by a bus, they’ll get hired by Netflix

#428

Post by pandaman » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 2:19 PM UTC

ninkendo wrote: post #422

pandaman wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means something when somebody does not know the way the language is used.

Every person in this discussion understands how language is used in this context. The discussion is on the merits of whether we ought to use a word in a specific context. Appeals to authority like saying “but everybody uses that word” are completely beside the point. You’re in 100% agreement with myself and GP if you say that “poaching” is commonly used to mean trying to hire someone from another company. But that ha…

>Every person in this discussion understands how language is used in this context.

I am not sure, hence my reference to the dictionary. In my opinion the whole discussion is because people only know one usage and think the other one is a hyperbole. Otherwise you'd been actually arguing about the meanings of words with the dictionary, which looks rather stupid.

Re: Developer won’t get hit by a bus, they’ll get hired by Netflix

#429

Post by atwebb » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 2:49 PM UTC

treeman79 wrote: post #34

roland35 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I think "hit by a bus" generally means there is 0 chance of knowledge transfer and is more a disaster recovery term than a talent retention term. Unless you really burn a bridge with your workers they should have at least a week or 2 to transfer knowledge!

Opposite opinion. You should never need more then a day to knowledge transfer. If that. I always try and cross train people enough that I can quit at any point and it’s not an issue. All processes are kept automatic where no one is crucial to keep it running. Mostly it’s useful for vacations. In the past I went on a cruise. And I wasn’t sure the company will be online without me to baby them through. After that I got…

Then you've mitigated the bus factor, this thread is about that being uncommon or not fully supported in other places.

Part of the mitigation discussion here is a tech stack that is transferable.

Re: Developer won’t get hit by a bus, they’ll get hired by Netflix

#430

Post by ninkendo » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 3:06 PM UTC

pandaman wrote: post #428

ninkendo wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every person in this discussion understands how language is used in this context. The discussion is on the merits of whether we ought to use a word in a specific context. Appeals to authority like saying “but everybody uses that word” are completely beside the point. You’re in 100% agreement with myself and GP if you say that “poaching” is commonly used to mean trying to hire someone from another company. But that ha…

>Every person in this discussion understands how language is used in this context. I am not sure, hence my reference to the dictionary. In my opinion the whole discussion is because people only know one usage and think the other one is a hyperbole. Otherwise you'd been actually arguing about the meanings of words with the dictionary, which looks rather stupid.

Your position seems to be that it’s invalid to even talk about whether a word should be used in a context, if the dictionary says it should. This prevents any discourse around whether we should evolve the language, because an appeal to authority like citing the dictionary would just shut down the debate.

To use an offensive example: This dictionary has a 4th definition for the word “Jew” meaning “to bargain sharply with”: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/jew

If somebody said “Maybe we shouldn’t use “Jew” as a verb to mean this, since it has negative connotations”, would you also cite this dictionary link to say that it’s perfectly fine? (I would charitably assume no.)

The discussion is, to me, very clear. We all know that “Poach” can mean hiring someone from a competitor. But some of us feel that using it in that regard creates the wrong connotation, and although it’s commonly used, and even in the dictionary, maybe we ought to not use it that way.

Do you see why citing the dictionary is counterproductive here?