191–200 of 309 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What did the parent try to achieve?
You want me to speak for somebody else instead of you speaking for yourself?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Htf do you call yourself a feminist with posts like this?
Because I support equal opportunity for all genders. I assume this is what feminism supports as well. Is there somewhere in my post where I implied otherwise? Please cite what I said that made you think I am not a feminist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A manager (who said anything about people manager? I even explicitly said otherwise) knows what to build because she's coordinated with the groups who spend their entire day focusing on the customer, as well as the other developer groups to make sure everyone isn't working on the same thing, as well as leadership so they know what's being built and how it aligns with their goals and vision into the market (because th…
Where did I say we don't need managers? I explicitly said otherwise: Invest in your automators and treat your people managers as a low-value-add cost center . Just because you treat something as low-value-add or admit it's a cost center doesn't mean you don't need that work to happen! > When was the last time you tried to add a recurring meeting to a development team's calendar? Yes, I agree, managers' secretarial an…
This is why managers often get paid more, and it applies even more the further up the chain you go. A good CEO is worth every single penny of the millions they get paid, because of the multiplicative force they have on everyone below them on the org chart.
Ah, nice to see the mention on Lua-based game libraries (Corona2D (now Solar2D), and Love2D), which have also fueled my programming interests in the teens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You want me to speak for somebody else instead of you speaking for yourself?
Whatever, dude, the parent comment came from you. You asked if you should be ashamed for being feminist, I replied no, but you should also not be proud of this, because there is nothing easier and more mainstream today than being a feminist. That's all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about it makes you insecure? It's about someone who changed jobs because they decided they'd prefer to do something else. It isn't one of those "in six weeks I turned my side gig into a Nobel-prize winning web site and now I'm a billionaire" clickbait articles.
Probably due to the very poor and misleading article title, which frames the situation as a "demotion", something that happens to us, not something that we decide to do. The article has a good message, but the title is absolute click-bait. Many people might come across the title, and although not interested in reading it, walk away with the idea that following dreams leads to negative consequences. I hope the author…
Well, it is a demotion, though: "reduction in rank or status".
And it's interesting here exactly because it was by choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where did I say we don't need managers? I explicitly said otherwise: Invest in your automators and treat your people managers as a low-value-add cost center . Just because you treat something as low-value-add or admit it's a cost center doesn't mean you don't need that work to happen! > When was the last time you tried to add a recurring meeting to a development team's calendar? Yes, I agree, managers' secretarial an…
A good manager is worth 10x a good developer, and a good developer managed by a good manager is 100x base developer value. This is why managers often get paid more, and it applies even more the further up the chain you go. A good CEO is worth every single penny of the millions they get paid, because of the multiplicative force they have on everyone below them on the org chart.
I think we are disagreeing because we're talking past one another. Hopefully the following observation helps make my point:
The average base pay for a manger in the USA is much lower than the average base pay for an engineer in the USA.
I'm talking about management as a discipline in general and engineering as a discipline in general.
> A good manager is worth 10x a good developer, and a good developer managed by a good manager is 100x base developer value.
Can you define "good" in a way that would allow us to empirically test this statement that doesn't make this statement a literal tautology?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A good manager is worth 10x a good developer, and a good developer managed by a good manager is 100x base developer value. This is why managers often get paid more, and it applies even more the further up the chain you go. A good CEO is worth every single penny of the millions they get paid, because of the multiplicative force they have on everyone below them on the org chart.
> This is why managers often get paid more I think we are disagreeing because we're talking past one another. Hopefully the following observation helps make my point: The average base pay for a manger in the USA is much lower than the average base pay for an engineer in the USA. I'm talking about management as a discipline in general and engineering as a discipline in general . > A good manager is worth 10x a good de…
The skills involved in figuring out what to build are entirely separate from the skills involved in building, and you are making the classic mistake of worshiping the skill of building to the exclusion of all other skills.
It is much rarer to know what to build than it is to know how to build.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't say anything hateful towards women. I think women get this better treatment then men but I didn't say they should turn it down nor did I say they didn't deserve it. I simply pointed out a difference. And what wrong with switching from Janitor to SWE? Same basic job switch from one another field with completely different skillets but completely different treatment due to perceived ranking.
(Blog post author here) Referring to my job change as the company offering me charity is offensive and incorrect (I took a pay cut and worked hard to learn what I need to in order to be effective). Asserting that someone working in UX research/design is in an entirely unrelated field from software development is also wildly incorrect. UX folks work with SWEs regularly and are working on the same projects, albeit from…
It was not intended as an insult, so apologies. But I still stand by my statements because I believe them to be true.
Other things that will lead to clearer views on this is your overall software skills relative to other people in the same position, but such ratings are also colored with the lens of bias.
As it stands though, the deal is still obviously uneconomical and therefore a charity or a gift to you. Nothing wrong with this and it wasn't intended as an insult.
>There are also examples of men at my company making fairly similar changes across organizations
If that's the case present your data! This will definitely help change my view point.
>I'd love for you to take a minute and consider why you approached my story with the preconceived notion that I've only gotten this opportunity because I'm a woman.
I have. It is not preconceived. The hypothesis was made based off of available data. Like I said, the business deal the company made with you is not economical, so there must be another reason why the company gave you such a one sided deal when they can get a better deal.
My assumption is that part of it is because of your sex and your looks. This goes inline with my anecdotal experience of working with women in engineering.
If your saying the exact reason why you were hired over say a new CS grad or boot camper is because of your domain knowledge and UX experience, then sure I grant you that as a major possibility. However it does not discount the possibility that what I said is true. You wouldn't know because you manager either gave you that deal subconsciously or he won't admit it.
There's really no avenue to determine either argument definitively. I propose not continuing.
As a side note, I've worked hard to get where I am right now. And no company paid me to learn software on the job. If they did it would be an act of charity and I would be grateful to them if they did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That would mean she likely had immense autonomy and a large group of direct reports whom themselves had teams of direct reports. As someone who has worked at a variety of companies - this isn't true. It's just a title. I've seen plenty of "director of X" with no direct reports. I don't know how big Stack Overflow's design department is but with only 300 people in the company - I can't imagine it being massive enoug…
I have seen all members of a sales team all have the title of ‘Director of Business Development’ simultaneously. I don’t know what one calls the director of directors, though.