101–110 of 269 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it goes more the other way around. Successful people prefer to look attractive, so they take the necessary steps to achieve that. Elon M would be an example, I guess. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7378972
Yes, we all know that time when Musk decided to grow taller.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here’s a hot take on that front: “ The well-known association between height and earnings is often thought to reflect factors such as self esteem, social dominance, and discrimination. We offer a simpler explanation: height is positively associated with cognitive ability, which is rewarded in the labor market.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709415/
I think it's definitely true that attractiveness indicators correlate with characteristics like intelligence. If you think about it, this shouldn't actually be that surprising; it would be silly if the factors that went into sexual selection had no correlation with survival-boosting traits.
width is a hedge - you don't get paid as much, but you can land a job quickly, because you can plug into any team
The point that "on a long enough time line, wisdom is always more valuable than knowledge" is pretty irrelevant to tech companies. They hire engineers to get stuff done quickly - not slowly gather "wisdom". The average tenure at a tech company continues to be a few years. Also, I've noticed that entry-to-mid level jobs are great for "short and fat" engineers, but once you start aiming for senior (or higher) level IC…
Is staying short and fat really an option? Aren't you always specialising in the problem domain / tech stack that you're currently working with?
Going all wide or all narrow is a recipe for a team wipe.
The argument of specialist vs generalist is futile. They simple fit in distinct parts of the journey and evolution of a software product. Generalists are highly valuable for many types of orgs and projects especially nascent projects. But sometimes you need the precise output of a specialist to achieve something. If my business has a product that is highly dependent of let's say OpenGL, then an OpenGL specialist will…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Especially companies having "dev ops" engineering model, where engineers must be able to work on all stages of the product lifecycle - from design, development, testing, to deployment and operations. This is what DevOps is _supposed_ to be but often not what "DevOps Engineers" are hired to be. In my experience most companies hire DevOps Engineers that are one of two things: 1) Sysadmins that also know Python and wh…
Some would see this as a cynical take, but I’ve experienced it so many times, and am feeling such burnout from it that I started pondering this week if I’d be better served applying directly to developer roles instead of anything to do with DevOps; seems no one but the most highest of highly functioning teams seem to grok it. Wonder if that makes me a cynic. Would a cynic admit to being a cynic? Probably. Anyway. Nic…
> I’ve experienced it so many times, and am feeling such burnout from it that I started pondering this week if I’d be better served applying directly to developer roles instead of anything to do with DevOps
I, too, am glad to see that I'm not the only one that's had this experience. I wish you the best of luck in "breaking the cycle". Hang tough!