191–200 of 312 posts
But you know, keep posting about how this side won't wear masks and people are jerks all day instead of facing the fact that haircuts aren't the goal - a stable economy is essential, not secondary, to a country's survival.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, never heard of this systematic approach while I was there (AWS, 2008-2014), although the turnaround effect might have been somewhat close to that number just coincidentally.
What's the "turnaround effect"?
And if employees quit voluntarily, the company doesn’t need to pay severance, may reclaim hiring bonus or RSU’s, and it helps them politically/reputationally in aggregate (by being able to claim low lay-off numbers). Of course then you might wind up with those other than your worst performers leaving, so it’s not great in the long term.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many remote roles are direct apply/hire from job boards with leetcode tests that act as a filter. Recruiters are being used less.
As a counterpoint to your post, I was recently hired by a 3000 person company who paid an external recruiter to post a job on LinkedIn and do the initial screening of me, which was extremely light. 8 rounds of interviewing with the company virtually later, I was hired. The interviews involved a mix of live coding, system design, and general questions about commonly used programming languages and frameworks. I persona…
If you got an onsite interview, you probably didn’t even notice the first few filters that the recruiter applied to you. Those early filters eliminate at least 90% of applicants.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This article is so damn useful: https://danluu.com/sounds-easy/ > I can't think of a single large software company that doesn't regularly draw internet comments of the form “What do all the employees do? I could build their product myself.” Benjamin Pollack and Jeff Atwood called out people who do that with Stack Overflow. But Stack Overflow is relatively obviously lean, so the general response is something like “oh,…
Thank you. I'm so tired of reading the same "I could build this unicorn over the weekend with a few AWS credits and a healthy stream of whiskey." On every damn layoff thread.
What the heck do close to 10k people do at LinkedIn? Serious question. Why does this site/company require 10k people?
Last year LinkedIn made $6.8B in revenue. If they hire someone who can make a process .01% more efficient, they would save $680,000. If they pay that person even $400,000/yr plus benefits, they are coming out ahead. If you find someone who can make things .002% more efficient and pay them $100,000 a year, you've still come out ahead. At that revenue, it doesn't take much to get an ROI on a new employee.
Somebody improving e.g. the build speed by that amount will not be paying back their salary in improved productivity of other developers. While a person who increases the click through rate on ads by 0.02% probably does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apparently "decimate" is having a moment on HackerNews lately. It came up over the weekend as well [1], with the same disagreement between people on what it actually means. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23878605
There shouldn't be a debate at all since both sides are technically correct. Here's the definition from Google: > dec·i·mate /ˈdesəˌmāt/ verb 1. kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage or part of. "the project would decimate the fragile wetland wilderness" 2. HISTORICAL kill one in every ten of (a group of soldiers or others) as a punishment for the whole group. There are many words and phrases that have changed…
What is often overlooked is not just that it was "one in ten" executed, but that they were executed by being clubbed to death by the other nine men who were not chosen to die.
So "decimation" spread from the literal procedure to "worst outcome imaginable". Much as "literal" no longer means literal.
Doesn't LinkedIn(Microsoft) has a shit ton of money in reserves? Is cutting down these jobs in the midst of a pandemic really essential for the company's survival? Especially when the economies has started recovering in many parts of the world.
If these laid-off employees have an average fully-loaded cost of $400,000 (which probably isn't too far off), then linkedin will save about $460,000,000 annually by not keeping them on the payroll. That is not small change, even for a company the size of Microsoft. They may have been contributing more than that to the bottom line prior to the recession--hard to know--but the recession changes quite a bit of the calcu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Takes a bit of perspective shift to realize tech is a means to end and not the end itself.
That shift usually happens around year 1-2 for every software developer.
For me, I was well past my 10th year into the profession when this realization struck. And now, as a hiring manager, I frequently interview senior developers who are not able to explain the business goals of their software. I consider it an important part of my job to coach engineers in my org to understand the business context of their work - a benefit I got only well into my career.
What the heck do close to 10k people do at LinkedIn? Serious question. Why does this site/company require 10k people?
Look at an up to date org chart of a tech company of 1.3k people and what they do: https://about.gitlab.com/company/team/org-chart/ If you now think that all business divisions have more work to perform due to scale, and that for development, you want to have more parallel streams of work, this should give you an approximate idea of what an order of magnitude larger company uses 10k people for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This question comes up on every post about a big tech company. And in turn, there are always replies that justify these head counts in ways that I still have a hard time buying into. All I have to go off is on my own experience, but I worked at a large retailer/wholesaler that had: - 1500 retail store locations. - Probably a half dozen warehouses. - A couple high volume ecommerce sites (not at LinkedIn scale, but sc…
This is one of those things you can't tell anyone¹. You just learn it by trying differently and failing. ¹ http://habitatchronicles.com/2004/04/you-cant-tell-people-an...
In such cases I've invariably found that the failure is on part of the person who is telling the thing - they are simply failing to communicate effectively.
They are not emphasizing the important points, they are not working backwards from the result that they want to achieve and merely listing steps to get to the result, they don't empathize with the audience so they cannot customize their narrative in a way that resonates with the audience.
This is exactly why in your 16 or more years of education with dozens of teachers, you can only name a handful that actually were good teachers.