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

Getting things “done” in large tech companies

seangoedecke.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 228 posts

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#191

Post by toomuchtodo »

happymellon wrote: post #165
johnnyanmac wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

unfortunately I have. It is indeed a hellscape of, as the kids say, "aura farming". Microsoft really seem to want to turn it into Instagram for some reason. I still use it as a job board, personally.

Is there any other meaningful job board (outside of "whose hiring" on hn)? I haven't had to apply for a job for a while, so genuinely curious what people would use these days if there wasn't anything coming via word of mouth.

https://hiring.cafe

(no affiliation)

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#192

Post by anon84873628 »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #36
_fat_santa wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's kinda the beauty of it. If you get laid off from one of these places the next place doesn't know that you took 300k home to do jack, all they know is you worked for a super prestigious company for 10 years and you can plausibly make up the rest about what you actually did there.

If you're going to lie about experience anyways, you don't have to work for the FAANG company in the first place.

It's not lying about your experience. Just not hustling to "get things done" or caring so much about personal satisfaction in the work.

Better to do some carpentry or pottery outside of work and put your pride in that.

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#193

Post by anon84873628 »

whstl wrote: post #149
conrs wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had a very hard time with the Product Manager discipline. From the books and podcasts like Lenny's, it all makes perfect sense, but it seems like in practice it is as you described - they've inserted themselves in between and often don't represent either side well. It's lead me to develop product management skills myself, which are honestly incredibly useful in avoiding wasted effort. But it does make me wonder…

That makes me think. I never really worked with a PM that was good at preventing wasted effort. Or even mediocre at it. Most assumptions I saw them making were incorrect, unless it was a VERY SIMPLE product. To me this is something that engineering should be doing, just like splitting tasks and double-checking designs. Of course not every engineer can do it, but some of us have been doing it, negotiating deadlines an…

On the other hand, I've seen engineers make unilateral decisions that had completely unacceptable UX or ops impacts, that didn't align to the original design spec, and that they didn't think to tell anyone about until way down the road.

Everyone needs a counterpart to "trust but verify".

At my company, engineering managers are ultimately responsible for the deadlines and deliverables. It's an anti-pattern for PMs to also be the project managers - that is a bad combo and it should either be owned by the EMs or a dedicated role.

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#194

Post by didgetmaster »

So, is this why the software world is full of bloated, slow, and buggy applications? Work on something just long enough to get it barely functional so the manager can check some box; then quickly move on to the next thing??

Sure, there is always a point of diminishing returns; but leaving something only half-finished will cause more problems down the road.

I have been brought in several times during my career to fix something that initially passed some acceptance criteria; but later became unusable once the load picked up (massive data, more concurrent users, etc.).

The world doesn't need just more apps. It needs many of the current ones to work better.

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#195

Post by al_borland »

antognini wrote: post #185
al_borland wrote: post #105

While I understand the point being made, and have experienced this reality first hand, I still object to it. I have seen countless projects spun up, the company declares the problem solved (done), and then the team is disbanded to go work on new problems. What happens next? The product they built has issues, new features are needed, the rest of the company keeps evolving… all the while, there is no one to actually ma…

> If I can use an air conditioning metaphor, it is more efficient to set the house at a temp and keep it there, than to keep turning the AC off, letting the house heat up, and trying to bring it back down from 90. While I get what you're trying to say, if I can be a bit pedantic this is not more efficient thermodynamically. It is more efficient to let the house heat up and then bring its temperature back down.

Thank you. I just spent a while investigating this and found out I (and probably many others) have been lied to my whole life.

If I look at it from the point of view of a thermostat salesman or support person, and consider the mechanical nature of early thermostats, it makes sense why people would start to believe this and share it.

I will probably still act as if it's true, since I work from home and don't like being hot, but I will choose a different metaphor in the future. I will also probably be a bit pedantic as well if I hear people bring this up, to try and help kill the myth.

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#196

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

anon84873628 wrote: post #192
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going to lie about experience anyways, you don't have to work for the FAANG company in the first place.

It's not lying about your experience. Just not hustling to "get things done" or caring so much about personal satisfaction in the work. Better to do some carpentry or pottery outside of work and put your pride in that.

> you can plausibly make up the rest about what you actually did there

saying you did things, which you did not do, is lying about your experience

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#197

Post by sokoloff »

bluecheese452 wrote: post #147
_fat_santa wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's kinda the beauty of it. If you get laid off from one of these places the next place doesn't know that you took 300k home to do jack, all they know is you worked for a super prestigious company for 10 years and you can plausibly make up the rest about what you actually did there.

If you took home 300k for 10 years then you don’t have to worry about getting a job.

That’s only $3M total gross. You paid over $1M in taxes across fed, state, and FICA. You probably spent over $500K if you lived quite frugally. That leaves maybe $1.25M plus some growth on that. Call it $1.5M. That will give you $60K/yr in income with high likelihood to last 30+ years. Pay taxes on that and you’re living in less than the $50K/yr you were living on before plus you have to buy health insurance.

That’s not very appealing to most.

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#198

Post by spwa4 »

This article is committing a fallacy. The idea, that "decision makers" everywhere have: that there is anything at all that you can buy. It's not true. Even if you buy a stone, with the expectation that you can keep that stone ... requires constant payments for space to store it. Ownership, in the sense of owning something forever without further cost, doesn't exist.

And the more obvious it is, the more people fight it. A car requires constant maintenance, tax, and work, and so does a house. You don't own them, and if you don't pay ongoing costs, eventually in most locations the government will either force you to sell or even pay for the destruction of your own property.

But somehow making software must allow any idea to just be built once and then keep working, never to be touched again. Right back to ownership absolutism. I have built software in the beginning of my career that's still running, after 30+ years now. But most often, I find I have trouble convincing managers that they will be needing computers (whether onsite, colo or cloud) to run that solution if they expect it to do anything, never mind the occasional bugfix and/or system administration.

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#199

Post by teeray »

spwa4 wrote: post #198

This article is committing a fallacy. The idea, that "decision makers" everywhere have: that there is anything at all that you can buy. It's not true. Even if you buy a stone, with the expectation that you can keep that stone ... requires constant payments for space to store it. Ownership, in the sense of owning something forever without further cost, doesn't exist. And the more obvious it is, the more people fight i…

The only things I can think of are those that would be unethical or illegal to deprive you of (e.g. a tattoo).

Re: Getting things “done” in large tech companies

#200

Post by wbl »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #189
kunzhi wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, 20 years experience of actually doing things here. I've spent 10 of those years now doing consulting with everyone from 3-person pre-series-A startups all the way up to the Fortune 50. Let me unequivocal: you can spend 30-40 years at a company doing absolutely nothing while getting paid for it. Do not let anyone try to convince you otherwise. I've seen such much unethical bloodsucking in my career that at this…

> Let me unequivocal: you can spend 30-40 years at a company doing absolutely nothing while getting paid for it. Maybe this was true for 40 years from the 70s to the 2000s, or maybe even the 80s-10s, but I don't think this is true anymore Certainly not in software engineering, in a world run by JIRA

To clarify: the tickets can close but they don't push the product forward at all.
Post reply on HN