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

Short fat engineers are undervalued

nested.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 269 posts

Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued

#211

Post by dohnuts1919 »

renerthr wrote: post #58
pb7 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe there is ample research showing height and attractiveness (one could reasonably consider weight to be one determining factor in attractiveness) do play a factor in career success, compensation, and selection for leadership.

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

Wait, it's possible to look significantly more attractive through willpower alone? I dress okay and am not a total slob but I've never considered myself anything more than average-looking, and I've certainly never been told that I'm hot or that I should consider a career in modelling.

What tricks can I apply to make myself as gorgeous as Elon Musk?

Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued

#212

Post by dohnuts1919 »

pb7 wrote: post #35
the_only_law wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ngl for a minute before clicking I was slightly curious if this was some random study of the literal interpretation.

I believe there is ample research showing height and attractiveness (one could reasonably consider weight to be one determining factor in attractiveness) do play a factor in career success, compensation, and selection for leadership.

To give one (admittedly not conclusive) datapoint: almost all US Presidents have been taller than the average American male, many of them exceptionally slow (Lincoln was 6'4"!), and the effect has become more pronounced in the modern era (height was less of an advantage in the days when there was no TV or photography so voters had less of an idea what you looked like.)

Also, the taller presidential candidate is statistically more likely to win the election: "In the thirty-one presidential elections between 1900 and 2020, twenty of the winning candidates have been taller than their opponents, while nine have been shorter, and two were the same height. On average the winner was 1.1 inches (2.8 cm) taller than the loser."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_presidents_and_pres...

Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued

#213

Post by fakedang »

Swizec wrote: post #126
hinkley wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diversity. I've had a conversation with a few bosses where at some point I stopped to say words to the effect of, "It's like you think I expect everyone a the project to be like me. I don't." A project with just me would have problems too. But every project needs at least a couple of people who think like me, which we aren't accomplishing. This whole expert thing isn't tenable on a long term project. The expert will…

The ideal is an expert who sets up the project, builds the guard rails, creates the patterns and basically sets up a framework for everyone to use. Then they teach everyone how to use it and why And from then it’s a mentoring role. The expert spends more time PR-ing and adding to the framework than building end product features. They build stuff that touches every feature. Force multiplier is the game.

I have been the "expert" in many situations, and no way would I let this happen.

1.) Mentoring is such a difficult aspect as an expert. I likely would have built up my expertise from a combination of my studies, my past work experience and my previous, extremely skilled mentors. I can't expect people to get up to speed simply through my mentoring alone - especially if I'm not a capable enough communicator.

2.) Experts like to retain their expertise, stay unique. Regardless of what idealistic scenario you have in mind, everywhere I've seen, experts are always very cautious to giving away ground. I've been guilty of it, especially when I knew that my unique expertise was responsible for my sizeable bonus check in an IB.

3.) Experts will not do all the grunt work you mentioned. They come with the expectation that they've been hired for their expertise and not to be another cog in the wheel, but the engine itself (for a particular project).

Ideally now, what you would want would be a team of generalists, and a small crack team of experts (or a lone wolf expert). The generalists set up the project, plan how to build the guard rails, etc, then explain it to the experts, then when both are up to speed, generalists build it out and give the heavy lifting work to the experts to take over from.

Converting a generalist to an expert is a time intensive process that has to be structured and well-thought out. It should not be for just one project, but should continue for multiple projects.

Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued

#214

Post by AmpsterMan »

lostcolony wrote: post #197
Swizec wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ideal is an expert who sets up the project, builds the guard rails, creates the patterns and basically sets up a framework for everyone to use. Then they teach everyone how to use it and why And from then it’s a mentoring role. The expert spends more time PR-ing and adding to the framework than building end product features. They build stuff that touches every feature. Force multiplier is the game.

No thank you. Because how good is the expert? They just built a bunch of stuff to enforce one approach; they're invested in it even if they're wrong, or even if the project changes. The ideal is an expert who will be involved with the project, offering suggestions, providing a sounding board to non-experts working through issues, etc. Mentor and guidance, yes, but without first trying to lock people into a specific t…

I'm in line with your comment more than the parent. This happened to me too. Turns out this expert was very knowledgeable, but spread very thin so he could never help out as much as was needed. Furthermore, there were just issues that one couldn't have predicted because it would require months of working in the code base to see the problems clearly manifest.

Now the guy is gone and we are too invested to be able to fix any fundamental issues without incurring pain, so it's not done.

Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued

#215

Post by Toenex »

devonbleak wrote: post #108
whoisjuan wrote: post #9

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…

You're going to pay more for a specialist but in shorter bursts whereas you're going to need generalists in longer stretches. Generalists are where your tribal knowledge and lessons learned are going to live. Generalists are also more likely to move into management because of the perspective they bring and adaptability inherent in being a generalist.

I think the management point is a good one. A valuable generalist role is working at the interface between management and the specialists in the team. As an engineer I was much more of a generalist which lead me into product management.

Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued

#216

Post by akvadrako »

annoyingnoob wrote: post #31

When I was younger I used to say that I was a jack of all trades, master of none. Many years later I feel like a jack of all trades, master of many. I no longer fit any of the profiles presented here.

Perhaps this is because many problems are fundamentally the same. Understand the requirements, research the tools, combine the tools in a clean architecture, ...

And the more tools you have used the quicker you can figure out new ones, at least for what you need.

Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued

#217

Post by akvadrako »

homeless_engi wrote: post #20

Not sure I agree. A "short fat" could theoretically be replaced by a group of "short skinny", whereas a "tall skinny" could only be replaced by another "tall skinny". As value is largely determined by scarcity (supply and demand), this would cause "short fat" to be of lower value.

So you're saying one engineer who's good at lots of things can be replaced by a dozen engineers who are only good at one thing?

It doesn't work that way because coordination costs are a big part of the cost.

Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued

#218

Post by MattPalmer1086 »

hiimtroymclure wrote: post #96
nullspace wrote: post #23

In my career, I have met exactly one short fat engineer with >5yrs of exp that I was impressed by. That person is now a Product Manager at a FAANG company (albeit PM-ing highly technical stuff). I bring this up because I think there is a very good analogy to the point that the author is making and the distinction between PM and Engineers. Broadly put, PM's are good at figuring out the theta, and Engineers are good at…

I spent 7 years in product before making the transition to being a developer 2 years ago. I've successfully made the jump but definitely had hoped I'd be in a better position than I am now. Obviously this could be me, but I have been pretty surprised how companies/startups seems disinterested in my PM past. I think it certainly gave me a broad perspective on how to ship software customers love, and how successful tea…

I don't think it's your inexperience. I have found most people don't care if you know something else well that's outside the remit of your current role. Some are actively threatened by it.

I also switched careers 10 years ago. I have found that having this broad experience has helped me to make better decisions, understand different points of view and to work with others better.

But I usually have no ability to directly apply the experience from my first career, and very few organisations would ever want or allow me to. It's a pleasure when I can, but it's rare.

Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued

#220

Post by notoriousarun »

Specialisation is the exception, not the rule.

> Everyone should read "Range By David Epstein" https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized...

> In most fields, especially those that are complex and unpredictable. Generalists, not specialists, are primed to excel.

Post reply on HN