251–260 of 272 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> HMs in small companies, maybe, in big companies , they don't care, they are paid to bring talent in, You're confusing recruiters for line managers. HM == Hiring Manager == the person who's trying to build a team to accomplish a project, and at large companies most likely a multi-year roadmap. They absolutely care about people staying a long time - it is expensive to train people on the internals of each company. At…
> At a FAANG++ company, you get your first code checked in in your first week, but it takes a YEAR to be truly productive where you are fully autonomous, and have paid off the initial ramp-up period. I work at one of the FAANGs, and have found this to be 100% untrue. I was fully productive within a week, because I was already an SME in what the team was doing. Likewise, everyone hired on the same team have also been…
I disputed OP's point that Hiring Managers don't care about loyalty, and care if you leave after a year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is that even referring to? My sewer works just fine and trash is picked up regularly.
Poop on streets is very common in San Francisco. Most of the bay area doesn't have that problem, though. Map: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=b6fab72091...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but cash bonuses are “only” around 15-25% of base pay depending on seniority. For senior engineers, rsu grants are >= base pay.
So 300 base, plus the 100 or whatever RSU grant, plus 45-75K bonus?
But total compensation is likely higher than you mentioned.
You have an initial grant that vests over 4 years that currently is absurdly high - usually more than your base (after appreciation).
Then you have 4 of the grants that stack each year. Plus your 15-25% cash bonus.
Plus you usually get a couple small ($1-$5k) bonuses throughout the year for the projects you're working on.
FAANG salaries are no joke. Especially Google and FB.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Poop on streets is very common in San Francisco. Most of the bay area doesn't have that problem, though. Map: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=b6fab72091...
Is this animal poop or human specifically?
Human, if you're wondering still.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. If an applicant doesn’t seem to be invested into any previous company enough to stay more than a year they’re going to be sorted out very early on. On top of that, most of our most productive engineers stayed over 4 years. Unless you’re a senior or lead, it’s unlikely that you have had the opportunity to gain enough deep exposure to many technologies and problems in a very short tenure at a company.
Seniors and leads aren't going to get a lot of depth in a short period time, either. Seniors and leads do a lot of non-deep work that, depending on their responsibilities, may involve "lead" activities that take away from deep-diving uninterrupted. Also I don't think seniors and leads with short stints are to be trusted (from recent experience with such people).
Staying after that in a lot of these cases mean a lack of interesting projects, and also end up with stagnation. My experience may be a bit affected by freelancing though :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A bonus is a bonus. Presumably this is on top of whatever they had before, so an extra $20K to $45K per year is icing on the cake. In reality, most engineers aren't bouncing around from company to company every year trying to squeeze every last dollar out of their compensation. The strategy works well for a few iterations in early careers, but eventually it starts becoming counter-productive. If you have 10 jobs in 1…
My perception is that everyone knows job hopping is normal and companies will be happy to have you for that 1-2 years if you’re good. It’s not a black mark on your resume. For me a questionable resume is someone who spent the past 20 years at Accenture or something. Signals possibility of being too entrenched in those habits to make a contribution in a new environment.
People who haven't worked on any significant projects start - to - finish, and have a demonstrable trial of being a drifter aren't fit for senior positions by very definition.
Personally I tend to think drifters and coasters are basically the same things.
No serious shop or hiring manager I know would touch these people with a 10 foot pole.
>>For me a questionable resume is someone who spent the past 20 years at Accenture or something.
Somebody who spent 20 years at a firm, but are involved in new projects every few years make the perfect hires. The top performing talent in Google, Amazon, Boeing or any where for that matter are these kind of people.
Pretty much everyone I know who worked in Software at Apple had a bad experience. The common refrain was that engineers are treated like crap at apple, and it's the designers who get all the glory. It makes me excited for the future of software engineering to see moves like this. Clearly Apple, and many other companies, are starting to understand just how critical devs are to a modern business. And they are finding t…
I worked in software & hardware engineering at Apple, we don't know one another, and nothing you cite as the common refrain was true anywhere around our world. We were treated excellently, and I loved it. (Quit for a science job far away, total non sequitur, not because of Apple)
I tend to think 2015 was a turning point. And everything after is Tim Cook era. Also depends on org as well, for example vast majority of bad comments could be traced back to Apple IS&T. And you dont even need insider story to tell, simply judge them by IS&T's output on iCloud and any services.
Apple is clearly an incredibly successful company but to take an example why would an energetic young developer ever choose to work on Apple Music over Spotify? I say this as an Apple Music subscriber but one is a company that is existentially all in and the other that sees a revenue stream. This is evident in the quality of the respective products. If you’re not in the AR/car divisions then what is the point.
Being number one can be downright boring. Spotify is incentivized to not rock the boat and keep the profits coming. It's very, very difficult to affect big and powerful change in that environment.
Not in the context of Streaming. Spotify's lead ( I want to say dominance but that wouldn't be true ) is partly because Apple Music, Youtube Music and Amazon Music isn't exactly great. Just look at how many free trials Apple Music is giving out everywhere trying to push for more adoption.
I dont think Spotify is perfect ( far from it ), but they have fought hard to win their place. So it is anything but boring.