301–310 of 332 posts
Let’s apply the same structure to another important area of human relations: marriage. “Don’t be in a bad marriage — here’s how a good marriage looks like”.
Sounds great as a writing exercise. Unclear how applicable it is in most of people’s real life circumstances.
When Jeff Hodges gave a presentation of his "Notes on Distributed Systems for Youngbloods"[1] at Lookout Mobile Security back in like 2014 or 2015, he did this really interesting aside at the end that changed my perception of my job, and it was basically this. You don't get to avoid "politics" in software, because building is collaborative, and all collaboration is political. You'll only hurt yourself by avoiding lev…
I used to work for a software company that literally had "no politics" as part of its DNA. It was in the company handbook, it was in our values, people would say it when they talked about what it was like to work at the company. Hell, whilst I can't recall any specific instances, I guarantee that I said it and probably many times[0]. But, of course, it was never true. It might have felt true - certainly superficially…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What is true is already so. Owning up to it doesn't make it worse. I think this is false in an interpersonal relationship context. Acknowledging something can make it worse. I often think about a scene from Friends , with the following setup: - Phoebe is visited, by surprise, by a character unknown to the audience. - We learn that he is her husband, that he is a gay figure skater, and that the marriage was proposed…
I think you missed the point (or rather I read it differently). There WAS a resolution. By her asking the question out loud to him, made this situation real (which she has probably practiced a million times in her head). At that very moment she self-realized the resolution she needed. He didn't have to answer because she found it herself. But only by him being there for her to ask the question was it possible. She sa…
"Think about the last time a terrible technical decision got pushed through at your company. Maybe it was adopting some overcomplicated architecture, or choosing a vendor that everyone knew was wrong, or killing a project that was actually working. I bet if you dig into what happened, you’ll find it wasn’t because the decision-makers were stupid. It’s because the people with the right information weren’t in the room.…
As usual HN comments are more on point than the article. I've lost count of how many times something was proposed and rejected by everyone in the chain except the C-suite. Then the C-suite overrode the process decisions basically because they played golf with someone outside the company. I was once even part of a vendor assessment that was rejected and it turned out that the CEO had already given the green light and…
I worked at a place where without any of the tech staff knowing about it, the CEO literally signed a $600k/yr Adobe Experience Manager contract on a golf course with the Adobe Salesweasel, and it didn't get used at all. As far as anyone knows that bill got paid for two more years before that same CEO flew the whole company into the ground leaving ~100 people not only out of work, but unpaid for their last month and without their last 3 months worth of entitlements paid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With the number of narcissists I've seen be wildly successful, I have to disagree with you. There is a very clear and well established path to the top for people who only care about themselves.
How are you defining successful?
No that's not how I define personal success. But that's also not relevant to this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a wild take. I think the point of the parent comment was that those "values" have to be honest to be worth anything, not that they shouldn't exist at all.
I am approaching 50 years old, I never seen them being honest in first place during my half century, only marketing material.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a wildly antagonistic take. It's apparent that the meaning of the quote is true to the parent commenter, regardless of whether or not the attribution is accurate. The attribution being inaccurate does not rob the quote of it's meaning. > I could have said the same thing. But you didn't, and would never have, until you saw the quote for yourself. To claim otherwise is to lie, which you seem pretty passionately…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds fun, I'm in. Didn't ask for the ride/responsibility and the only reason it hasn't ended by now is sheer cowardice
Why did you come here to express the opinion that that sounds good?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have never seen a company with leveling guidelines consider a “senior engineer” as someone who dutifully just pulls tickets off the board and doesn’t have to lead major initiatives that involve dealing with other people. If you are just pulling well defined tickets off the board, you are easily replaced, outsourced and it’s hard to stand out when looking for another job. Then you shout “use your network”! That requ…
> I have never seen a company with leveling guidelines consider a “senior engineer” as someone who dutifully just pulls tickets off the board and doesn’t have to lead major initiatives that involve dealing with other people. In theory sure, but there are plenty of those in practice. Since we're in HN: plenty of those who are YC startups too. And due to politics , there is less and less space for engineers to interact…
Take this one for instance that’s on the front page.
https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/liva-ai/jobs/6xM8JYU-f...
It looks like the standard two non technical founders looking to underpay a “founding engineer”.
And they want you to be comfortable working “Be comfortable working 12 hours a day 6 days a week”