411–420 of 613 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should avoid hiring people from big companies that are used to promotions every year.
No big company I know of, certainly no FAANG, anyone expecting to be promoted every year. Even every two years would be considered quite fast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is pure evopsych fantasy land. Women do not, as a rule, demand men "better than their peers". We would see more little old ladies out there who held out for above average, never got it, and chose instead to remain single.
>We would see more little old ladies out there who held out for above average How in the world can you come to this conclusion when society hasn't been in the situation where old ladies as a whole were in a position to be close to equal financially compared to their male peers in at least the last century? If anything, you have to wait a few more decades to come to this conclusion at minimum .
Is there even any evidence that modern women are more “choosy” than men? You’d have an hypothesis like: among married 40-something women, the distribution of socioeconomic status matches that of women overall, whereas married 40-something men have higher SES than would be expected. Should be easy enough to test with publicly available data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't speak to Google, but I can say that having ICs write their own packets has been hugely enabling for me at other companies. It means their success isn't reliant solely on implicit visibility of their work by me (which in turn meant I either had to maintain visibility on everything to the nth degree, get everyone to give constant feedback on each other, or fail to recognize their successes). I still come in and h…
As stated in TFA and throughout this thread, moving the burden to the ICs means they will be incentivized to focus on Promo Packet instead of real work. No offense intended, but in your comment it comes off a bit selfish and bears the hallmarks of a classic archetype of terrible manager. I'd never willingly work for you. Being in management isn't for everyone, it's a people-focused domain. The whole job is about supp…
Quoted post unavailable.
Seems pretty sexist to associate solving hard problems with masculinity. Women at Google also work on hard problems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and it doesn't stop there: L3: $192,064 L4: $268,758 L5: $358,423 L6: $502,465 (!) https://www.levels.fyi/
Why dont people work for themselves, you can earn alot lot more, like over 20x more!?!
I work at Google and the who promotion culture is very toxic. People are incentivized to "Launch" things just in time to get promo and only to abandon it or switch teams in search of the next promo. It also gets hypercompetitive and harms teamwork sometimes. The promotions are usually B.S. anyway, they add stress and usually remove a good functioning engineer from doing good work into more "non technical leadership"…
The dual-ladder system exists to fix something that is broken but ends up breaking it more. In essence, there's the E9/O1 problem. An elite engineer with 25 years of experience simply knows more than an entry-level manager. Organizations try to solve this by dual-laddering and saying that there are "Director-equivalent" engineers (e.g. Staff or Principal) and so on, to rectify the obvious injustice of a scenario wher…
The parity between the two ladders is something of a myth. At most companies, you can see that clearly if you count heads.
A director might oversee 150 to 250 people. There will likely be five second level managers reporting to the director, and maybe twenty first level managers reporting to those second level managers. So 30 manager level people.
And there will be maybe four or five Staff and one Principal engineer in the same organization. Sometimes even fewer.
So the parity really isn't there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>We would see more little old ladies out there who held out for above average How in the world can you come to this conclusion when society hasn't been in the situation where old ladies as a whole were in a position to be close to equal financially compared to their male peers in at least the last century? If anything, you have to wait a few more decades to come to this conclusion at minimum .
The original contention was that women held out for higher-status men, leading to selection pressure such that men evolved to be more competitive. If women are only very recently even able to be more selective, then I don’t see how all this is supposed to work. Is there even any evidence that modern women are more “choosy” than men? You’d have an hypothesis like: among married 40-something women, the distribution of…
An interesting way of looking at this is that it's the Iron Law of Bureaucracy at work. The Iron Law of Bureaucracy: In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals that the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle Also…
Not their fault. Sometime, as everything in life, you are in the right place at the right time. You get to work on a good project and bingo. But most of the time you will end up fixing bugs in some half baked, broken PoC that someone launched in production just to get that promotion, and now you got to make it to work, while the person who got promoted get to move on and draft another broken PoC, launch it etc ...
It depends if you are the one fixing shit and make things work (you rarely will get a promotion) or you are the lucky one who get to write spaghetti code on the next thing, cash out and move on onto the next thing ...
Life is not fair I know ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and it doesn't stop there: L3: $192,064 L4: $268,758 L5: $358,423 L6: $502,465 (!) https://www.levels.fyi/
Why dont people work for themselves, you can earn alot lot more, like over 20x more!?!