How the Valley treats experienced people • Hacker News Board

Re: How the Valley treats experienced people

#481

Post by lisper » Mon, Dec 31, 2018, 4:44 PM UTC

kamaal wrote: post #474

lisper wrote: post #196

I'm one of those people who doesn't have to work, but I do because I enjoy it. I moved to the silicon valley nine years ago, and in that time I've done half a dozen or so job interviews. I got no offers, so now I run my own company. It was different story each time, but the upshot (IMHO) is that the interview process seemed to assume that I was a fresh-out undergrad. In one case, they asked me to debug some Ruby code…

You are Ron Garret, of NASA and early Google Fame. If people don't hire you, it's their loss, not yours. By the way I'm a big fan of your work, and seriously envy the quality of projects you've worked. Especially your work at NASA using Common Lisp. You sound so humble. But I'm sure a lot of people(including me) here on HN aspire to be somebody like you.

Thanks for the kind words. It's not just me, I think there are a ton of people like me out there, older, experienced, ready to contribute, but unwilling at this point in their lives to put up with a lot of bullshit. Not wanting to stomp on my humility cred here, but yes, I think the fact that the industry doesn't seem to have figured out an effective way to tap this resource is a big loss all around.

Re: How the Valley treats experienced people

#482

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Dec 31, 2018, 4:58 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #418

shmat wrote: post #68

Sometimes you don't make enough money to retire early from a combination of bad luck and poor financial decisions. In my career, I followed a pattern of going to a company just a bit too late to get the really low priced options. I've ended up with dozens of former co-workers who are multimillionaires. I had a family and was (in hindsight) too conservative about when I went to a company. I also was a "paper" milliona…

You have to be fairly lucky. My history: * Startup in Midwestern city. Company never grew much, pivoted several times, still in business selling storage products. If I'd stayed with them, I would have had a long, boring career. One guy I knew did stay there and had a long, boring career. * Heavy industrial company in Detroit. Acquired by a bigger company long after I left, Detroit plant closed. * Time-sharing startup…

[deleted]

Re: How the Valley treats experienced people

#483

Post by lisper » Mon, Dec 31, 2018, 4:59 PM UTC

world32 wrote: post #470

lisper wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Outraged" is overstating it, but yes, I was pretty annoyed, but not because they asked me to debug Ruby code. I was annoyed because they lied to me. If they'd just been up front and told me they really were just looking for Ruby programmers I could have told them sorry, I am not your man, and saved everyone a lot of time.

> I was annoyed because they lied to me. That's a bit of an overstatement, chances are there was a miscommunication and the person interviewing you did not know that you had been told there would be a know ruby questions. Seriously, its just an interview, they're not going to go out of their way to accomodate your every request, just roll with it. Since you were able to debug the ruby code, its sounds like you could…

> That's a bit of an overstatement,

With all due respect I think I'm in a better position to judge that than you are. But there are two things you should know. First, I haven't told you the whole story (and I'm not going to). And second...

> the person interviewing you did not know that you had been told there would be a know [sic] ruby questions

The conversation went something like this:

Him: Welcome, the first thing we want you to do is debug this Ruby code. (Actually, the first thing he wanted me to do was copy-and-paste some shell commands from an unfamiliar text editor into a shell window, but that's another story.)

Me: Um, OK, but I've never worked in Ruby, and I told that to everyone I spoke to on the phone screen because I know you're a Ruby shop.

Him: Yeah, I know. But this is what we want you to do.

Me: OK, I'll give it my best shot, but don't expect too much.

Re: How the Valley treats experienced people

#484

Post by mcguire » Mon, Dec 31, 2018, 5:29 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #458

perfmode wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we live in the same america?

I don't know where you are, but people come to America by the millions traveling thousands of miles on foot. Then they spread all over the country.

I'm sure some of them even live in 10021.

Re: How the Valley treats experienced people

#485

Post by wutbrodo » Mon, Dec 31, 2018, 6:35 PM UTC

unclebucknasty wrote: post #413

wutbrodo wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDIT: parent comment edited it from 2017 to 2007. That makes a lot more sense Yeesh, in 2017? Zuckerberg was really young when he get vaulted into power and fame, so I've always been a little more sympathetic than most to his various foot-in-mouth moments[1], particularly in the past. But Jesus, 2017 was _last year_: how is he such a slow study at this? [1] I should not that I have some pretty severe disagreements wi…

Zuckerberg is who he is--the same guy who, in college, called his fellow students "dumb f---s" for trusting him with their data. People want to excuse that as youth, but he wasn't an 8 year-old; he was an adult, with many of his morals formed. A statement like that is not indicative of immaturity, but insight into character--the way he views himself and other people--and it also reveals a willingness to use dishonest…

Yes, I agree, which is why I mentioned that I have disagreements with his ethics in general. What I refer to as his gaffes is how bad he seems to be at _hiding_ this from people. Though the fact that it was in 2007 instead of 2017 sort of bolsters my point, as it would be hard to imagine him saying something like this today.

Re: How the Valley treats experienced people

#486

Post by eeeeeeeeeeeee » Mon, Dec 31, 2018, 7:35 PM UTC

mbrumlow wrote: post #246

dnautics wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you don't understand the math here. If you are in your 20s, single, and making six figures, you can rent an apartment with three other people in the bay and pay like 1-1.5k in rent and it's quite nice because you have so much extra capital to spend on top of saving. And there are things to spend it on here. Heck many in their thirties do this.

Meanwhile in the south you can make those same six figures and have a 5 bedroom house with a mortgage of 1.5k Or live in a nice area for 800 a month. Or live in a shit area for 400. SV math does not work out. You are taxed to much. Pay to high rent and have the pleasure of needing a shit map to walk in your city. I keep seeing this same argument about getting to pay 1.5k to live with a bunch of other people to save s…

Right, but then you’re in the south, which is why the cost of living is cheaper — it’s not as desirable. And if you’re a marginalized group, it’s not going to be a pleasant place to live.

Re: How the Valley treats experienced people

#487

Post by rayiner » Mon, Dec 31, 2018, 7:52 PM UTC

pedrosorio wrote: post #463

rayiner wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only 16% of adults nationwide live with a roommate or other non-relative, and that number is declining since 1995: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/31/more-adults-... .

You stated: “People do it because they're financially distressed (relative to their locality). They can't both live alone and save money comfortably.” This is false for software engineers in the Bay Area. Can they save more by living with roommates? Sure. But they wouldn’t be “financially distressed” or “unable to save money comfortably” if they didn’t - that is easily verified by looking up new grad salaries and ren…

> It’s simply a rational decision - these are people who were living with roommates in college and by continuing that arrangement can save more, live in a better location w/ more amenities, and quite often share a place with friends - win/win/win.

That's true everywhere. Yet the overwhelming majority choose not to have roommates.

Re: How the Valley treats experienced people

#488

Post by unclebucknasty » Mon, Dec 31, 2018, 8:52 PM UTC

wutbrodo wrote: post #485

unclebucknasty wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zuckerberg is who he is--the same guy who, in college, called his fellow students "dumb f---s" for trusting him with their data. People want to excuse that as youth, but he wasn't an 8 year-old; he was an adult, with many of his morals formed. A statement like that is not indicative of immaturity, but insight into character--the way he views himself and other people--and it also reveals a willingness to use dishonest…

Yes, I agree, which is why I mentioned that I have disagreements with his ethics in general. What I refer to as his gaffes is how bad he seems to be at _hiding_ this from people. Though the fact that it was in 2007 instead of 2017 sort of bolsters my point, as it would be hard to imagine him saying something like this today.

I hear you and not disagreeing. Just adding that there is a lot of hand-wringing over Zuckerberg, his intentions, etc, but it can all be simplified when people recognize--as you have--that he's just not a good human being. In fact, if you really analyze his behavior and how he's wielded his power, there are clear lines of sociopathy that emerge.

So, when I look at it through that lens, whether he's gotten better at avoiding gaffes and all the other analyses just obscure the point that really matters: he's an immensely powerful person with tremendous reach who utterly lacks a moral foundation.

Re: How the Valley treats experienced people

#489

Post by specialist » Mon, Dec 31, 2018, 9:20 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #191

specialist wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1/ Keeping up involves unlearning too. For me, that's the hardest part. Trying to approach everything with a "new mind". Meaning my expectations for how stuff is supposed to work gets in the way of seeing whatever is in front of me for what it truly is. 2/ A fair amount of new stuff isn't better. Or it's a mixed bag. Discerning the Brownian motion from the legit improvements is a lot of work.

I've long found that there's a fine line between legitimately noting that the last 8 incarnations of $CONCEPT didn't work for A, B, and C reasons so #9 isn't likely to fare any better and being endlessly negative about every new idea that comes down the road because almost every new idea is an echo of a prior pattern at some level.

Yup.

I celebrate every new cohort reinventing the wheel. Learn by doing.

The first 95% is generally easy. It's that last 5% that kicks your butt. Addressing all those pesky edge cases. And after snuffing all the bugs, realizing that perhaps one's predecessors weren't morons after all. (Insert Mark Twain quote here.)

And every blue moon, someone comes along with a novel way of framing a problem, elevating the state of the art to the next plateau.

The only bit that truly bothers me are the fads, groupthink. As though us graybeards were never obnoxious know-it-alls ourselves, back in the day.

Re: How the Valley treats experienced people

#490

Post by SimonPStevens » Mon, Dec 31, 2018, 9:22 PM UTC

shmat wrote: post #452

SimonPStevens wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sometimes you don't make enough money to retire early from a combination of bad luck and poor financial decisions. This feels a bit wrong to me. I don't think it takes bad luck or poor decisions to not be able to retire early for most people. I think it's quite to opposite. I think it's pretty rare and you need a serious stroke of good luck to be able to retire significantly early. Maybe it's different in the valle…

Did you read the article? It's not about most people. The article is about jobs in the Silicon Valley software/tech industry not just jobs in general. Everybody at startups and software companies gets options, and a small but not insignificant percentage of them get rich. The article is about the attitude that if you didn't get rich you must not be any good at your job.

I did. I was replying to the parents comment about not being able to retire early specifically because of bad luck. Not the article directly.

And even based on your comment, I still think that statement sounds wrong to me.

> a small but not insignificant percentage of them get rich.

It happening to a small percentage means it require good luck for it to happen to you, not just the absence of bad luck (which implies it happens to most people unless they have bad luck).