591–600 of 604 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know why people think that the SV no-poaching thing really had a large effect on people hired at Google when it was active. It didn't. I don't know what "horizontal" RSUs are, but they were options back then, and every year, you got a bigger (more value) pile of them. My total comp doubled without me getting a promotion in roughly 5 years.
The stock moved horizontally during that time.
Today: $2500
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The two aren't mutually exclusive, you could've easily started out with salary + stock options that would've put you in a better position to start a side gig. Then you might actually be driving a lambo now too ;)
Did you start out with the Google salary + stock options, proceed to also start a side gig, and now drive a lambo?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For someone like you? Do you know each other or is this a judgement of character based off the few words in the above comments? What they wrote sounds like good sense in general. A bit materialistic and generalizing perhaps, I wouldn't want a dino juice sapper and I have a lot of trouble doing pointless work let alone outright manipulative like adtech (but that's just me, evidently there's plenty on the other side)…
I actually touched on this in my comment. I didn't disagree with you. > The correct option for the vast majority of people is to stay at a stable, low risk high paying corporate job and live a comfortable upper-middle class life. Building any size of a durable business is not for everyone. Well-resourced, intelligent, trained people fail for all kinds of reasons, and that's while working on it full-time. Unless it's…
It's pretty foolhardy to tell people to go out and gamble and brush off survivorship with vanity. Back to the original parent's comment, they could've easily taken that Google job and continue development of their side project which didn't raise any money and grew organically, anyways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually touched on this in my comment. I didn't disagree with you. > The correct option for the vast majority of people is to stay at a stable, low risk high paying corporate job and live a comfortable upper-middle class life. Building any size of a durable business is not for everyone. Well-resourced, intelligent, trained people fail for all kinds of reasons, and that's while working on it full-time. Unless it's…
the small percentage of survivors will lay it out like there's specific sequence of steps but its 1) very tough to find market product fit 2) even if you do, theres no guarantee you will be chosen 3) your immediate circle, your economic class, education, race impact your perceived social credit 4) luck (even all three are met but some still do not "make it" It's pretty foolhardy to tell people to go out and gamble an…
1) either do a side project purely in the spare time of one's bigco job and surviving
2) go full-time into a company whether one may fail (and ultimately starve) or not
Not everyone is (or should) become a professional social media influencer.
Not everyone is (or should) become a professional musician.
Not everyone is (or should) become a professional basketball player.
Not everyone is (or should) become a professional politician.
Not everyone is (or should) become a professional founder.
But plenty of people do.
What you're talking about as being "so risky" can really be as mundane as becoming a competent mid level manager at a large tech company. One do have to make certain moves in one's career to prepare for management, and there's a certain level of progressive, targeted professional maturation that has to take place before one can be put in charge of others in some kind of a management capacity and not mess the whole thing up completely. But it's ultimately something which can be (and commonly is) trained for. Moreover, it is something most people can accomplish in their lifetime with training -- not that it means it's something most people should do or would enjoy doing.
It can take 6-10 years of practicing how to find and get into the top 1-10% startups to get any good at it. Or to get the skills one would need to run one. Or to find the right colleagues to build a network of peers and mentors one likes.
But if someone puts the full time in and don't get even decent (never mind best in class) results, they probably need to be more patient, and/or they screwed something very specific up, which they could probably fix; it's not because they aren't capable of it.
So it may require a different much more personal playbook than one may be used to, and if one has not fully developed theirs yet, it may seem delusional or unattainable. But much of that, if that's in the case, would be in their head. It would be like saying "I can't be a manager." That's probably not the case. What is likely more the case is "I like being an IC more than a manager" and "I prefer the working environment of established big companies over small startups."
People tend to prefer what they're good at, and they tend to be good at what they prefer. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is an "asshole" depends a lot on perception though. One thing which noduerme said in their comment [0] struck me: > It also goes to the WASP distaste or disdain for the Jewish style of discourse. Historically, someone at IBM saying a candidate was brusque could quite easy be code for saying they were Jewish. I have the kind of personality which likes facts, details, debate, argument, pedantry, technicalities, obs…
This is such a well-written response. It combines a real understanding of people >> In hindsight, I try to see things from her point of view – she's probably never read any legislation in her life with a real understanding of yourself >> I know some people sometimes perceive personalities like mine as "rude" – possibly even "assholes". And an understanding of the friction... >> the thought that most other people aren…
As someone who views most psychiatric diagnoses (autism/ASD included) as being primarily cultural constructs (with the science behind them being quite weak, far weaker than most people think), the suggestion that some of these things labelled as “autistic traits” are really just traits which some cultures (especially mainstream Anglo-American culture) disapprove of, is one I have a lot of sympathy for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Warren Buffett being a model example of a non-asshole CEO. Same with Kenneth Chenault at American Express, Indra Nooyi at Pepsi, and countless others.
Also Oprah Winfrey. Reports are that her public persona (warm, charismatic, friendly) is genuine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Some discussions are not serious, and are destined not to be really productive anyway. Dating advice falls into that category. Then you could have said as much from the beginning. >Is ignoring context like this your idea of being a "helpful contributor to discussions?" Because I don't see who's being helped by this. You communicated poorly, in being (almost deliberately) unaware of what context others might lack. Th…
Interesting! While I disagree with you that I've made the forum worse, this conversation has cause me to reflect on the importance of using low-stakes sarcasm like this, which has refined my internal justification for doing so. So, I guess everyone benefited. Have a good one!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting! While I disagree with you that I've made the forum worse, this conversation has cause me to reflect on the importance of using low-stakes sarcasm like this, which has refined my internal justification for doing so. So, I guess everyone benefited. Have a good one!
Wow. Upvoted you twice in one subthread. I don't do that often :-)