91–100 of 139 posts
I think that I can make convincing case that doing task several ways is not needed at all. And also that task is actually done only after the decision which solution to pick was made.
For a B level: > * You did not cause other people unreasonable amounts of work.* I would be careful with this one. As the examples listed after, such as an on-call incident or extra review of code isn’t necessarily on the n00b. Maybe I’m biased being only 4 years into my career but engagement on stuff you did wrong or even points on what you can do better are extremely valuable. From my standpoint, screwing up isn’t…
I would as well. If you didn’t stop it at the review stage, it’s the team’s problem. It’s not “X’s code broke prod.” In at-will, X can up and leave before you have time to give them shit for it. Then it’s the team’s problem anyway. Make sure you collectively own what you merge.
Because of the AI lunacy going on at most companies, if you call any of this out you get labelled a luddite and are put on top of the layoff list, so at least for now it's just something you have to deal with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh. There is a lot to be said about how efficiently you work. This involves making choices about how you solve problems, in what order you solve problems, how you manage people interrupting you, your personal life interface with work, how you advocate for what work to be done... on and on and on. An easy example: spending 2 days on automation for a task that takes an hour to do manually -- is this a task you have to…
This is self-help nonsense your manager will tell you when giving you too much work. Companies will smartly balance the amount of work allocated to people. …and then they will push you to take on more work. High achievers, across the board, consistently demonstrate putting more effort in . Its just a bitter pill to swallow for some people.
Tell me you never worked in a workplace or was completely oblivious about workload of various people, without telling me.
Also, in my experience, people who consistently spend a lot of time in work tend to be very ineffective with their time. They are in the "overwork yourself, be ineffective, try to compensate by working more, be tired make more mistake, try to compensate" cycle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is self-help nonsense your manager will tell you when giving you too much work. Companies will smartly balance the amount of work allocated to people. …and then they will push you to take on more work. High achievers, across the board, consistently demonstrate putting more effort in . Its just a bitter pill to swallow for some people.
I'm telling you for me being a better more productive engineer had a lot to do with making better choices. I'm not selling you a book or inviting you to my TED Talk. Not wasting a tremendous amount of time automating something is indeed an important skill to learn (because automating things is way more fun for some people than actually doing the thing). Coaching junior employees to neither ask me for help the instant…
It is clearly widely and indisputably demonstrated that many high achieving children in this situation are failures as adults because they never learn to put effort in.
Terrace tao is on the record writing about his experiences with it, and how it was only his failure in initial college admission shocked him into achieving what he has.
Ie. The point you are making is widely, clearly documented as the naive experience of someone who has not had to achieve at a high level.
> Coaching junior employees to neither ask me for help the instant they're confused nor spin their wheels for two weeks without asking for help is a COMMON thread.
You're a manager. I am sure you have a predictable set of responsibilities, constraints and want a “high performing” team.
Hows that working out for you?
Most advice I, personally, have seen, like this, comes from managers who want to have high performing teams, not ones that have high performing teams.
Its straight out of Be A Manager playbooks.
Whatever, you do you; but, I will emphasise that you are fooling yourself if you believe your experience is universal.
Most very successful people puts lots of effort in.
I… don't know what else to say. If you don't believe that, you are simply, objectively rallying against an extremely large well documented body of knowledge and work on the topic.
So much of this is written with an air of superiority over the noob. Indicates a bit of an ego problem. Yes, the noobs are noobs, but the goal isn't to exercise your status over them. Or even to waste that much time trying to categorize between A, B, C. The goal should be to boost everybody's productivity instead of treating them like a game.
I'm not sure if this is the last gasp of this type of thinking as AI changes the landscape. There's a good chance that the future is just noobs, perpetually begging LLMs to do better until it works.
[flagged]
For a B level: > * You did not cause other people unreasonable amounts of work.* I would be careful with this one. As the examples listed after, such as an on-call incident or extra review of code isn’t necessarily on the n00b. Maybe I’m biased being only 4 years into my career but engagement on stuff you did wrong or even points on what you can do better are extremely valuable. From my standpoint, screwing up isn’t…
The article sounds like a company with toxic blame culture. If critical aerospace can be no-blame, software can too. Sure, try not to be useless, but if the company doesn’t have guardrails that’s not on them. If an intern deletes something: why did they have access in the first place? Why wasn’t there a backup?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. Hardware is almost always cheaper than engineering time, until it isn't, and that's when you should spend the time on targeted optimizations.
Yeah good luck with that attitude over time. Most people don’t hang around in an org long enough to see that assumption scale to renting hardware than costs $900k a node a year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They should be getting praise and more mentoring, not sure why they'd worry about how the C's are being treated. It should also be clear to the C's that they are not making the cut and either they get better or they leave. There's something that is very pernicious in the government in Brazil (where I'm from) where in a department there's one person that does all the work while everyone else sits around. You can't fir…
Government work tends to also have structured pay scales that rise based on time worked and less so or not at all on performance. If the end result of working your tail off or doing the bare minimum is the same x% cost of living “raise”, no rational employee would put in any effort. It tends to be the reason so many Americans are anti-union. They do a lot of good for the average worker but they also carry along a lot…
In the same way we have the concept of 10x, 1x and negative-x devs, other trades have faster and slower tradespeople. Anti-union American laborers usually believe that they can outrun their fellow workers while making the additional money that implies. Unions say that they're beggaring their neighbor and the end result is they will be paid the same for more work.
Most unions focus on things like seniority, which is a bit of a detriment to everything but is very reinforcing to the union. The most senior people have a lot to protect, and by the time the junior people achieve some seniority, they have invested a lot of time in the system. A union oriented around productivity or skills would have less strength as its members aged, and it would be easier to poach the high performers into a non-union position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah good luck with that attitude over time. Most people don’t hang around in an org long enough to see that assumption scale to renting hardware than costs $900k a node a year.
Most orgs never get to that scale