Short fat engineers are undervalued
nested.substack.com
Short fat engineers are undervalued
1–10 of 269 posts
Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued
#2[deleted]
Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued
#3The article itself isn't about this but one could theorize that the headline taken literally is also likely true.
Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued
#4The article itself isn't about this but one could theorize that the headline taken literally is also likely true.
came for hope - walked away disappointed.
Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued
#5The reality often goes against the premise of the article.
What are accomplishments of tall.skinny vs short.fat engineers?
Linux was driven by Linus T, javascript by Brendan E, Apple by 2 Steve’s, etc.
Innovation and creativity are more highly valued, which are byproducts of short.skinny type.
Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued
#6The article itself isn't about this but one could theorize that the headline taken literally is also likely true.
And that’s true even more if they are bald and with a beard.
Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued
#7I am not sure that perspective will be widely shared, I am not even sure if I agree myself, but I do appreciate this post as I consider myself a short fat engineer.
Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued
#8The reality often goes against the premise of the article. What are accomplishments of tall.skinny vs short.fat engineers? Linux was driven by Linus T, javascript by Brendan E, Apple by 2 Steve’s, etc. Innovation and creativity are more highly valued, which are byproducts of short.skinny type.
The two Steves are a great example. Well, Steve W was an electronic engineer with a deep interest and understanding of electronics. But Steve J was the one who took calligraphy classes and realised that computers could benefit from multiple fonts.
Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued
#9The argument of specialist vs generalist is futile. They simple fit in distinct parts of the journey and evolution of a software product.
Generalists are highly valuable for many types of orgs and projects especially nascent projects. But sometimes you need the precise output of a specialist to achieve something.
If my business has a product that is highly dependent of let's say OpenGL, then an OpenGL specialist will generate more specific output that someone who knows a little of OpenGL and a lot of other things.
However, there's always the counterargument that generalists can compensate with their holistic view and understanding of problems throughout the whole stack. I understand this and agree with it, but I think there's a point in every innovation where the generalist contribution declines sharply. And I'm saying this as a generalist.
If you are a generalist and you feel undervalued, you're likely in the wrong project or too involved in phases of a project where your contribution can't move the needle significantly anymore.
Re: Short fat engineers are undervalued
#10The article itself isn't about this but one could theorize that the headline taken literally is also likely true.
well, yeah, all engineers are under valued