3 ms·

I'm wondering what kind of feedback they got from their dry-run... I kind of wish interviews for engineering positions took soft-skills more seriously. What e

by tn_ 9y ago

I'm wondering what kind of feedback they got from their dry-run... I kind of wish interviews for engineering positions took soft-skills more seriously. What ends up happening is you have a room full of technically brilliant people, who might be on a spectrum, making user-facing decisions.

Caveman_Coder 9y ago
> "...on a spectrum" Does "on a spectrum" mean "autistic" the way you used it?
- vorotato 9y ago
  I think instead he may have affluenza
- krageon 9y ago
  I'm sure it also means any other deviation from the norm. Framed as something intrinsically bad, or at least indicative of deafness to tone.
drzaiusapelord 9y ago
What happens when the top guy is on the spectrum and over-rides these decisions? Part of the problem isn't just being on the spectrum but having someone in a position of power on the spectrum. You can have the best men and women at Facebook, but if Zuck is personally greenlighting these moves then it does no good. As someone who worked in an environment like this, its very frustrating to see good judgment tossed out the window because the boss's ego or social blindness overrides all. Worse, executive culture in the US is elitist culture. After a while, when you push 7 figures for years, fly your own plane, spend weekends on the yacht, have four homes, etc you just simply fall out of the mainstream and one's judgment on what is appropriate PR simply is off-kilter. Its funny how well we understand this with, say, royalty of old, but somehow our capitalistic 'royalty' get a free pass. Its the same human brain at work here be it today or 18th century versailles. People who are elevated to a certain point will simply become out of touch. Adding being on the spectrum to this only makes it worse.
- Cthulhu_ 9y ago
  > What happens when the top guy is on the spectrum and over-rides these decisions? Could go either way; seemed to work well for Jobs and Apple for example. Lots of CEO's seem to be on the sociopath spectrum. > you just simply fall out of the mainstream and one's judgment on what is appropriate PR simply is off-kilter. And then they become president. Dun dun dunnnn.
  - drzaiusapelord 9y ago
    Good point, but the 'net good' Jobs argument always feels a little hollow to me as he didn't live long enough to fight he later-life battles, namely destroying Android which he called a stolen work. One of Cook's first significant acts was cutting back on the patent warfare between Apple and Google/Samsung. Jobs dying young saved us from this war, a war that would have damaged the smartphone and wearable market significantly. The problems with Jobs is that he fought for his customers, which was nice if you're a customer, but if you're not, you're now a victim of Jobs. Why should Android buyers be assaulted by him? What did they do wrong other than buy into a more open-ish ecosystem? The patent system and courts are wholly corrupt and/or incompetent, so its not like there's a moral avenue for jobs to attack Android. Just everyday business sociopathy. Worse, a lot of Jobsian logic has been tossed out the window recently. The whole "the human thumb is so long so smartphones must be 3.5" maximum" and a variety of other cargo-cult wisdom. The iphone and mac lines of today most likely would not have been possible with Jobs at the helm. iOS is more Android-like than ever and recent decisions with MacOS seem un-Jobsian to me. I think Jobs died at the perfect time. Enough to bring in the mobile revolution but not long enough to run it into the ground over a scorched earth war with competitors. That doesn't exactly make him a great example of sociopathy for 'good' as much as it makes him a good example of dying relatively young. The above also ignores unexcusable sins like fighting "poaching" from his competitors with a gentlemen's deal (enforced by the threat of patent lawsuits - again) which only kept engineer salaries lower than they should be.
- stingrae 9y ago
  The point of the spectrum is that everyone has some place on it, including you. To make a general statement about people that are on a slightly different part of the spectrum is a form of discrimination.

by tn_ 9y ago

Caveman_Coder 9y ago

> "...on a spectrum" Does "on a spectrum" mean "autistic" the way you used it?

vorotato 9y ago
I think instead he may have affluenza
krageon 9y ago
I'm sure it also means any other deviation from the norm. Framed as something intrinsically bad, or at least indicative of deafness to tone.

drzaiusapelord 9y ago

What happens when the top guy is on the spectrum and over-rides these decisions? Part of the problem isn't just being on the spectrum but having someone in a position of power on the spectrum. You can have the best men and women at Facebook, but if Zuck is personally greenlighting these moves then it does no good. As someone who worked in an environment like this, its very frustrating to see good judgment tossed out the window because the boss's ego or social blindness overrides all. Worse, executive culture in the US is elitist culture. After a while, when you push 7 figures for years, fly your own plane, spend weekends on the yacht, have four homes, etc you just simply fall out of the mainstream and one's judgment on what is appropriate PR simply is off-kilter. Its funny how well we understand this with, say, royalty of old, but somehow our capitalistic 'royalty' get a free pass. Its the same human brain at work here be it today or 18th century versailles. People who are elevated to a certain point will simply become out of touch. Adding being on the spectrum to this only makes it worse.

Cthulhu_ 9y ago
> What happens when the top guy is on the spectrum and over-rides these decisions? Could go either way; seemed to work well for Jobs and Apple for example. Lots of CEO's seem to be on the sociopath spectrum. > you just simply fall out of the mainstream and one's judgment on what is appropriate PR simply is off-kilter. And then they become president. Dun dun dunnnn.
- drzaiusapelord 9y ago
  Good point, but the 'net good' Jobs argument always feels a little hollow to me as he didn't live long enough to fight he later-life battles, namely destroying Android which he called a stolen work. One of Cook's first significant acts was cutting back on the patent warfare between Apple and Google/Samsung. Jobs dying young saved us from this war, a war that would have damaged the smartphone and wearable market significantly. The problems with Jobs is that he fought for his customers, which was nice if you're a customer, but if you're not, you're now a victim of Jobs. Why should Android buyers be assaulted by him? What did they do wrong other than buy into a more open-ish ecosystem? The patent system and courts are wholly corrupt and/or incompetent, so its not like there's a moral avenue for jobs to attack Android. Just everyday business sociopathy. Worse, a lot of Jobsian logic has been tossed out the window recently. The whole "the human thumb is so long so smartphones must be 3.5" maximum" and a variety of other cargo-cult wisdom. The iphone and mac lines of today most likely would not have been possible with Jobs at the helm. iOS is more Android-like than ever and recent decisions with MacOS seem un-Jobsian to me. I think Jobs died at the perfect time. Enough to bring in the mobile revolution but not long enough to run it into the ground over a scorched earth war with competitors. That doesn't exactly make him a great example of sociopathy for 'good' as much as it makes him a good example of dying relatively young. The above also ignores unexcusable sins like fighting "poaching" from his competitors with a gentlemen's deal (enforced by the threat of patent lawsuits - again) which only kept engineer salaries lower than they should be.
stingrae 9y ago
The point of the spectrum is that everyone has some place on it, including you. To make a general statement about people that are on a slightly different part of the spectrum is a form of discrimination.