7 ms·

I used to work at SpaceX on avionics software, in a role very similar to OP, and my experience was similar in some respects. The tech and products were complex

I used to work at SpaceX on avionics software, in a role very similar to OP, and my experience was similar in some respects. The tech and products were complex. The turnover rate was high and training new hires was a lengthy process. The new projects coming down the pipeline never ceased (this was during a period where FH/F9-1.1/Dragon/Crew was all under design/development and constant iteration). It was fun for a young engineer, but burnout is real. *WarpDrive was actually pretty impressive given the amount of stuff that it did.

cbanek 8y ago
Former SpaceX Flight Software Engineer here. Agree about WarpDrive being pretty amazing for all the stuff it did. Although amazing things tend to just clump up from all the features that you need, and you end up with an app that is hard to manage.
- ktal90 8y ago
  As someone who interfaced with the Warp system (both software and the organization), I agree with @cbanek. The number of features and the custom nature of it are impressive, but for anyone who had to deal with the politics of improving the system, it was a nightmare. There was (continues to be?) an effort to deconstruct the monolith, but it was a very painful process. Motives from different departments were in constant competition. Getting something done in Warp meant calling hours of meetings and getting the ear of a director/VP who would champion your cause -- and an associated PM that would be ready to serve said VP. This process was so backwards that, if the actual technical work that went in didn't burn someone out, the politics sure could. It wasn't all bad. There were other groups at X that provided pretty amazing tools for people to get things done (thanks, @cbanek and friends!)
ryandrake 8y ago
I heard the same thing about the burnout and turnover. Do companies really think they are saving money by paying peanuts, grinding people down to burnout, and then constantly having to rehire/retrain new people as the old ones leave? Meanwhile the code is a mess because nobody has been there longer than a year and there is no architecture or design continuity. Just frantic patches over other frantic patches by burnt out junior engineers. It makes no sense!
- gerardnll 8y ago
  Capitalism. Need for money and results. I don't think that anybody wants to burnout anybody, it's just the pressure of the whole system I guess. Money pushes to do things fast. Shareholders and clients to keep happy.
  - watwut 8y ago
    Burning out people at large rate is not effective and persistent crunch is contraproductie. It is less of capitalism and more of wishfull thinking combined with wish to be seen as tough manager.
    - Apocryphon 8y ago
      I'd say it's the pace in which modern capitalism operates at, particularly in tech. When the rate of production goes higher and higher due to automation and a global outsource-able workforce, the shareholders chase after higher and higher profits.
      - T2_t2 8y ago
        Nothing has changed, and ironically, this whole part of the question - is it better to burn people out and rehire - is a capitalist question, and answered with capitalist goals.
      - watwut 8y ago
        Tesla can't outsource globaly and does not have profits yet. Effectivity is about whether burnout brings higher profits, not whether people unable to gain them burnout themselves or those under them due to wishful thinking.
  - gsnedders 8y ago
    The question of course is whether the high turnover actually is the most efficient way—you're spending far more employee time training them (both learning the company's approaches at a high level, the problem space, and their way around the code base) than you would if you had higher retention. While you might need to pay more and improve working conditions, would you be more efficient given the individual staff would spend more time being productive?

cbanek 8y ago

Former SpaceX Flight Software Engineer here. Agree about WarpDrive being pretty amazing for all the stuff it did. Although amazing things tend to just clump up from all the features that you need, and you end up with an app that is hard to manage.

ktal90 8y ago
As someone who interfaced with the Warp system (both software and the organization), I agree with @cbanek. The number of features and the custom nature of it are impressive, but for anyone who had to deal with the politics of improving the system, it was a nightmare. There was (continues to be?) an effort to deconstruct the monolith, but it was a very painful process. Motives from different departments were in constant competition. Getting something done in Warp meant calling hours of meetings and getting the ear of a director/VP who would champion your cause -- and an associated PM that would be ready to serve said VP. This process was so backwards that, if the actual technical work that went in didn't burn someone out, the politics sure could. It wasn't all bad. There were other groups at X that provided pretty amazing tools for people to get things done (thanks, @cbanek and friends!)

ryandrake 8y ago

I heard the same thing about the burnout and turnover. Do companies really think they are saving money by paying peanuts, grinding people down to burnout, and then constantly having to rehire/retrain new people as the old ones leave? Meanwhile the code is a mess because nobody has been there longer than a year and there is no architecture or design continuity. Just frantic patches over other frantic patches by burnt out junior engineers. It makes no sense!

gerardnll 8y ago
Capitalism. Need for money and results. I don't think that anybody wants to burnout anybody, it's just the pressure of the whole system I guess. Money pushes to do things fast. Shareholders and clients to keep happy.
- watwut 8y ago
  Burning out people at large rate is not effective and persistent crunch is contraproductie. It is less of capitalism and more of wishfull thinking combined with wish to be seen as tough manager.
  - Apocryphon 8y ago
    I'd say it's the pace in which modern capitalism operates at, particularly in tech. When the rate of production goes higher and higher due to automation and a global outsource-able workforce, the shareholders chase after higher and higher profits.
    - T2_t2 8y ago
      Nothing has changed, and ironically, this whole part of the question - is it better to burn people out and rehire - is a capitalist question, and answered with capitalist goals.
    - watwut 8y ago
      Tesla can't outsource globaly and does not have profits yet. Effectivity is about whether burnout brings higher profits, not whether people unable to gain them burnout themselves or those under them due to wishful thinking.
- gsnedders 8y ago
  The question of course is whether the high turnover actually is the most efficient way—you're spending far more employee time training them (both learning the company's approaches at a high level, the problem space, and their way around the code base) than you would if you had higher retention. While you might need to pay more and improve working conditions, would you be more efficient given the individual staff would spend more time being productive?