4 ms·

If the takeaway is, "never work on internal tools," I've worked at companies where the internal tools were more valuable than anything customer-facing. If you'

If the takeaway is, "never work on internal tools," I've worked at companies where the internal tools were more valuable than anything customer-facing. If you're great at optimizing SQL, probably just doing that in any place you can get your hands on will make a pretty big impact. Overall impact is more helpful than resume points, IME, especially when references are involved.

oblio 6y ago
> If the takeaway is, "never work on internal tools," I've worked at companies where the internal tools were more valuable than anything customer-facing. Yes, but they're exceptions. > Overall impact is more helpful than resume points, IME, especially when references are involved. The vast majority of the best paying jobs out there (FAANG), don't care at all about references. It's a big world, it depends a lot in which circles you move around, I guess.
- type_enthusiast 6y ago
  Disclaimer: I do work at a FAANG. I'm not sure what circles you're talking about. "References" in the traditional sense may not be an important thing. But certainly being able to back your resume claims – whether with skills from that experience, or with people who will vouch for you – is important. If it wasn't, we could all just put "Optimized SQL and improved profit 20%" (or anything else) on our resumes, no? I participate in interviews from time to time. I don't ask a lot of trivia-type algorithm questions, but I do try to size up where a candidate has invested their effort so far. Have they invested it in trying (and learning) to solve problems? Or have they invested in in padding their resume? I'll take the former over the latter every time, even if they don't have a bunch of brag-points on their resume. That's just me, though shrug
pessimizer 6y ago
If optimizing an internal tool can raise profits by 20%, I don't understand your disagreement. The comment you're replying to mentioned profits vs. unnoticed efficiency, not internal tools vs. consumer-facing software. If it makes a big impact, it makes a big impact. > If you're great at optimizing SQL, probably just doing that in any place you can get your hands on will make a pretty big impact. This seems like an argument that there are no priorities and no things that are more important than other things. I don't think you believe that.
- type_enthusiast 6y ago
  > This seems like an argument that there are no priorities and no things that are more important than other things. I don't think you believe that. On the contrary, I'm arguing that making an impact wherever you can is better than avoiding things that don't meet some criteria of "things that are likely to help my resume." The priority I'm advocating is, making an impact by applying your skills (or even better, learning new skills) to solve problems that you can find (or are brought to you). This is how you'll build a breadth of experience (which will be valuable for employers) and identify a niche that you enjoy (which will be valuable for you).

oblio 6y ago

> If the takeaway is, "never work on internal tools," I've worked at companies where the internal tools were more valuable than anything customer-facing. Yes, but they're exceptions. > Overall impact is more helpful than resume points, IME, especially when references are involved. The vast majority of the best paying jobs out there (FAANG), don't care at all about references. It's a big world, it depends a lot in which circles you move around, I guess.

type_enthusiast 6y ago
Disclaimer: I do work at a FAANG. I'm not sure what circles you're talking about. "References" in the traditional sense may not be an important thing. But certainly being able to back your resume claims – whether with skills from that experience, or with people who will vouch for you – is important. If it wasn't, we could all just put "Optimized SQL and improved profit 20%" (or anything else) on our resumes, no? I participate in interviews from time to time. I don't ask a lot of trivia-type algorithm questions, but I do try to size up where a candidate has invested their effort so far. Have they invested it in trying (and learning) to solve problems? Or have they invested in in padding their resume? I'll take the former over the latter every time, even if they don't have a bunch of brag-points on their resume. That's just me, though shrug

pessimizer 6y ago

If optimizing an internal tool can raise profits by 20%, I don't understand your disagreement. The comment you're replying to mentioned profits vs. unnoticed efficiency, not internal tools vs. consumer-facing software. If it makes a big impact, it makes a big impact. > If you're great at optimizing SQL, probably just doing that in any place you can get your hands on will make a pretty big impact. This seems like an argument that there are no priorities and no things that are more important than other things. I don't think you believe that.

type_enthusiast 6y ago
> This seems like an argument that there are no priorities and no things that are more important than other things. I don't think you believe that. On the contrary, I'm arguing that making an impact wherever you can is better than avoiding things that don't meet some criteria of "things that are likely to help my resume." The priority I'm advocating is, making an impact by applying your skills (or even better, learning new skills) to solve problems that you can find (or are brought to you). This is how you'll build a breadth of experience (which will be valuable for employers) and identify a niche that you enjoy (which will be valuable for you).