6 ms·

The bubble we (hn) live in, is turning against fb/google/evil corp for various reasons, but the truth is, like any corp they will have ups and downs, if this me

The bubble we (hn) live in, is turning against fb/google/evil corp for various reasons, but the truth is, like any corp they will have ups and downs, if this meta shit pays out (fortnite skins for 2 billion people is basically infinite money) they will just buy their way out. Or they will buy the devs in another way, like apple is buying them indirectly for 30% commission on their apps. Worse case, you get survivor bias of people without moral compass, as anyone who cares leaves. Let's see how the social dilemma will play out, if the devs are actually malicious. (edit: grammar)

lmilcin 5y ago
The trouble for FB is that best developers have free choice of where they are going to work. Yes, when you need to pay your bills and FB is going to pay a shit ton of money, most people will rationalize, bend and accept FB's offer. But when people have basically free choice of where they can work this is when most of them actually start paying attention to non-financial aspects of their decision. FB's model requires them to be able to hire a lot of really good developers. It may take some time, but if they have trouble hiring really good developers they may start a vicious circle with end result that they will be open to being caught by competition.
- throwaway47292 5y ago
  > The trouble for FB is that best developers have free choice of where they are going to work. Thats in most companies no? The builders build from their heart. Until they get convinced to move somewhere very important as victims of their success and burnout. But you get 2-3 years of people giving their hearts out. Its what I call 'paying with love'. You know how they say 'do what you love and never work a day in your life', but what they dont say, is that you consuming that love, little by little, some day you will make a compromise, like an artist forced to paint something they dont agree with, and then again, and again.. until you start hating your brush. > FB's model requires them to be able to hire a lot of really good developers. It may take some time, but if they have trouble hiring really good developers they will be starting to slide a slippery slope to mediocrity when they can easily be caught by competition. I am not sure I agree with that, I dont think anybody's model requires constant input of really good developers, most things will work with ok devs, some sharded mysql, lots of ram and a bunch of materialization jobs.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- rajup 5y ago
  You say "free choice" like companies are just throwing out job offers for free. They do not and you can find tons of posts on here complaining about how the interview process sucks, does not measure true capability etc, etc. Many people may just not have the time to grind Leetcode juggling a job to pay bills, kids and family. Sorry, but this "free choice" argument is bunk IMHO.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - lmilcin 5y ago
    > You say "free choice" like companies are just throwing out job offers for free. Not for free, you still have to honestly work there. You get salary for value you provide. In general companies set up hiring processes with intention to hire people. (I know this sounds like a heresy to some ears here on HN). They interviews are set up with intention to hire people while but also filter out people who will not be productive. That these processes are frequently badly designed is another matter. If you are genuinely good -- they want to hire you. Trust me on that. The issue is that, sadly, unfortunately, a lot of candidates simply can't do the job. And, tragically, they don't even understand how bad they are and they apply to tens if not hundreds of places making them overrepresented in the candidates' pool. Then they come back to HN and complain how badly these processes are designed, completely missing the point. Somebody will finally hire them, but why does it have to be me? Could I do something to prevent these people from even applying? Could I do something that, if these people apply, they have no hopes of getting the job? Sure, some good people who would be able to do the job will be collateral damage but guess what, it usually costs much more to hire a bad apple than accidentally not hire a perfectly acceptable candidate. The length of the process is supposed to discourage these people from even trying. If you only apply to one or two places, couple of hours of interviews is nothing compared to years of work you will spend there, but if your plan is to shotgun the interviews you can't attend ones that require some preparation, multiple rounds of interviews, maybe a trip onsite, etc. Believe or not, I just changed jobs and I only "applied" to one company and I spent over 24 hours total talking to representatives of the company over multiple sessions. If you are good at what you are doing, longer interview just gives you more occasions to prove that. And also learn more about the company. In my experience even with badly designed processes, good developers will still be better at navigating them than bad ones. Think about it: you attend an entrance exam where you know only 2% candidates will be accepted. Does it matter how difficult the exam is? No it does not, it only matters if you are better than 98% of applicants.
- toast0 5y ago
  > FB's model requires them to be able to hire a lot of really good developers. It really doesn't. They need to hire a lot of developers, but they don't all (or even most) need to be really good. They've got lots of stuff to reduce the blast radius of poor developers. Extensive testing and automated regression. Extensive code reviews (although I don't know how effective that is). Lots and lots of layers that make it harder to do things wrong (but also harder to do things period). Gobs and gobs of meetings so nobody has time to get much done anyway. Some parts of that need really good developers, but you don't need a lot.
int_19h 5y ago
> Worse case, you get survivor bias of people without moral compass, as anyone who cares leaves Conversely, perhaps that's precisely what needs to happen for the legal banhammer to come down?

lmilcin 5y ago

The trouble for FB is that best developers have free choice of where they are going to work. Yes, when you need to pay your bills and FB is going to pay a shit ton of money, most people will rationalize, bend and accept FB's offer. But when people have basically free choice of where they can work this is when most of them actually start paying attention to non-financial aspects of their decision. FB's model requires them to be able to hire a lot of really good developers. It may take some time, but if they have trouble hiring really good developers they may start a vicious circle with end result that they will be open to being caught by competition.

throwaway47292 5y ago
> The trouble for FB is that best developers have free choice of where they are going to work. Thats in most companies no? The builders build from their heart. Until they get convinced to move somewhere very important as victims of their success and burnout. But you get 2-3 years of people giving their hearts out. Its what I call 'paying with love'. You know how they say 'do what you love and never work a day in your life', but what they dont say, is that you consuming that love, little by little, some day you will make a compromise, like an artist forced to paint something they dont agree with, and then again, and again.. until you start hating your brush. > FB's model requires them to be able to hire a lot of really good developers. It may take some time, but if they have trouble hiring really good developers they will be starting to slide a slippery slope to mediocrity when they can easily be caught by competition. I am not sure I agree with that, I dont think anybody's model requires constant input of really good developers, most things will work with ok devs, some sharded mysql, lots of ram and a bunch of materialization jobs.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
rajup 5y ago
You say "free choice" like companies are just throwing out job offers for free. They do not and you can find tons of posts on here complaining about how the interview process sucks, does not measure true capability etc, etc. Many people may just not have the time to grind Leetcode juggling a job to pay bills, kids and family. Sorry, but this "free choice" argument is bunk IMHO.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- lmilcin 5y ago
  > You say "free choice" like companies are just throwing out job offers for free. Not for free, you still have to honestly work there. You get salary for value you provide. In general companies set up hiring processes with intention to hire people. (I know this sounds like a heresy to some ears here on HN). They interviews are set up with intention to hire people while but also filter out people who will not be productive. That these processes are frequently badly designed is another matter. If you are genuinely good -- they want to hire you. Trust me on that. The issue is that, sadly, unfortunately, a lot of candidates simply can't do the job. And, tragically, they don't even understand how bad they are and they apply to tens if not hundreds of places making them overrepresented in the candidates' pool. Then they come back to HN and complain how badly these processes are designed, completely missing the point. Somebody will finally hire them, but why does it have to be me? Could I do something to prevent these people from even applying? Could I do something that, if these people apply, they have no hopes of getting the job? Sure, some good people who would be able to do the job will be collateral damage but guess what, it usually costs much more to hire a bad apple than accidentally not hire a perfectly acceptable candidate. The length of the process is supposed to discourage these people from even trying. If you only apply to one or two places, couple of hours of interviews is nothing compared to years of work you will spend there, but if your plan is to shotgun the interviews you can't attend ones that require some preparation, multiple rounds of interviews, maybe a trip onsite, etc. Believe or not, I just changed jobs and I only "applied" to one company and I spent over 24 hours total talking to representatives of the company over multiple sessions. If you are good at what you are doing, longer interview just gives you more occasions to prove that. And also learn more about the company. In my experience even with badly designed processes, good developers will still be better at navigating them than bad ones. Think about it: you attend an entrance exam where you know only 2% candidates will be accepted. Does it matter how difficult the exam is? No it does not, it only matters if you are better than 98% of applicants.
toast0 5y ago
> FB's model requires them to be able to hire a lot of really good developers. It really doesn't. They need to hire a lot of developers, but they don't all (or even most) need to be really good. They've got lots of stuff to reduce the blast radius of poor developers. Extensive testing and automated regression. Extensive code reviews (although I don't know how effective that is). Lots and lots of layers that make it harder to do things wrong (but also harder to do things period). Gobs and gobs of meetings so nobody has time to get much done anyway. Some parts of that need really good developers, but you don't need a lot.

int_19h 5y ago

> Worse case, you get survivor bias of people without moral compass, as anyone who cares leaves Conversely, perhaps that's precisely what needs to happen for the legal banhammer to come down?