3 ms·

> I can't imagine a single person where I work factoring this in Then it’s entirely possible you work for an immoral mega corp and your judgment has been compr

by zionic 5y ago

> I can't imagine a single person where I work factoring this in Then it’s entirely possible you work for an immoral mega corp and your judgment has been compromised by your paycheck. Let me put it in a more blunt way you are more likely to understand. Your team is interviewing someone who was a process engineer on the deep water horizon oil spill. You’d probably feel gross hiring someone whose incompetence poisoned the Gulf of Mexico. They did a fraction of the damage that FAANG engineers do to our society on a daily basis.

mizzao 5y ago
Whoa, it seems like you might want to be careful with politics creeping into your decision making. I'm seeing several of your posts here and it seems like you are making the inference "worked at FAANG" -> "horrible person", and while I have never worked at FAANG I have many friends I respect who have, and eventually left though it took some time. It feels like you might be making an ad hominem attack here.
- zionic 5y ago
  It’s an entirely rational decision. The kinds of people who take a fat salary from FAANG are the exact kinds of people I want to keep out of my companies at all costs. They are negative value add employees and I’ve yet to find a better way to filter them.
- throwaway2333 5y ago
  If you can make it into a FAANG/MAMAA/whatever flavor of the year acronym, you can make it into most tech companies (and still make a salary that's more than enough to live a dignified life and support yourself, and family if you have any). Working at Facebook as a software engineer is a choice; just like working at a bulge bracket investment bank is a choice. The type of people that choose to work at either of these two are (more likely than not) people who do not have morals or a sense of character and values. In my experience, being a good person only works when you're interacting with good people. If you're a good person interacting with a "bad" person, you tend to get a worse deal -- and if not alert, will unconsciously "sink" to their level, and start mirroring their behaviors in order to not get a bad deal. Sooner or later, you're surrounded by "bad" people and have become a "bad" person yourself, simply by moral "osmosis," all because a few "bad" eggs spoiled the quiche. I have been the type of person that naturally gravitated towards the "money money money" professions, because I did not have any strong role models to build a value system. Now that I'm out of that moral rut, I do not wish to go back. Just like an ex-addict who decides not to associate with other ex-addicts, because the chance of relapsing increases exponentially: I do not want people without any moral compass dragging me back down to their level. I like the way things are. Things are good. Associating with Facebookers will make things bad. I don't want things to be bad. I've tried very hard to express this viewpoint, without making value judgements, but it's moot: I have standards for what it means to be a good person, and Facebookers do not meet my standards -- so I won't associate with them. I won't hire them. And I will avoid collaborating with them.
  - mizzao 5y ago
    All I can say is, the more I gain life experience, the less judgmental I get of other people and the less I believe in the concept of "good" people and "bad" people. Everyone has good and bad in them, it's just the context you're interacting in and your own predispositions that brings out one or the other.
  - zionic 5y ago
    > The type of people that choose to work at either of these two are (more likely than not) people who do not have morals or a sense of character and values. Thank you, exactly this
    - em500 5y ago
      It's hilarious reading these anonymous hiring managers discussing how they'd hypothetically snub people like Rob Pike, Ken Thompson, Andrew Morton, James Gosling or John Carmack for lack of morals and values.
      - malka 5y ago
        I lost A LOT of respect for Carmack the day he started working for Facebook.
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        To be fair, that was a classic acqui-hire.
  - phillypham 5y ago
    > If you can make it into a FAANG/MAMAA/whatever flavor of the year acronym, you can make it into most tech companies (and still make a salary that's more than enough to live a dignified life and support yourself, and family if you have any). Not actually true for early career SWEs, especially those that switched from a non-CS field. Because FAANG relies so much on coding puzzles, they are often the best option for someone that is self-taught without formal training. Since they often have a large recruiting pipeline, they are often the easiest places to get interviews without any connections, too. I would also add that their ability to sponsor H1Bs is unmatched.
comp_throw7 5y ago
I mean, if you've been brainwormed by the idea that FAANG (what, literally all of them?) are _strongly net negative_ compared to the most realistic counterfactual that would spring up in their absence, and not only that, but that engineers working there are therefore morally tainted, then sure. But no, I don't work for FAANG. I could say the same about any of my previous places of employment, none of which were even tech companies (unlike the current place). But let's put all that aside - how does refusing to hire someone _leaving_ one of those companies improve the situation? Are you trying to establish an equilibrium where it becomes more costly in expectation to join one of those companies, because it might be harder to find another job afterwards? Good luck, I guess! I don't expect you'll move the needle much, especially given that there'll be quite a few people actively working against efforts like that.
- zionic 5y ago
  > how does refusing to hire someone _leaving_ one of those companies improve the situation? It massively improves the situation. The kinds of people who work for these companies now are morally bankrupt. Everyone knows the score going in. They’re smart enough to pass l33t code but dumb enough to not make their own startups. These are not the kinds of people you build groundbreaking companies with, they’re opportunistic parasites you’d do well to avoid.
skinnymuch 5y ago
No I wouldn’t. I’d feel gross being so judegemental and thinking so highly and self righteously about myself. I highly doubt the work your company does is blessing the earth with immense positivity. I highly doubt, just based on sheer numbers and basic data, that the people working at your company are amazing humble people who care so much about the world. I doubt they are concerned with the homeless population and other disenfranchised groups. Vs in your case being all gung ho about the evils of FAANG that you are so above. The number of people who are against the current status quo enough and willing to sacrifice the comforts of their lives to fix the issue are so small. It’s not even a bad thing. That’s a hard thing to do. It’s much easier to point to a couple of big companies and say how evil they are and any one working for them.
- zionic 5y ago
  > No I wouldn’t. I’d feel gross being so judegemental and thinking so highly and self righteously about myself. Why is applying realistic negative values to behavior such as willful FAANG employment “judgmental” You made the choice to work for a morally bankrupt megacorp because they paid you a crap ton of money. They paid your bills. You sold out, just own it and be a human instead of coping. I didn’t say I have some kind of employee utopia, but we build real things that help real people and honestly do make the world a better more honest place.
  - skinnymuch 5y ago
    Of course we have no way of knowing what you or your company does. You believe you make the world a better more honest place. Funny how often self righteous people believe that. I’d be willing to bet there will be plenty of people who have in my opinion more consistent views and principles on the problems with the current status quo and capitalism that would easily find your business not as amazing as you claim. > You made the choice to work for a morally bankrupt megacorp because they paid you a crap ton of money. They paid your bills. You sold out, just own it and be a human instead of coping. Almost all of this can be tuned up a bit and be used against you. Unless you’re an incredible rarity that is doing amazing selfless work. I highly, highly doubt it. It is much easier to point to easy “bad guys” and delude one self of one’s own work not being such great stuff either. Beyond that. This is a general moral stance. I’m sure if one was to compare you overall life, principles, morals, and a good hearted person working for a FAANG, your life wouldn’t be the one coming out ahead. At least most humbler people can see “selling out” is not binary. You have sold out too. We all have. — Just realized. It appears you or whomever owns the business and companies. It is so incredibly easy to point to how self serving and it being the definition of selling out to gain more from the effort of others without doing equal amounts of work and effort. And no I’m not a socialist.

by zionic 5y ago

mizzao 5y ago

Whoa, it seems like you might want to be careful with politics creeping into your decision making. I'm seeing several of your posts here and it seems like you are making the inference "worked at FAANG" -> "horrible person", and while I have never worked at FAANG I have many friends I respect who have, and eventually left though it took some time. It feels like you might be making an ad hominem attack here.

zionic 5y ago
It’s an entirely rational decision. The kinds of people who take a fat salary from FAANG are the exact kinds of people I want to keep out of my companies at all costs. They are negative value add employees and I’ve yet to find a better way to filter them.
throwaway2333 5y ago
If you can make it into a FAANG/MAMAA/whatever flavor of the year acronym, you can make it into most tech companies (and still make a salary that's more than enough to live a dignified life and support yourself, and family if you have any). Working at Facebook as a software engineer is a choice; just like working at a bulge bracket investment bank is a choice. The type of people that choose to work at either of these two are (more likely than not) people who do not have morals or a sense of character and values. In my experience, being a good person only works when you're interacting with good people. If you're a good person interacting with a "bad" person, you tend to get a worse deal -- and if not alert, will unconsciously "sink" to their level, and start mirroring their behaviors in order to not get a bad deal. Sooner or later, you're surrounded by "bad" people and have become a "bad" person yourself, simply by moral "osmosis," all because a few "bad" eggs spoiled the quiche. I have been the type of person that naturally gravitated towards the "money money money" professions, because I did not have any strong role models to build a value system. Now that I'm out of that moral rut, I do not wish to go back. Just like an ex-addict who decides not to associate with other ex-addicts, because the chance of relapsing increases exponentially: I do not want people without any moral compass dragging me back down to their level. I like the way things are. Things are good. Associating with Facebookers will make things bad. I don't want things to be bad. I've tried very hard to express this viewpoint, without making value judgements, but it's moot: I have standards for what it means to be a good person, and Facebookers do not meet my standards -- so I won't associate with them. I won't hire them. And I will avoid collaborating with them.
- mizzao 5y ago
  All I can say is, the more I gain life experience, the less judgmental I get of other people and the less I believe in the concept of "good" people and "bad" people. Everyone has good and bad in them, it's just the context you're interacting in and your own predispositions that brings out one or the other.
- zionic 5y ago
  > The type of people that choose to work at either of these two are (more likely than not) people who do not have morals or a sense of character and values. Thank you, exactly this
  - em500 5y ago
    It's hilarious reading these anonymous hiring managers discussing how they'd hypothetically snub people like Rob Pike, Ken Thompson, Andrew Morton, James Gosling or John Carmack for lack of morals and values.
    - malka 5y ago
      I lost A LOT of respect for Carmack the day he started working for Facebook.
      - Apocryphon 5y ago
        To be fair, that was a classic acqui-hire.
- phillypham 5y ago
  > If you can make it into a FAANG/MAMAA/whatever flavor of the year acronym, you can make it into most tech companies (and still make a salary that's more than enough to live a dignified life and support yourself, and family if you have any). Not actually true for early career SWEs, especially those that switched from a non-CS field. Because FAANG relies so much on coding puzzles, they are often the best option for someone that is self-taught without formal training. Since they often have a large recruiting pipeline, they are often the easiest places to get interviews without any connections, too. I would also add that their ability to sponsor H1Bs is unmatched.

comp_throw7 5y ago

I mean, if you've been brainwormed by the idea that FAANG (what, literally all of them?) are _strongly net negative_ compared to the most realistic counterfactual that would spring up in their absence, and not only that, but that engineers working there are therefore morally tainted, then sure. But no, I don't work for FAANG. I could say the same about any of my previous places of employment, none of which were even tech companies (unlike the current place). But let's put all that aside - how does refusing to hire someone _leaving_ one of those companies improve the situation? Are you trying to establish an equilibrium where it becomes more costly in expectation to join one of those companies, because it might be harder to find another job afterwards? Good luck, I guess! I don't expect you'll move the needle much, especially given that there'll be quite a few people actively working against efforts like that.

zionic 5y ago
> how does refusing to hire someone _leaving_ one of those companies improve the situation? It massively improves the situation. The kinds of people who work for these companies now are morally bankrupt. Everyone knows the score going in. They’re smart enough to pass l33t code but dumb enough to not make their own startups. These are not the kinds of people you build groundbreaking companies with, they’re opportunistic parasites you’d do well to avoid.

skinnymuch 5y ago

No I wouldn’t. I’d feel gross being so judegemental and thinking so highly and self righteously about myself. I highly doubt the work your company does is blessing the earth with immense positivity. I highly doubt, just based on sheer numbers and basic data, that the people working at your company are amazing humble people who care so much about the world. I doubt they are concerned with the homeless population and other disenfranchised groups. Vs in your case being all gung ho about the evils of FAANG that you are so above. The number of people who are against the current status quo enough and willing to sacrifice the comforts of their lives to fix the issue are so small. It’s not even a bad thing. That’s a hard thing to do. It’s much easier to point to a couple of big companies and say how evil they are and any one working for them.

zionic 5y ago
> No I wouldn’t. I’d feel gross being so judegemental and thinking so highly and self righteously about myself. Why is applying realistic negative values to behavior such as willful FAANG employment “judgmental” You made the choice to work for a morally bankrupt megacorp because they paid you a crap ton of money. They paid your bills. You sold out, just own it and be a human instead of coping. I didn’t say I have some kind of employee utopia, but we build real things that help real people and honestly do make the world a better more honest place.
- skinnymuch 5y ago
  Of course we have no way of knowing what you or your company does. You believe you make the world a better more honest place. Funny how often self righteous people believe that. I’d be willing to bet there will be plenty of people who have in my opinion more consistent views and principles on the problems with the current status quo and capitalism that would easily find your business not as amazing as you claim. > You made the choice to work for a morally bankrupt megacorp because they paid you a crap ton of money. They paid your bills. You sold out, just own it and be a human instead of coping. Almost all of this can be tuned up a bit and be used against you. Unless you’re an incredible rarity that is doing amazing selfless work. I highly, highly doubt it. It is much easier to point to easy “bad guys” and delude one self of one’s own work not being such great stuff either. Beyond that. This is a general moral stance. I’m sure if one was to compare you overall life, principles, morals, and a good hearted person working for a FAANG, your life wouldn’t be the one coming out ahead. At least most humbler people can see “selling out” is not binary. You have sold out too. We all have. — Just realized. It appears you or whomever owns the business and companies. It is so incredibly easy to point to how self serving and it being the definition of selling out to gain more from the effort of others without doing equal amounts of work and effort. And no I’m not a socialist.