11 ms·

>You must have experience designing and building large and complex (yet maintainable) systems, and you should be able to do so in about one-third the time that

>You must have experience designing and building large and complex (yet maintainable) systems, and you should be able to do so in about one-third the time that most competent people think possible. I wonder if working nights and weekends was a bonus? What's wrong with being competent and putting out a reasonable amount of work and not being overworked and under pressure?

ChuckNorris89 3y ago
If you listen to the war stories, a large number of other successful tech companies or products like Apple, Nvidia, Microsoft, the original iPhone, the original Blackberry, the post-iPhone Android, etc. would nove have been successes if everyone had strictly done their 9-5, Mo-Fr. Success often means racing to get to market with significant lead over your competitors who are also working on solving the same problems you are and are most likely not sticking to the 9-5, mo-fr schedule either. Which is why probably not many market successes came out of Europe where everyone works 40h tops, unless it's their own company/passion project. I was blown away by how many people in the original iPhone team claimed lost their marriages due to spending so much time grinding to iron out all the last minute issues and get the phone out the door on time. Jensen Huang said in the beginning their team was iterating to ship a new GPU design every 6 months with a tiny team. I bet everything I own they were not doing only 40h weeks back then. I'm not endorsing this practice, which is why I don't work in start-ups, but succes in this racket for early stage start-ups was often correlated with burning the midnight oil and it seems like a lot of people were willing to make the sacrifice for enough equity in their mission to "change the world" and "make it".
- thumbuddy 3y ago
  Yea but it's also the reason a ton of start ups fail. I've run the gambit of startups. The biggest reason I've seen them struggle or fail is, 1. Over engineering too early. 2. Making bad decisions because everyone is exhausted and pissed off. 3. Everyone racing to "seize power" rather then focussing on the product or actual customer wins. IE, a bunch of antisocial engineers end up in people leader roles because they are good engineers rather then tech. Leadership. Number 2 is a serious problem. The things I've had bosses pulling 80 hour weeks say to me and others has been astounding. Like if you wrote them down and showed them to a fifth grader they'd think you were insane.
- ilrwbwrkhv 3y ago
  Maybe then. Right now you can work 30 hours, party and then get bought by another VC operated company. This is what was missing when Apple and Amazon started and for the last decade this dirty VC business has stifled innovation and made people look only for an exit. That is why the biggest companies in the VC era has been companies like Uber and AirBnb instead of Apple and Amazon.
WJW 3y ago
There's nothing wrong with that, go get a job at any bigco and enjoy decent income at low variability. OTOH if you put in the same amount of effort as most other people, you'll get the same results as most other people. That was not enough for highly ambitious people like Bezos, so he sought to build a team of other highly ambitious people to take a big bet with.
rjh29 3y ago
The people replying to this ad are now multi-millionaires/billionaires. If you want to work a reasonable amount of work you can do it at a normal company, and get a reasonable amount of money in return.
- bhickey 3y ago
  This is just survivor bias.
  - rjh29 3y ago
    We all know what survivor bias is. The risk/reward proposition is still attractive to some.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > The people replying to this ad are now multi-millionaires/billionaires. Quite a few who answered ads just like it worked years below market rate only to see their theoretical equity dissolve, though.
  - rjh29 3y ago
    Yeah but we're not talking about those ads, I'm using this ad as an example of why some people might be interested in such a job posting. They knew the risks.
  - muskmusk 3y ago
    If you play in the shark pool you might get bitten. It might also be incredibly profitable if you know how to navigate it. If you can't tell whether the company you work for is going somewhere or just using you for cheap labor then that says as much about you as it does about the company. Employment is a two way street. If you don't want risk, then don't choose risk. But there is nothing inherently wrong with risk.
ukoki 3y ago
I don't think the ad is asking for people who are willing to work three times longer hours, it's asking for people who can produce three times the output in the same hours.
- intelVISA 3y ago
  Exactly, output is not strictly a return from time spent; plenty of organizational factors as well as individual factors like skill and experience. A 3x SWE can't produce 3x if they are in 6hrs of meetings a day. Likewise a 1x SWE can't produce 10x even working 12hour days.

ChuckNorris89 3y ago

If you listen to the war stories, a large number of other successful tech companies or products like Apple, Nvidia, Microsoft, the original iPhone, the original Blackberry, the post-iPhone Android, etc. would nove have been successes if everyone had strictly done their 9-5, Mo-Fr. Success often means racing to get to market with significant lead over your competitors who are also working on solving the same problems you are and are most likely not sticking to the 9-5, mo-fr schedule either. Which is why probably not many market successes came out of Europe where everyone works 40h tops, unless it's their own company/passion project. I was blown away by how many people in the original iPhone team claimed lost their marriages due to spending so much time grinding to iron out all the last minute issues and get the phone out the door on time. Jensen Huang said in the beginning their team was iterating to ship a new GPU design every 6 months with a tiny team. I bet everything I own they were not doing only 40h weeks back then. I'm not endorsing this practice, which is why I don't work in start-ups, but succes in this racket for early stage start-ups was often correlated with burning the midnight oil and it seems like a lot of people were willing to make the sacrifice for enough equity in their mission to "change the world" and "make it".

thumbuddy 3y ago
Yea but it's also the reason a ton of start ups fail. I've run the gambit of startups. The biggest reason I've seen them struggle or fail is, 1. Over engineering too early. 2. Making bad decisions because everyone is exhausted and pissed off. 3. Everyone racing to "seize power" rather then focussing on the product or actual customer wins. IE, a bunch of antisocial engineers end up in people leader roles because they are good engineers rather then tech. Leadership. Number 2 is a serious problem. The things I've had bosses pulling 80 hour weeks say to me and others has been astounding. Like if you wrote them down and showed them to a fifth grader they'd think you were insane.
ilrwbwrkhv 3y ago
Maybe then. Right now you can work 30 hours, party and then get bought by another VC operated company. This is what was missing when Apple and Amazon started and for the last decade this dirty VC business has stifled innovation and made people look only for an exit. That is why the biggest companies in the VC era has been companies like Uber and AirBnb instead of Apple and Amazon.

WJW 3y ago

There's nothing wrong with that, go get a job at any bigco and enjoy decent income at low variability. OTOH if you put in the same amount of effort as most other people, you'll get the same results as most other people. That was not enough for highly ambitious people like Bezos, so he sought to build a team of other highly ambitious people to take a big bet with.

rjh29 3y ago

The people replying to this ad are now multi-millionaires/billionaires. If you want to work a reasonable amount of work you can do it at a normal company, and get a reasonable amount of money in return.

bhickey 3y ago
This is just survivor bias.
- rjh29 3y ago
  We all know what survivor bias is. The risk/reward proposition is still attractive to some.
ceejayoz 3y ago
> The people replying to this ad are now multi-millionaires/billionaires. Quite a few who answered ads just like it worked years below market rate only to see their theoretical equity dissolve, though.
- rjh29 3y ago
  Yeah but we're not talking about those ads, I'm using this ad as an example of why some people might be interested in such a job posting. They knew the risks.
- muskmusk 3y ago
  If you play in the shark pool you might get bitten. It might also be incredibly profitable if you know how to navigate it. If you can't tell whether the company you work for is going somewhere or just using you for cheap labor then that says as much about you as it does about the company. Employment is a two way street. If you don't want risk, then don't choose risk. But there is nothing inherently wrong with risk.

ukoki 3y ago

I don't think the ad is asking for people who are willing to work three times longer hours, it's asking for people who can produce three times the output in the same hours.

intelVISA 3y ago
Exactly, output is not strictly a return from time spent; plenty of organizational factors as well as individual factors like skill and experience. A 3x SWE can't produce 3x if they are in 6hrs of meetings a day. Likewise a 1x SWE can't produce 10x even working 12hour days.