21 ms·

5% is nothing. Any FANG could lose 30% at least and all metrics would only improve. People working there know this. There's an unbelievable amount of fat in the

by ein0p 2y ago

5% is nothing. Any FANG could lose 30% at least and all metrics would only improve. People working there know this. There's an unbelievable amount of fat in these companies. The main issue is that often during these cuts it's not the fat but the "muscle" that gets cut. The "fat" is good at sticking around.

surgical_fire 2y ago
I worked for one of the FAANGS. My experience (or I might say impression) is that any project could still be on "Keeping the Lights On" mode with a fraction of the engineers there, to an acceptable level. Over time some cracks might show. Bugs that take longer to fix, issues that take longer to figure out, delayed releases, etc. New features being implemented would be severely impacted, especially if those need integration from multiple teams. Does this mean that there's fat? Maybe. Any company I worked for has a level of fat - and that might be a good thing, as demand quite often is not stable over time, you may need to ramp up initiatives without necessarily hiring/training new employees.
- ein0p 2y ago
  There's a flaw in your reasoning: you did not consider that a lot of the projects at FANGS are completely unnecessary and exist only because these companies massively over-hire. Ideal working environment is when there are a lot of worthwhile projects and not enough people. That's when you get a choice of what to work on, that's when the company really values the employees, etc. That's how Google was 15+ years ago. That is absolutely not how it is now, at any of these companies. There are way too many people and not enough work. The less ambitious employees deal with this by hiding and doing next to nothing. The more ambitious ones fight each other for scraps of meaningful work that are not yet being done by someone they can't fight. It's not a dignified place to be either way.
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    > There's a flaw in your reasoning: you did not consider that a lot of the projects at FANGS are completely unnecessary and exist only because these companies massively over-hire. Maybe? Companies of all shapes and size do poor decisions. On the other hand, the nature of some projects require some time of R&D to find out whether something is worthwhile or not. > Ideal working environment is when there are a lot of worthwhile projects and not enough people. That's when you get a choice of what to work on, that's when the company really values the employees, etc. I am not sure I agree with this. Ideally you have resources to pursue all projects considered worthwhile. > That is absolutely not how it is now, at any of these companies. There are way too many people and not enough work. The less ambitious employees deal with this by hiding and doing next to nothing. The more ambitious ones fight each other for scraps of meaningful work that are not yet being done by someone they can't fight. It's not a dignified place to be either way. That was really not my experience there, although I did not work for Google specifically (perhaps reality there was different). There was actually a lot of work to be done, although a plenty of that work was, in my opinion, overhead due to how things were structured and how decisions were made, many times from the top down. I left because of it. I felt like it was the place I worked the hardest and I was at the same time the least productive.
    - ein0p 2y ago
      Whether something is worthwhile or not is usually up for debate - not all projects are equally worthwhile. Having more "worthwhile" projects than engineering resources gives engineers a choice of work. That too is a good signal for whether or not something is worthwhile, because then you get motivated people to work on those things, rather than people doing things because they have nothing better available to them. Idk about others, but I feel trapped when I don't have a good degree of autonomy/choice. And when I feel trapped, I leave.
      - surgical_fire 2y ago
        > Having more "worthwhile" projects than engineering resources gives engineers a choice of work. This is pure fantasy, except maybe if you work on a startup environment where engineers have a lot of autonomy. In any sufficiently large organization, you will be assigned to a team, and the scope of work will be sort of defined in some level of hierarchy above you as an individual engineer. You may have some autonomy to pick up some initiative here and there, but that will be somewhat limited. You may also try to switch to different teams where work may be more attractive to you.
        ein0p 2y ago
        It's not a "fantasy" at all. That's how Google was for me circa 2008-2009 when I joined it and until I left in 2015. In fact this made it difficult for me to accept anything less than that. There was so much opportunity, it took me about 6 months to get used to working there - I came from a rather rigid, large company where everyone just stabs each other in the back for scraps all the time.

by ein0p 2y ago

surgical_fire 2y ago

I worked for one of the FAANGS. My experience (or I might say impression) is that any project could still be on "Keeping the Lights On" mode with a fraction of the engineers there, to an acceptable level. Over time some cracks might show. Bugs that take longer to fix, issues that take longer to figure out, delayed releases, etc. New features being implemented would be severely impacted, especially if those need integration from multiple teams. Does this mean that there's fat? Maybe. Any company I worked for has a level of fat - and that might be a good thing, as demand quite often is not stable over time, you may need to ramp up initiatives without necessarily hiring/training new employees.

ein0p 2y ago
There's a flaw in your reasoning: you did not consider that a lot of the projects at FANGS are completely unnecessary and exist only because these companies massively over-hire. Ideal working environment is when there are a lot of worthwhile projects and not enough people. That's when you get a choice of what to work on, that's when the company really values the employees, etc. That's how Google was 15+ years ago. That is absolutely not how it is now, at any of these companies. There are way too many people and not enough work. The less ambitious employees deal with this by hiding and doing next to nothing. The more ambitious ones fight each other for scraps of meaningful work that are not yet being done by someone they can't fight. It's not a dignified place to be either way.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  > There's a flaw in your reasoning: you did not consider that a lot of the projects at FANGS are completely unnecessary and exist only because these companies massively over-hire. Maybe? Companies of all shapes and size do poor decisions. On the other hand, the nature of some projects require some time of R&D to find out whether something is worthwhile or not. > Ideal working environment is when there are a lot of worthwhile projects and not enough people. That's when you get a choice of what to work on, that's when the company really values the employees, etc. I am not sure I agree with this. Ideally you have resources to pursue all projects considered worthwhile. > That is absolutely not how it is now, at any of these companies. There are way too many people and not enough work. The less ambitious employees deal with this by hiding and doing next to nothing. The more ambitious ones fight each other for scraps of meaningful work that are not yet being done by someone they can't fight. It's not a dignified place to be either way. That was really not my experience there, although I did not work for Google specifically (perhaps reality there was different). There was actually a lot of work to be done, although a plenty of that work was, in my opinion, overhead due to how things were structured and how decisions were made, many times from the top down. I left because of it. I felt like it was the place I worked the hardest and I was at the same time the least productive.
  - ein0p 2y ago
    Whether something is worthwhile or not is usually up for debate - not all projects are equally worthwhile. Having more "worthwhile" projects than engineering resources gives engineers a choice of work. That too is a good signal for whether or not something is worthwhile, because then you get motivated people to work on those things, rather than people doing things because they have nothing better available to them. Idk about others, but I feel trapped when I don't have a good degree of autonomy/choice. And when I feel trapped, I leave.
    - surgical_fire 2y ago
      > Having more "worthwhile" projects than engineering resources gives engineers a choice of work. This is pure fantasy, except maybe if you work on a startup environment where engineers have a lot of autonomy. In any sufficiently large organization, you will be assigned to a team, and the scope of work will be sort of defined in some level of hierarchy above you as an individual engineer. You may have some autonomy to pick up some initiative here and there, but that will be somewhat limited. You may also try to switch to different teams where work may be more attractive to you.
      - ein0p 2y ago
        It's not a "fantasy" at all. That's how Google was for me circa 2008-2009 when I joined it and until I left in 2015. In fact this made it difficult for me to accept anything less than that. There was so much opportunity, it took me about 6 months to get used to working there - I came from a rather rigid, large company where everyone just stabs each other in the back for scraps all the time.