I think she's too cynical, in the sense that she's assuming the worst 100% of the time, when she should be assuming the worst only about 80% of the time. Each o

I think she's too cynical, in the sense that she's assuming the worst 100% of the time, when she should be assuming the worst only about 80% of the time. Each of these cultural statements she is interpreting in the worst possible way. My observation is that companies tend to regress to the mean with size. This is not unexpected or surprising. What gets left out of the equation is that, while the best companies are likely to be small, so are the worst companies. The reality is that culture is complex and almost impossible to determine in the course of a single-day interview. It also changes. There are a lot of companies that "compete on culture" dishonestly, by misrepresenting their work environments, but it's not fair to assume that every company is corrupt and dishonest. What would be more useful, but require the perspective of someone older and more experienced, is how to pick the good startups. The one thing I would say is that any company that focuses on non-work perks is showing some serious warning signs. Work and compensation actually matter. "Free dinner" is a warning sign, not a perk. If the company seems to have more interest in talking about non-work than work, that's an obvious bad sign.