|
Square is an ok product but they have been pretty unsuccessful at everything beyond the reader and its various iterations. Their margins are pretty awful AFAIK. They are also going to have serious problems retaining talent (most of my friends there have left already, and I've heard things like relatively recent hires having stock options with strike prices way, way higher than the current value of the stock, meaning that they are effectively worthless). That being said, based on the space and the quality of their product I think they have a 'floor' relative to existing demand and how much better they are than the rest of the market. The Yahoo core business definitely doesn't have any sort of floor, and I don't really think GoPro does either.
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Isn't this ... kind of missing the point of stock options? At worst, they should be at the day's value when you joined. Post-IPO companies usually move to RSUs rather than options, and even some of the unicorns like Uber give RSUs. But Square was giving options, and the strike price was high enough that they are likely close to worthless for people who joined in 2015. Note that in this sort of scenario it's actually possible for the employee to actually lose money; if you exercise your options at $X and the stock drops below that value and stays there, you are pretty much screwed (see e.g. this recent example). I doubt that this would have affected anyone at Square though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:It's even worse than that. You're taxed at vesting. If you got your options for free or almost nothing, that's a big hit, because your cost basis is nearly zero. If stocks vest, you hold them, and they then fall in value (not uncommon) you wind up having to pay taxes on money you never actually had. Yeah, I don't think you're fully understanding the issues here. There is very little downside risk to RSUs because you can just sell upon vesting. There is often significant downside risk to options, especially for a rapidly growing company, because for optimal tax treatment you typically want to exercise early (you are generally not forced to exercise as long as you remain employed by the company, but failing to exercise early opens you up to a gigantic AMT bill when your company IPOs).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I think you were right, I was confusing the perils of options with the perils of RSUs. Buy options for $.07 when you join the company, get imputed income when the options vest at IPO, stock falls before you can sell it (within the restricted period). Fun fun. I still don't think this is correct. You should only get imputed income when your options become fully vested (i.e., when they are no longer restricted), and if you go from $.07 options to IPO with no early exercise you should fire your tax professional into the sun. Almost all of the horror stories of employee equity come from 1) options and 2) early exercise. The flip side is that early exercise theoretically provides a way to significantly lower your tax liability relative to RSUs (where you are going to get hit by a huge AMT bill as soon as the post-IPO lockout period ends, with no real way to reduce it); it allows you to spread out your income more evenly, which is beneficial given how marginal taxation and/or AMT work, and the second is that it allows you to potentially transfer some of your equity appreciation away from taxable income at your marginal tax rate, into long-term capital gains at a significantly lower rate.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Everybody agrees about that. What we really need is a regulatory system that allows new taxi businesses to start up, instead of providing a state-imposed monopoly on the number of people who can get permits to drive taxis. However, Uber is bypassing not only the medallion system, but also standard rules about insurance, liability, training, security checks .... all under the claim that it's just private citizens moonlighting. I think the argument that Uber is providing a more dangerous or less regulated service is a non-starter at this point. In practice, the Ubers I have been in (I'm several hundred rides in at this point) have generally been in nicer, better maintained cars than the cabs or town cars I've taken during that time. I took a town car from the Seattle airport to downtown Seattle the other day, and it cost probably 75% more than an Uber would have for the same distance, the suspension was disconcertingly soft, and the driver's wireless CC machine took over 5 minutes to get a signal. And this wasn't even a *bad* experience -- this is pretty middle of the road by cab standards. Everyone that uses Uber for even a small amount of time pretty quickly realizes that it is a better system in just about every way conceivably possible. You don't feel at danger in an Uber, and if something were to happen to you in one of them you almost certainly would be 100% made whole with VC dollars due to the bad press/optics such a thing might bring. And while there have certainly been some horror stories about Uber drivers doing various sketchy or illegal things that their background checks should almost certainly have caught, the fact that taxi drivers are routinely stopping traffic to protest Uber, attacking Uber drivers and harassing their fares doesn't exactly instill me with confidence that cabbies are somehow a more trustworthy class of people on average. IMO the true argument against Uber is how drivers are treated and how their endgame essentially involves driving the cost of human capital as low as it can possibly go (just as the true argument against AirBnB isn't the inherent danger of short term rentals, but rather the negative effects of removing rental stock in favor of low-utilization short-term rentals in low-vacancy areas). But this seems to be a much less popular line of reasoning than the current one. computer parts posted:Once they run out of money (and they're losing something like $400 million annually) they will die. I think that if they stopped focusing on hypergrowth they probably do have a sustainable business model and enough network effects at this point to be profitable. But in the meantime it's nice to get all my transportation subsidized by VCs.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
I don't think that's particularly relevant. They are heavily incentivized by their backers to burn through obscene amounts of $$$ chasing market share rather than being profitable.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:Uber drivers are paid based on the passenger's fare, which means they don't get an hourly wage (hence the whole independent contractor line) and since they're not employees they also have to pay their own vehicle maintenance, insurance, rental lease or loan payments on the vehicle itself, fuel costs, and others I'm probably forgetting. Any time you see an $X/hour statement regarding Uber drivers it's an abstraction, if you work at a slow time or area you could easily earn nothing but still be technically working. I mean, most medallion owners/renters aren't getting an hourly wage either, so the existing taxi system isn't a triumph of worker's rights. A few long-standing medallion owners have gotten very rich, the costs have been passed onto the consumer through lack of competition and regulatory capture, and there has been no innovation for decades.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:I agree with you there, the real issue is that Uber drivers have no control over their own income except by working more hours and taking more fares, while a medallion owner or lessee can set his own rates, depending on local legislation. Meanwhile Uber ignores all that by virtue of because they said so and because there's no real regulatory oversight drivers have no recourse aside from not working for Uber if picking up their fares results in not earning a living wage. I've actually never been to a city where cabs have the option of setting their own rates -- I can't imagine that this is a common thing. And the fact that rent-seeking medallion owners might be able to exploit the artificial scarcity created by the medallion system to further reduce the profits of their lessees doesn't seem like a positive aspect of the system.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 07:59
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Someone remind me why Marissa Meyer left a good job at google for this shitshow. She's going to make close to half a billion dollars running Yahoo (further) into the ground.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm familiar with what stack ranking is, I just wasn't sure if it was specifically a way to justify gutting a company while extracting value. It sounds like the answer is "hell yes". Not really. I mean if you want to fire the lowest x% of performers you can do it pretty much under any performance assessment system you want. Stack ranking just makes the whole compensation/promotion/etc system a zero-sum game. Stack ranking is associated with lots of other undesirable things, but it's not intrinsically aimed at gutting a company or anything. Microsoft did stack ranking for basically forever and it wasn't primarily for firing people or lowering compensation or anything like that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Geez, seriously? Doubtless many engineers there have laptops, and those laptops have hard drives. I assume all devices which connect to the private network are managed, which helps, but one of the problems with the private network approach is that it puts too much trust and authority on employees. There have been papers and presentations from Google people about the system they're moving to, where as many resources as possible will be exposed to the open Internet, and each request will be independently evaluated on who's making it, what they're allowed to do/see, and what state their device is in. AFAIK laptops at Google aren't allowed to have production code on them and all employees have desktops, and I've also heard (from a separate employee) that even internal data has a lot of restrictions and permissions are required to access the data of any team besides the main one that you work on.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2016 03:49
|
|
), and I've seen the practice have knock-on effects which...well, I'd be shocked if Google tolerated them. Or at least, intrigued to see how they avoided them.
|
Tasmantor posted:If swapping jobs every time you want to "move up" is the only way to go how does anyone ever get long service leave? Is portable LSL common in the tech industry or something? "wikipedia posted:It (long service leave) remains one of the great entitlements for working Australians and one that is peculiar to the Australian labour market. But to actually answer your question many of the larger tech companies offer sabbaticals, whether it's 1 month after 5 years, 8 weeks after 7 years, or whatever. WampaLord posted:Hahahahaha, you work for the top tech company in the world and your perspective is incredibly skewed. He's not wrong though. For most people, the easiest way to increase salary is to job hop, and if you aren't at a company that has sufficiently high pay then laterally moving to one that does is usually the best option. For people who are very good at their jobs and are already at companies that pay a lot, the fastest way to increase salary is usually to get promoted. After a certain point it can get hard to negotiate promotions and raises via job hopping (or even to retain an equivalent title), especially if your prior company has had a lot of stock appreciation. But making it to senior or beyond senior at a company that has similar comp to Google gets very lucrative (250-400k is the ballpark for total compensation at senior and it grows very rapidly beyond that level). blah_blah fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Mar 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:I hate everything about this. If job hopping was universally the best option then that would be a much worse state of affairs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
joe football posted:The idea that winnowing candidates by haphazard measures is fine, the results are good enough and doing things differently would be too much effort kind of undermines the idea that these companies require and are fiercely competing for the absolute best and brightest I'm actually not sure where you think the inconsistency is here. There is a very real and significant monetary and time cost associated with giving technical interviews for candidates. As a senior IC, I'm expected to do 2-3 interviews per week on average, plus the time it takes to write up my feedback and sit through the debrief for candidates with sufficiently good feedback. This represents over 5% of the week for me, to say nothing of roles like sourcers, recruiters, etc. I've also done over 100 technical interviews in the last couple of years and a disturbingly large number of those have been with candidates not even close to meeting the hiring bar. Our offer rate is well, well below 10% among those who even make it to a phone/VC screen so it's not like there's much value in widening the top of the funnel. In general recruiting shouldn't be aiming to capture literally all good candidates (as there are massive diminishing returns associated with that) but to optimize the ratio of quality candidates converted to amounts of money and time spent doing so (while meeting your hiring targets). Arsenic Lupin posted:Which planet are you from? Even the best colleges require students to take out loans, and don't allow them to live at home. Kids who graduate from the best colleges on financial aid graduate hundreds of thousands in debt. In any case, there are a lot of personal circumstances that don't let students go to target schools even if they get in. Family responsibilities (to parents, not just to children). Ability to live at home (free) versus paying for dormitories and food service. Ability to stretch out degree over multiple years so you can earn money in the off-terms. Your guidance counselor never even mentioning that your GPA/SATs/student history would qualify you to apply to a target school. FWIW I went to a top 20 (not top 10) public school in North America for grad school, turned down one of the best schools in the world for undergrad to attend a no-name school that offered me a lot of scholarship money, and my parents were thoroughly middle-class growing up. I work with a lot of coworkers who didn't go to top schools either, including people at the director/VP level and above. Tech is much less picky about 'pedigree' than, say, finance. Internships are definitely the best way to get a new grad job, and they do give a pretty big advantage to target schools (which are not quite the same as the most elite schools -- for example the University of Waterloo probably has more interns at top companies at any given time than any school in the US does). Internships at good companies also pay so well right now that they actually reduce the barriers to entry in tech in many regards (i.e., doing 3-4 internships can pay for all or most of your undergrad education).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Emacs Headroom posted:(junior / early grad-ish) That's a bit of an exaggeration. Junior/early-grad total comp is definitely well below 250k in most cases, and base is usually below 150k. Netflix is an exception but it's just because their comp structure is different, and they don't hire junior or early-grad candidates. Amazon comp isn't even 250k for senior level candidates in most instances. The market definitely is excellent if you're good, but it's still not that easy to make 250k in cash or cash-equivalents (say, bonus + post-IPO RSUs). There are probably less than 10 companies that pay their median senior-level employee this much.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Emacs Headroom posted:We seriously lost a junior grad (PhD coming out of the Blei lab) to Netflix for 280k. We also lost a junior person to Amazon who offered 100k cash signing bonus (same base comp as us). I don't really consider ML Ph.Ds who are recruited for their ML expertise to be 'junior' in any way; they get senior-level comp basically from day 1 and are probably the biggest single source of outliers for fresh grad compensation. Someone with a Ph.D coming from 'just' a generic STEM field, or someone coming out of undergrad with a couple of years of experience, is going to be making a lot less than them. Base comp is a pretty bad metric for competitivity imo. At Facebook or Google, as a high performer it's possible to be making 30-50% of your base salary in bonus alone, at senior your equity comp will be about 50% of your base salary, and at staff/principal+ it can be (well) over 100% of your base salary. Despite what Netflix says I actually think some tech companies pay more than Netflix, but no one does in cash alone. FWIW Facebook pays ~100k signing bonuses to a large fraction of returning intern SWEs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:You know the correct answer to "What order is a bubble sort?" "Nobody sane ever uses bubble sorts, and if I had gone around the bend and suddenly wanted one, I'd go look it up in Knuth." Sure, if you don't care whether your SWEs can do basic math or not. The time (and space) complexity of bubble sort is incredibly basic and most reasonably strong candidates should be able to figure it out in a few minutes on a whiteboard.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
bacon! posted:The second thing you said may be true, but the correlation of being a productive software engineer and the ability to whiteboard fun math puzzles like this - especially in an interview setting - is very close to zero. Arsenic Lupin posted:Somebody fresh out of college or grad school, yes. But calculus is also basic math, and I think we can both agree that expecting somebody 15 years out of college to solve a basic differential equation, when s/he hasn't used them since college, is beside the point. You can do a lot of good computer work while having forgotten, say, computability theory, or compiler design, or any other class that is specific to a particular kind of problem solving. In my experience -- and yours may vary -- that sort of whiteboard challenge can often be more about cock-measuring than about technical competence. There's a definite cargo-cult vibe of "I did this to get my job, and therefore you must, too." We're not talking about quicksort or mergesort or something with actual difficulty here. A candidate should be able to realize that the worst situation here is that the list is reverse sorted, and they should be able to realize that this results in (n-1) + (n-2) + ... + 1 swaps. And they should understand that that has complexity on the order of n^2 (you don't even need to remember the formula for the sum to realize that). This isn't a fun math puzzle but literally asking a candidate whether they can walk through a very simple snippet of code and describe what it actually does. Arsenic Lupin posted:This is backed up by the research that says that technical interviews are no better than chance at predicting a successful hire. Citation please, because as phrased above this is a massive overstatement.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Laszlo Bock, talking about Google's research into interviews. bacon! posted:This is a pretty good one: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/b...nZG+IlY9sYUxzBg Sure, I'm familiar with that. But it's not at all equivalent to the earlier quote, mainly because there is no counterfactual. Google accepts well under 1% of people who apply to jobs there, and probably under 2% of people who even make it to a screen in the first place. They certainly don't 'A/B test' their hiring process. So looking for insights only among the pool of candidates that are accepted creates a massive bias. Sure, there's a lot of noise/random variation, and the candidates are tested on isn't in perfect alignment with the skills required to do the job well -- but you really don't have to worry too much about false negatives from candidates who walk up to a whiteboard and can't write a single coherent thing in 30 minutes. And as someone who has done about 100 technical interviews in the last 2 years, and is a senior IC, I can say confidently that there are a lot of people meeting that description (although I'm in data science and not SWE).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
bacon! posted:Do you mean, "you don't have to worry about the outcome of false negatives" or "there were not many false negatives"? The former is a reason people posit there are problems with this typical hiring process and homogenous hiring outcomes: https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/technical-interviews-are-bullshit No, I mean that I am confident that there are very few false negatives among candidates who perform especially poorly in particular ways on technical interviews. As mentioned, I don't do SWE interviews, but when I ask a candidate a question about expected values, and they dither for 15 minutes without ever at any point writing anything that resembles an expected value, I'm not worried that I'm passing on some misunderstood statistical genius. Believe me, I don't think that the technical interview process is anywhere near perfect, it definitely produces lots of false negatives (and somewhat fewer false positives by design), and fails to test a lot of non-technical skills that are necessary for success, especially at a more senior level. But saying that 'technical interviews are no better than chance at predicting a successful hire' is absolutely false.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:Citation needed, I've heard wildly varying stories of technical interviews at Google, from white boarding to take home code challenges to easter egg code games triggered by searching for certain Python related keywords. AFAIK all their interview process always results in an onsite, but that wasn't what I was referring to. The only truly interesting A/B test you can do here is to give offers to candidates who didn't pass your hiring bar (bonus points if you have some sort of continuous measure of how far they were from passing your hiring bar) and then see how they fare as employees (preferably as a function of how far they were from getting hired). For obvious reasons, no one does this.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
Emacs Headroom posted:Yes, as I said, there is a cost to research, and not all of it bears fruit. We don't have time machines, so we don't know with absolute accuracy which projects will work or which labs will have the most useful results. I generally agree with this in principle (basic research has very clearly been shown to be cost-effective), but I don't believe for a second that the 20% and 1% are anywhere near as unknowable or unpredictable ahead of the fact as you present it here. I understand the (obvious) incentives in play here, but I also think there's a ton of room for optimization independent of whether overall funding levels go up, down, or remain the same. silence_kit posted:Haha, if you listen to physicists describe their capabilities, you'll learn that actually, they are the best programmers, better than professional computer programmers, and also the best statisticians, better than people who actually study statistics. Although you should give them credit, they've got to be somewhat good at statistics because you kind of have to be to be able detect the extremely weak and esoteric effects that they spend their entire careers chasing after. As a non-physicist with no skin in the game, I think that physicists are better suited for data science jobs than people from basically any other background. Software engineering jobs, not so much.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Citizen Tayne posted:Writing fart apps is not engineering. And writing apps that millions of people use every day with near 100% uptime is a lot more complex than what most real 'engineers' do. Or maintaining an online ML model that is constantly updating itself on thousands of features and millions or billions of data points every single day (or less). Actual PEs are overwhelmingly doing mundane, insignificant things as well, credential or not. I guess the barriers to entry are slightly higher than your typical fart app creator, but that alone doesn't justify the degree of snobbery that you see from a lot of engineers around the engineer title. For that matter, my whole post reads exactly the same if you replace 'software engineering' with 'software development', so I'm not sure why you decided to fixate on that. e: Citizen Tayne posted:If they're an actual engineer and they hold a PE, you can assume that they're going to be thoroughly steeped in math to begin with. But actually, since you brought it up, most engineers only know a very basic amount of math aside from possibly electrical engineers. Civil or mechanical engineers are not 'thoroughly steeped in math' by any means. A high-end CS degree has a lot more math in it than most engineering degrees, especially now that basically all of those grads are now taking one or more ML course. If your objection is that there are a lot of bootcamp grads in the field that don't know the first thing about discrete math or algorithms, then that's one thing, but CS as a field definitely has very strong roots in math and most high-quality programs still have a very significant math component. I'm not sure where this weird fetishization of PEs is coming from, but (as someone with a math Ph.D who has taught and TAed at the university level) there is nothing particularly special about engineers relative to other STEM disciplines. blah_blah fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Apr 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:Meh not when that uptime comes just by running thousands of instances in parallel and restarting ones that crash. Can't really run N versions of the same airline flight in parallel and call it a win if at least one makes it to the destination. Building appropriate levels of redundancy into a product, and implementing it in such a way that it has a minimal effect on the end-user, is basically a classical problem in engineering?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Citizen Tayne posted:Call yourself a developer, then. "Engineer" is a legally-protected title in most places, and claiming to a title that you haven't earned is a shameful thing. I'm not either variety of engineer, as I've already stated (I'm a data scientist). I'm not sure what you mean by 'most' places, as (for example) the US, Canada, and the UK all allow IT/tech workers to use the title 'software engineer' (or 'production engineer', 'sales engineer', 'systems engineer', etc) with few or zero restrictions. You can't call yourself a professional engineer or a mechanical engineer or whatever, but that's a separate issue. computer parts posted:There are two factors to consider - the difficulty of accomplishing a task, and the consequences of failing the task. Citizen Tayne posted:Fart app fails: "Oh well, no fart noises for me" Yes, and there are professional engineers who work on (say) consumer electronics or other products that are far from life-or-death. Conversely there are absolutely people who work on software products that can have life-or-death consequences as well.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I have a hard time thinking of where this inter-disciplinary dick-waving contest fits, but I'm pretty sure it's not this thread. I mean, it's some guy who is Really Angry that I used the incredibly standard term 'software engineering' instead of its synonym, 'software development', when the sentence reads exactly the same with either choice of wording.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:I can't wait till someone roles out this tech outside a place with near perfect weather like SF, I can just imagine how it will work in a mid-western winter let alone a Canadian one. There are lots of things about SF (very temperate climate, high levels of population density/small geographic area, substantial highly-paid, technologically literate population that is very willing to trade money for convenience/time) that don't generalize well to other areas.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
fart blood posted:So, a question about Dropbox, since thats one of the companies people are worried about : Dropbox is not in imminent danger or anything like that. It just won't be IPOing for anywhere near its last private valuation any time soon.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
e_angst posted:I legitimately don't see this happening in 10 years. Taking the over on this one. Uber's biggest advantage at this point is network effects. These are what make Uber so convenient and fast. Guess what the downfall of an app that has only women drivers (about 15% of drivers, but probably well below that in terms of rides/miles driven) will be? Oh yeah, they also have all of Uber's regulatory problems, plus additional ones related to (explicit) discrimination, and none of the VC dollars necessary to fight them. blah_blah fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Apr 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:A lot of taxi drivers also have the freedom to set their own rates and otherwise operate as a business. The fact that Uber sets fares for driver is actually a pretty core part of the problem. I've heard this objection before but literally never seen it in any of the major cities I've taken taxis in. Quick googling indicates that NYC, LA, SF, Chicago, and Seattle are all this way, for example.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:You guys also have an inheritance tax and generally don't give handjibbers to the upper class, so it's not just apples to apples here. Canada has an unlimited capital gains exemption on primary residences, up until 2015 a top federal tax bracket which started at $140k CAD, and a gigantic loophole for stock options where they are taxed at 50% of normal income. There are plenty of ways in which the Canadian tax code is really dumb and in certain cases even more advantageous to high income earners than the US one.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:CEOs have been pretty routinely padding their hours with stupid bullshit for like...ever. An all day golf outing with your business partners counts as a day's work if you're c-level. I'm not sure what it means to pad your hours when you don't have an expectation of working a set number of hours in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Switzerland posted:I was under the impression that Hootsuite was one of the good 'uns, e.g. making money thanks to the whole insane notion of "people will pay for a service" nonsense The whole 'primarily being based off of Twitter' thing unsurprisingly isn't going well for them.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
the talent deficit posted:their cap sheet is dirty as hell. they can't raise any more money drat, bringing the good tech gossip.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
Halisnacks posted:Where do video/mobile game studios tend to fall in the taxonomy of tech companies? - (both) Mediocre compensation - (non-mobile) Notoriously bad work/life balance - (mobile-specific) Low sustainability (at the industry and IP level) - (mobile-specific) Business model revolves around trying to get a small number of whales to spend truly obscene amounts of money
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The issue is that you always have that one manager or executive that starts thinking "wait, hey we can have people work 90 hour weeks from time to time? Why don't we do that all the time?" Serious question, have you ever worked at a reasonably well-regarded software company or are you just trying to cobble together how things are based on things you've read/your guess of how the world works? In general it kind of sucks to work as a developer at a company where software isn't the main product (profit generator versus cost center), but most competent software developers at good companies have things pretty good these days. ToxicSlurpee posted:Housing pricing is just hosed in general in North America as a whole. That doesn't really surprise me. Which makes me very sad. Yeah, the least affordable market in North America (relative to local incomes) is not really reflective of North America as a whole. blah_blah fucked around with this message at 23:10 on May 31, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 31, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
To be honest I doubt that even 25% of people in this thread understand what a dirty term sheet is. I'm pretty sure Absurd Alhazred doesn't.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
People who think their third tier market pays as well as Silicon Valley have no idea what compensation is like here, especially for people with experience or in-demand skill sets.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
rscott posted:It's because Americans are stupid and refuse to talk about how much money they make, which literally only benefits employers There's also just a lot of bad info out there. Salaries are generally common knowledge (you can find them on e.g. the H1B data websites) but most people underestimate exactly how big of a role equity plays/how much it varies between employees. And I'm not talking startup RSUs/options, but public company (Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc) stock. When I first came out here a few years ago I just assumed that senior-level and up devs were making maybe 25-50% more than me. I definitely did not realize that they were making 200-400% what I was making at the time. neonnoodle posted:Yeah but if your rent is $3000 a month, how much are you really able to put away? It seems really crappy to have a high income as a W2 employee -- you get taxed like crazy, your rent is nuts, cost of living is generally high. It makes more sense to me to express compensation as a ratio of salary to cost of living. About 100-150k a year after taxes and all living expenses. Rent is obscene, but free food at work + letting Uber/Lyft subsidize all my transportation costs + naturally being fairly frugal goes a long way. This is obviously an awful place to live if you want to buy a home but you can always move somewhere else and do that later. Ratio is the wrong measure, it's the difference that matters.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 15:47 |
|
|
The H1B sites are better and more accurate than Glassdoor, as long as you're applying to companies that don't lowball their H1B workers and treat them like indentured servants.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 06:03
|
|