|
This guy is really something else and I hope he never stops posting
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 08:44 |
|
|
oliveoil posted:That makes sense. Am I gonna gently caress it up if I try to hint that in-person wouldn't be an immediate deal-breaker but remote would be an immediate deal-breaker? That should have been "deal-maker". Not "breaker". I.e., I'd immediately accept if they were cool with remote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 17:55
|
|
|
oliveoil acts like a trust fund baby without any of the necessary capital
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 18:32
|
|
|
Well at one point he had a LOT of capital. Then gambled it all away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 18:59
|
|
|
ok well to be fair that is in line with trust fund baby behavior
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
kayakyakr posted:
how!!, we hardly knew ye
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
Idk I feel like trust fundies have this stereotype of being naive whereas I have confidence that borders on naivete but it comes from a mix of either hypomania (I think someone mentioned this) or logic or logic-fueled hypomania. Pretty sure I was some kind of manic when I decided to bet everything on a market crash as I later realized the way I felt had some overlap with mania symptoms. It seems like combining caffeine and Adderall are a reliable way to give me that feeling and I didn't recognize it and quit the caffeine till a bit late. In any case, once I get more courage and pull the trigger on asking my recruiter to find out if my #1 team is comfortable with remote work, I'll be able to move forward.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 19:33
|
|
|
I'm no doctor but you may want to investigate lowering your adderall dose, and limit coffee to one cup of half caf in the morning
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 19:46
|
|
|
LOL, checking out honies on Tinder, while day trading, while working on an ambitious startup idea, while being employed by a tech giant stacking cash. Fueled by 24oz cups of coffee and snorting crushed Addies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 20:02
|
|
|
Gunna go ahead and ignore a lot of stuff and try to answer questionsoliveoil posted:
Sure could, but because they want someone in the office. So yes, if the job is in-office or local and telling them you don't want that will submarine the job. It's probably better to make it clear though. I would say you might get a slightly better chance of getting them to agree with full WFH remote as part of an offer negotiation but honestly at this point I think most companies already have their mind made up about WFH or no so it might be better to bring it up and save yourself the interviews if the answer is "local only".
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 20:05
|
|
|
Thanks! I used your wording on a fit call I just had with a team in the same org as team #1, though different product. Apparently they need VP approval for remote work, and it's super rare and reserved for very experienced people with specific expertise. IIRC, this type of policy is set at the org level so I suspect my #1 team is hiring strictly for MTV roles. Think I'll probably go for my #2 team since the manager is comfortable with remote, but I'll check to make sure his manager or VP won't override him and require me to show up in person.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2021 22:37
|
|
|
pokeyman posted:how!!, we hardly knew ye I didn't think it possible, but here we are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 14:58
|
|
|
Still haven't confirmed with the remote-friendly manager if their own manager and their org are also comfortable with me working remote, but I'm feeling a little confused about what I want. Anyone here chosen between a job with quantifiable revenue impact on a major product vs internal infrastructure with different impact quantifiers? And remote vs in-person? I really don't care about career advancement. Grinding out years for an uncertain L5 reward doesn't matter to me - no idea when I'd get it, no idea if the meager raise I'd get would even matter by the time I got it. Wouldn't change the work I do since I'm planning to do L5 stuff anyway. My priorities are money and fun. I want to make money and have people hand me problems they don't want to deal with so I can figure out what's needed and deliver it. Obviously they both pay the same. In-person team seems fun because revenue-generating features are cool and so is their two-year plan. But it almost seems more top-down, not sure if I'd be given much or any independence. Remote team seems fun because they have a lot of stuff to rebuild and need help getting through all of it. They are like halfway through gathering requirements so I'd be getting in at a fun time. Sounds like there's plenty of work to go around so odds are good someone can just hand me a problem they don't want to deal with and let me figure it and deliver with a good amount of independence. I want to work a second job (different industry) for a few months to get some experience and then start a business on the side and I think being able to work remotely would enable this. But maybe the in-person job wouldn't preclude it? Maybe I can still use between-meeting time to handle things that come up during my 2days/wk of wfh? I've also had a long personal interest in the domain of team #1 so it would be cool to directly solve problems there. Really torn. There's actually another in-person job in the same product area as job #1 that seems like it would give me more independence. It would be somewhat related to job #1 but working on a part I'm not excited about. oliveoil fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Oct 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 17:03
|
|
|
Re: local/remote: Don't go remote if the rest of the team is local. They will inevitably exclude your from conversations out of human nature and habit. OTOH if you are local to a site and the rest of your team is at another site, then you might as well just be remote the whole time anyways.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 17:11
|
|
|
I think the ideal job to do on the side would be something in the food industry, like a cook. Then you should start a restaurant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 17:20
|
|
|
Which would you choose? Offer A: Staff at a public company with a high performing stock, HQ in SF, well known within software dev (product is for devs/marketing/sales). Diverse teams, women in leadership positions, and really good reviews on Glassdoor. Good benefits. Offer B: Senior (Level 2) at a private, relatively unknown company with HQ in Europe (few reviews on Glassdoor for US). Has supposed plans to IPO within a year at $1B+ valuation. Product is for creatives; some overlap/potential future competition with Adobe. I'm on good terms with another person on the team and the skip level manager. Severely lacking in diversity. Meh benefits. Both positions are remote. Base salary/bonus would be roughly equal, but the difference would be hundreds of thousands of actual stock for company A versus paper money with a lot of upside at company B, if they ever go public. sim fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Oct 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 19:14
|
|
|
thotsky posted:I think the ideal job to do on the side would be something in the food industry, like a cook. Then you should start a restaurant. And that takes care of missing the food perks you'd get on-site.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 19:14
|
|
|
where's hq of A
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
SF, but both positions are remote.
sim fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Oct 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 19:18
|
|
|
your median bet is that the top 99%ile of how peeps treat you in euroland is like 70%ile of how peeps treat you in asia and like median of how peeps treat you in figgieland prime. that didnt change w remote just go w sf unless your spidey sense is tingling
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 19:21
|
|
|
sim posted:paper money with a lot of upside at company B, if they ever go public. How's it work out for you if company B never goes public?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 19:24
|
|
|
A, every single time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 19:27
|
|
|
ultrafilter posted:How's it work out for you if company B never goes public? That's a really good question. I'd probably be in the exact same position I'm in now... trying to get hired at a public company. So yeah, point taken.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 19:32
|
|
|
oliveoil posted:
You were complaining a week ago that you wouldn't accept anything under L6 because of the comp difference and now you're saying L4 -> L5 is irrelevant? You also don't get to choose to specifically do L5 work when you're an L4 and I have no idea why'd you would want to do it and not try and get paid for it. At any company other than Google, and some other tech companies, you should take the revenue impacting job, but that doesn't really matter at Google. If you want to get promoted take the job that will finish a large project you can majorly contribute to first, otherwise take the interesting one. asur fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Oct 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 19:52
|
|
|
sim posted:Which would you choose? Offer A every time without hesitation. I say this as someone who got a nice chunk from winning the "will these options be worth something?" lottery.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 20:19
|
|
|
asur posted:You were complaining a week ago that you wouldn't accept anything under L6 because of the comp difference and now you're saying L4 -> L5 is irrelevant? Afaik, L5 means $350k but L6 means $500-600k. L4 is already $280k. 280 -> 350 is not enough of a jump to justify years of stressing imo. 280 -> 500 is definitely worth a few months of stressful studying though. quote:You also don't get to choose to specifically do L5 work when you're an L4 and I have no idea why'd you would want to do it and not try and get paid for it. I'd want to do higher level stuff even if I'm not getting the pay bump because after years of coding, I'm starting to the enjoy non-coding tasks like meetings and requirements gathering that bored me when I was a newbie. At the same time, I get bored faster nowadays when I sit down to code. I've got two priorities that I'm considering- I want to avoid boredom and get paid a lot more. If I can't get paid a lot more then I still want to avoid boredom. Overall, I want more variety in my work. If I didn't code a lot at work I'd get frustrated, but spending 99% of my time coding frustrates me too. quote:At any company other than Google, and some other tech companies, you should take the revenue impacting job, but that doesn't really matter at Google. If you want to get promoted take the job that will finish a large project you can majorly contribute to first, otherwise take the interesting one That makes sense. Since I'd find both interesting (albeit for different reasons) then I guess I'll be happy either way. The remote one sounds like there's more room for making majorly contributions to a large project though. Thank you! sim posted:Which would you choose? Hard to say where the market will be in a year. I'm not sure stocks will avoid a crash for that long. I'd probably take job B for its lottery ticket potential if the future looked brighter, but right now I just don't know. I'd be torn too. oliveoil fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Oct 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 20:38
|
|
|
That interview that was autorejected got fixed so I got an initial screen... and then was rejected. That's progress! =D
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 20:52
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:That interview that was autorejected got fixed so I got an initial screen... and then was rejected. That's progress! =D Ouch. Like, it's not enough for them to reject you. They want you to know and feel the rejection. Goddamn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 20:56
|
|
|
How long does it usually take larger companies to respond to applications? I applied at Slack and it took over a month to get a rejection back from them, should I expect the same applying to other big tech companies? (The long wait I mean, hopefully not the rejection)
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 21:29
|
|
|
spans 3 orders of magnitude ime. 6 hours to 5 months
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 21:31
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:spans 3 orders of magnitude ime. 6 hours to 5 months
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 22:24
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:That interview that was autorejected got fixed so I got an initial screen... and then was rejected. That's progress! =D I had a fun experience recently where I was rejected during the second round of interviews and had a call with the recruiter who I knew pretty well from a previous job. She said that the feedback she got from the second round interviewers was nothing like either the first round or her personal experience with me and said that she'll take a look and maybe I can get re-interviewed by other managers at the company. Then it turns out they hired someone else before I got a second shot at it, oops.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 22:51
|
|
|
sim posted:Which would you choose? Do you have a mortgage/kids/health problems? A Are you 22-28/straight out of college? B I guess as you already have a network there, you can always quit/ragequit with no consequences and go work for an A type company later
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 23:06
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Do you have a mortgage/kids/health problems? A This is literally the first public company I'll have worked for though, so I'm used to riding the startup wave. But I do have a mortgage/kids/stay at home wife, so yeah A makes a lot more sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 23:16
|
|
|
sim posted:Which would you choose? I read in a blog post recently that the easiest strategy to retire at 40 is to join a few almost-ready-to-IPO companies and sell the equity eventually. By that logic (not that I'd know from experience) A sounds good but if you really believe that B will IPO after a year then hopefully A will still respond to your job application if it doesn't actually happen anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 23:18
|
|
|
Company A it is Edit: Glassdoor is worthless now. Any company can buy $2000 worth of ads on their website and "appeal" bad reviews now
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 23:22
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Edit: Glassdoor is worthless now. Any company can buy $2000 worth of ads on their website and "appeal" bad reviews now
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 23:25
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Company A it is I am coincidentally vindicated for never taking up my employer's request to leave a review on Glassdoor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 02:17
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Company A it is Oh, you can do that? No wonder I see companies that are several years old with hundreds of employees but next to no reviews.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 05:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 08:44 |
|
|
Search though hacker news and there's countless people bitching about Glassdoor dropping their review after "internal audit" Glassdoor is useful for knowing if the company has existed for more than 90 days, that's it
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2021 05:25
|
|