Many other reasons to ban TikTok, including many examples related to national security already in place for the US and its allies on government and military devices.
Every manager out there trying to hire tech employees -- unless they are literally at FAANG et al -- is struggling. All the good talent is being hoovered up by companies paying twice what you can pay. Your company makes something boring so candidates aren't excited. You really, really need someone on your team... so you sell it. You talk about fun tech you're thinking of using as if you were actually using it. You downplay the mountain of tech debt. You pretend your systems aren't constantly on fire. You do everything you can to Close. The. Hire.
I don't know why anyone thinks this will work... maybe it does? Maybe the belief is that once you've got someone on board, and they've changed their insurance and set up their new 401k, and learned everyone's names, that they somehow won't notice that you lied to them? Or perhaps they'll tough it out for a year just to give it a fair shake, even though it's clearly not what they signed up for. I just don't know.
But it happens. It happens ALL THE TIME.
It would be great if we could find employers that are a good fit for what we, as technologists, want to spend our effort working on. But the employers are adversaries in that quest, not allies.
What are you missing? A whole lot from the sound of it. There is so much variety out there it's incredible.
There's software behind every industry and product you can imagine. Manufacturing, construction, chemistry, pharmaceuticals, many kinds of financial services (insurance, banking, many kinds of trading firms), video games, defense companies of many kinds (weapons, aerospace, ships and subs, cyber security both red and blue teams). You have embedded development, app development, systems development, web development, data analysis, mobile development, back end development. There are people writing code, people testing code, people managing, product managing, solutions engineering, sales engineering. Big companies, small companies, governments, consulting companies. Enterprise product companies, consumer product companies, professional services companies.
Just try something. How do you already know how it will go without trying it? Just work somewhere on something that sounds remotely interesting. Realize what it's really like, not just how you imagined it. And if you like it, great. If you don't, there's a whole lot out there to try next.
Apple's stock is up over 1000% in the 10 years since Tim Cook became CEO. Over that time it went from a $350B company to a $2.7T company. He oversaw the creation of over $2T in value and his net worth is in the low single digit billions? If anything he's underpaid for the job he's doing.
Always when these arguments come up I wonder: is there actually a tangible way to measure how much of this was because of Cook (or whatever other CEO)? Maybe he is just riding a wave of success?! Maybe someone else would have the exact same results?
To me it always seems that the success of a company is projected onto its upper management in an unhealthy way. Maybe I am just clueless however.
There is no accurate way to measure how much was because of Cook. Clearly he made some decisions as CEO that put the company on a very profitable path.
But the same could be said of any job. Pay a programmer $400k. Was the work completed really worth that much?
Just a counter point. Apple can charge what it wants. So can Microsoft. So can Sony. So can Nintendo. So can Valve. So can Epic. They all take a cut for access. In many cases it’s exactly the same as Apple’s, 30%. They also have total control over what apps they allow. There’s no legal reason there should be a carve out for Apple saying they’re the only company that can’t do what everyone else is already doing. And no, Apple does not really have a monopoly any more than Sony does for PS5 or Microsoft for Xbox or Google for Android.
Maybe you could argue they’re ALL wrong / illegal. But that’s a different argument.
Because majority or monopoly is defined by their respective market? People keep spinning Sony does for PS5, when they should have said "console". But then the same people will argue console is small market, it needs to be gaming devices which include handheld or any other devices that could play games such as Smartphone. That was actually what Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers spent 5 pages on her EPIC vs Apple case.
And why does a console, which is a single purpose appliance, used for Gaming. Be compared to a multiple purpose tools required for every day modern life?
A Train company has monopoly on trains? People would argue you have different type of transportation and you dont need train? All these argument are useless and completely misses the point.
Arguing whether it has a monopoly may not be a valid either. Standard Oil never had a monopoly, and neither did Microsoft in 90s going by those argument because Microsoft didn't have market shares in other computer like Server. And you still have linux and Mac on Desktop. You have a choice?
Ultimately it is about Anti-Trust. Too much power held by a single company that is also abusing that power.
And on the subject Apple can charge what it want. Yes. Perfectly valid argument in US America. But no, this wont fly in the rest of the world. Visa and Master can charge whatever it want for its network, until EU decide they have to lower their ridiculous fees and not to price average consumers a cut because they could get rebate from elsewhere. The same happened in AUS. Not a business model most countries are happy with.
And of course Apple supporters on 9to5mac and Macrumors are calling to pull out of small countries like Netherland as retaliation. In which I would use the same argument, if it is Apple's devices and Apple could charge whatever they want, it is also EU's market and they can do whatever they want. So yes, pull out if you dont like it.
My point is only that there is a valid argument to be had here. Not that it is so clearly foregone that only irrational fanboys would defend Apple’s position.
That position is a straw man which is unproductive toward the discussion.
Whether you think the EU way or the USA way is right is irrelevant. Countries / unions of countries have sovereignty and will do what they like. Apple can exit the market if it likes, as many companies have already done in places like China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. I’m not comparing the EU to those places, but I am pointing out the precedence that companies don’t need to do business if the regulatory climate makes it impossible.
Bigger, name brand tech companies have way more applicants than they can accept so they have a crude recruiter funnel that is tossing out resumes for any reason they can find. They're literally trying to turn thousands of resumes from hundreds of schools into curated packets of dozens of candidates. But recruiters don't know a thing about software engineering. At best they can keyword match a few buzzwords they got from some VP of engineering who hasn't actually coded anything in 20 years (if ever). If you don't have the right 3-4 signals (school and program prestige, internship number and prestige, GPA) it's in the bin you go. The actual front line hiring managers won't even see your resume.
Try applying to smaller companies. Smaller companies aren't going to land the candidate from a top 10 school who already interned at multiple Fortune 500 companies. But small shops need to hire talent too. They're digging deeper and they have to read the resumes more closely. There isn't much of an HR department, and the hiring manager might be sifting through the raw resumes themselves.
If you still want to land a big company job, you're going to need to bypass the HR filter by finding a direct line to the hiring managers. Maybe you have some friends or alumni you've met who are at the company and can refer you directly to a team. You can meet these people at networking events, recruiting fairs, or other social activities. Creativity, determination, and luck play a big factor.
> Try applying to smaller companies. Smaller companies aren't going to land the candidate from a top 10 school who already interned at multiple Fortune 500 companies. But small shops need to hire talent too. They're digging deeper and they have to read the resumes more closely. There isn't much of an HR department, and the hiring manager might be sifting through the raw resumes themselves.
This describes my situation when I'm hiring entry-level developers: I, the hiring manager, am reading each application that comes in. However, I think this is probably more true for smaller companies that are not venture-backed; venture-backed companies probably have enough funding to hire senior developers (and are probably more rushed to do so).
For the OP: I'm not hiring developers at the moment, but if you'd like to send me your resume (you can reach me through my profile), I can offer some feedback.
As a note: With recent spike in salaries, many venture backed companies don't have the cash to pay the salaries of good seniors. Spoken with a dozen founders in SF facing this problem over the past two months.
This doesn’t seem possible. Startups are raising Series A rounds of 15-20 million routinely. A quarter of that would cover a reasonable number of senior engineers for a year or two.
But just in case it is possible…
Maybe they should try offering meaningful stock packages, rather than 0.1% and less?
Meaningful as in 0.5 to 1% for a senior engineer, 4-6% for a manager, until salary improves.
Also, try offering stock with no vesting cliff. It’s not smart to trade salary for stock when you might leave before the cliff through no fault of your own. So smart candidates often round the value of stock to $0, especially before the cliff.
You shouldn’t be giving managers 6-8x what you offer senior engineers at a startup, at least not in a startup where engineering matters.
If smart candidates are rounding the grant value down to zero, smart companies will not seek to give grants that are multiples of the current size. (That’s giving away $100 bills to someone who values them at less than your cost.)
When you’ve raised a $20M round and have an employee pool that is 10-20% in total, you don’t have many 1% grants to give…and you have exactly zero 6% grants to give.
> When you’ve raised a $20M round and have an employee pool that is 10-20% in total, you don’t have many 1% grants to give…and you have exactly zero 6% grants to give.
This is true, but the percentages illustrate how silly many investors are being about the resources necessary to put together a good engineering team.
I've had offers from startups with well known VC backers who wanted me specifically. They'd tell me their upper bound on cash, and then assuming I thought they had a decent chance, I'd calculate how much stock I'd need to make for the expected value for working for them to be at least as good as at a big tech company. Generally the calculation came out to 4-6% of the company per year.
That number could be lowered if I had access to the cap table or were being issued some kind of preferred stock, but no one's willing to do those things either.
Cash is cheap and labor is expensive but investors still want a way better deal than any engineer could dream of.
This is why I left Silicon Valley and founded my last company FAR, FAR from it. Silicon Valley is 100% OVER. It's jumped the shark. It's overdone and needs a fork stuck into it.
I sold the company 3 years ago. My latest company is doing so much better than it could ever be possible if in Silicon Valley in terms of "R&D budget/Investor capital".
It means we'll attain things that Silicon Valley startups with exactly that kind of personnel compensation requirements NEVER WILL.
SF a good senior can run you 350k/year not including overhead, add on overhead and you can quickly be looking at costs of ~500k per senior per year.
Vesting cliff isn't the only problem with stocks either. Common stock holders can easily get screwed over when raising or during any liquidation event that isn't an IPO or direct listing. The disparity in treatment means as an engineer you need to value stock at 1/10th face value as a rule of thumb.
The offer you handed out was not for me but is it okay if I send you my resumé as well? I am in the same boat as OP except it’s been a month since I graduated.
I would say there's a shortage of skilled mid to senior level developers, but at the junior level, not so much. That's not to say even decent junior talent is easy to find though.
Keep in mind those large companies can be very desirable to work for - many people don't want to work for these smaller companies, including myself at a younger age, but in truth I think smaller companies can be better to work for depending on what kind of person you are.
It’s not that mid to senior people are rare, it’s the expectations get high enough most can’t stay in the field. Mid is generally generally viewed in term of years of experience not talent.
Someone that’s good but not great with 7+ years of experience is going to have a rough time as are any senior people that picked the wrong software stack.
> Which may well be true, but conflicts with the narrative that there is a severe shortage of people.
It might seem this way, because the narrative is almost intentionally simplified to the point of being vague enough to support almost any narrative.
Shortage is real, but what often is omitted is the fact that it is the shortage at the senior level. At the entry level, shortage isn't really a thing. It isn't an insane oversupply either, unless we are talking the few popular FAANGs, but it isn't a shortage at the entry level.
> Shortage is real, but what often is omitted is the fact that it is the shortage at the senior level.
There's more possibility of shortage at the senior level and in more specialized areas.
Still, I'm not entirely sure how real it might be. Depends how it is measured. I'm in very senior and somewhat specialized roles, so that's my perspective. I see lots of companies opening reqs in my area and never filling them. The same job posting will stay open for years, sometimes.
Now, is that a shortage? Obviously they are continuing to do business just fine for years even without filling that position. Presumably they are interviewing tons of people and never hiring anyone, because they don't really feel any pressure to fill the position (otherwise, they would).
So it's worth considering, does that opening even really exist? Technically it's posted, they might be interviewing, but if nobody is ever good enough to hire and they continue to operate without ever hiring anyone... it feels more like a phantom req. Should such phantom reqs even be counted towards stats of companies trying to hire?
Just a generalist qualified senior engineer alone is something that is in shortage. If you dive into senior specializations, the shortage is even stronger.
My point was that the media and people tend to forget about the whole senior/entry distinction when it comes to shortages, and loudly proclaim "there is a shortage in tech" without specifying at which level, and then get a ton of entry level fresh grads yelling at them "no, there is no shortage, we struggle to get jobs".
>Should such phantom reqs even be counted towards stats of companies trying to hire?
If they are genuinely trying to hire someone for that position, but just have been unsuccessful to find a qualified candidate, then yeah, absolutely it should count. And I don't doubt they are trying to actually hire. Because why else would they spend tons of engineering time and money on interviewing people with zero intent to actually hire anyone.
Even where I work, we get tons of applications due to the company's high profile. And even when my team was desperate to hire a mid-senior level, we had to interview close to 50 people just to fill one position. It wasn't a competition for a single slot either, we were just looking for someone who was baseline qualified. If more than one emerged, we would have hired them all and just rerouted them to our sister teams who were looking to fill some positions as well, or to elsewhere in the company. But getting that one baseline competent person (we ain't talking about some 10x rockstar engineer type) was already a struggle.
> Because why else would they spend tons of engineering time and money on interviewing people with zero intent to actually hire anyone.
Not so much zero intent, but I see groups who keep job postings open for ages just perpetually holding out for that perfect unicorn that doesn't actually exist and can't exist (you know, the person who has 20 years experience in low-level kernel development but is also a UI design god and a full-time devops guru on the side; I exagerate but only slightly).
So technically they can claim shortage of experts, can't hire anyone. But meanwhile the team continues operating just fine for years even though this magical person can never be found.
So to those job postings, I consider them essentially fake. They just inflate the count of positions that can't be filled by a position that never will be filled.
> This would indicate that there is a severe oversupply of candidates eager to work in this industry.
Not the industry as a whole, but certainly there is an overabundance of people trying to land a job at very specific companies (FAANG, and a handful of others).
There would be an industry oversupply if this situation were widespread, but it isn't. The industry has a shortage, certain famous companies are the exception rather than the rule.
There is an oversupply of candidates, as evidenced by the fact that engineers have very little bargaining power about the terms of employment with any particular company. The negotiation for 90% of engineers is very one sided.
A shit ton of people apply to FAANG companies because of the money on the table despite having no professional experience as a software engineer nor writing any code.
Although some places do find talent hard to source, at any price (see Microsoft's Bing team who have _really_ struggled to hire enough people to compete with Google)
And they've tried 'any price' (even not taking it facetiously literally)? What makes it so unattractive?
The prospect of working on Bing or at Microsoft wouldn't exactly excite me perhaps, but it'd only have to be the best paying (by some non-trivial but not massive amount) offer. (Or everything else less exciting!)
Perhaps you mean search engine experts, not grad entry or 'at any price' in that sense, so the pool they're looking at only wants to work on the biggest most exciting one, which happens also to be willing to hire all of them?
It indicates an abundance of applications for sure. That doesn’t indicate an oversupply of applicants nor of qualified applicants. How many times have we read the advice to apply for hundreds of jobs and only apply to those that take little effort? I think there’s a lot of people out there applying to every long-shot job because the prize is large enough.
> Smaller companies aren't going to land the candidate from a top 10 school who already interned at multiple Fortune 500 companies
One thing I have worried about though is they might require someone who is more experienced. I have noticed there are not many small companies on my school's job board. Would you know of a place where I could find these?
Another commenter mentioned checking the website of VC firms for start-ups. I think I will give that a shot.
I appreciate all the help from everyone in the thread, I am reading all the comments.
> I have noticed there are not many small companies on my school's job board.
The few small to medium sized companies on your school's job board are actually great opportunities. Those companies don't have the resources to recruit many places so they might not even be looking at any other schools or programs. There is probably a very strong alumni connection to your school or program. They likely know exactly what they're getting with those new grads and wouldn't be recruiting there if they weren't comfortable with that.
> Would you know of a place where I could find these?
One problem with small companies is that they tend to not advertise their job openings everywhere. You can usually find different ones everywhere you look. The worse they are at advertising the job, the less competition you have and the more likely you resume will be considered. So it does pay to look beyond any one job board.
> One thing I have worried about though is they might require someone who is more experienced.
This varies company by company. Some companies founded by new grads or college drop outs exclusively hire new grads. Some big companies exclusively hire experienced engineers. And there's everything in between. If they have a job posting for entry level or new grads, go for it.
Also in a smaller company, chances are, that you need to touch a larger variety of the systems, as people are not in as specialized roles. At least in my experience. This is great for people starting out, because they will learn a lot on the job.
The San Francisco Bay Area will almost always be the most financially beneficial choice if you can get a job at one of the top tech companies. Not only because your initial job will pay well, but you will also have many more high paying alternatives for future career growth. You will probably be shocked to see the recent salaries in the Bay Area compared to Toronto, London, and Hong Kong.[0] Granted, these salary ranges may already be lower due to COVID, but that will be true everywhere in the world.
Did you read the article? This is a disinformation campaign by a nation state. This is information like literally made-up-for-clicks fake news articles on Facebook is information.
The article doesn't actually claim that - it just says that the accounts were posting using VPNs (which anyone visiting YouTube from China will be) and they appeared to be acting in a co-ordinated manner. I know there was some suggestion in the previous discussion that Twitter etc were likely responding to a campaign by a specific, very large online community of aggressively patriotic Chinese people.
> Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment which consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions. The harasser who uses this tactic also uses fake civility so as to discredit their target.
Where is the harassment? There was a question asked. No persistence. No repeated questions. You are also assuming the intent to be malicious. What is your goal?
Its "or" harassment. The approach is to generally ask benign seeming questions that are very complex to answer. In the gp if of my comment there is already context and is a reply to something else. Bypassing all of that to ask how the entire thing works is likely a disingenuous attempt at using an asymmetrically simple question asking for a huge answer.
You can choose to feel that way about it. the gp of my reply is pointing to the article, content and thereforce context therein. Not addressing any single part with a question done in the spirit of casting doubt knowing full well how the answer goes is perfectly within the description of sealioning.
This assumes a perfectly efficient market with no opportunity for arbitrage.
Sometimes what you can get in rent is less than what it costs to maintain a property, but it’s still better than letting it remain empty. Assuming the owner is even that financially disciplined. And again, sometimes people just don’t understand the finances.
Sometimes the rent people can charge is far higher than the cost to maintain property. But that doesn’t mean the owner is selling or that the renter is in a position to buy.
One is not categorically better than the other in all situations.
Okay, sure, but I don't see the OP of this subthread saying, "Stay on the lookout for arbitrage opportunities!" I see them not understanding that just because you don't go to the tire shop personally doesn't mean that you don't pay for the tire.
I’d look at incidents per flight hour. Some of those 737s have been in the air for decades. I suspect the numbers for the 737 MAX will stand out more on this analysis.
It’s also worth noting that the MAX should benefit from 5 decades of accumulated experience and regulation. So you’d expect far lower incidents.
The problem might not be with the plane per se but rather with Boeing rushing a bit and relying on the fact that “it basically the same plane but better so why would there be issues”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_TikTok
reply