I don't think being led / managed by someone younger is a big deal, but this is a weird story. The author was just 6 months into his first job then made a leader of three much more experienced employees. That makes me think someone up the chain wanted those three guys gone.
I've worked in companies where standard practice was to give new managers senior-level engineers, because senior engineers were less likely to require some of the more complex management issues that someone more junior might.
Speaking as someone who, when I was a junior, only ever worked for first time managers -- I hated it, and wished that I had a more experienced manager. Meanwhile, my senior friends who had a first time manager enjoyed the process of teaching a new manager the ropes.
That makes a lot of sense. I remember having bad managers early in my career as well, but I was also in a customer facing position that required much more feedback from management (weekly one-on-ones). Compare that to now, when the only time I hear anything from management is when I get a raise, or a shout out at the end of year "all hands" meeting.
I think mainly what's wrong is our thinking of it as hierarchical. The "leadership" position should be/is a support position to help production staff perform to the best of their abilities. That could be someone less experienced as long as they're good at eliminating obstacles for their team(s) and communication.
It definitely helps to be familiar with an organization to actively participate in it. You can accumulate political capital independent from the management structure, though, and you can manage without playing politics.
I always suggest folk to embrace and understand an existing organization's culture before attempting to effect change within it.
It's usually a bad idea to try to change a process without understanding the reason behind it. It's always a bad idea to try and change it without TRYING to understand the reason behind. it.
I'm one of the most senior/revered software engineers at the company I work for, and my manager is just a few years out of school. He's interested in developing his management skills, whereas I and many others on the team are not. It seems to be working well. Our company culture highly values servant leadership, though.
It's not really that strange. My first full-time gig as a software engineer threw me into the team lead position at the six month mark as well. I found that we simply work in a field where most people do not want to be in a leadership position.
> where most people do not want to be in a leadership position
This happened to me too. I didn't picture myself as a manager and I thought I wasn't legitimate to lead the team, being less experienced. But it turned out my team members were quite introverted and none of them wanted to take that role. In the end, it was a fruitful collaboration and a very good experience. I never saw that position as hierarchical, more of a different role within the team.
Yes I couldn't agree more. I am currently in a leadership role and I feel like I spend most of my time taking bullets for the team. I am not trying to act like a martyr or anything but someone has to go to a bunch of stupid meetings and if that means a marginal increase in pay then I am happy to do it. I don't get to write as much code as I want but it still is a means to an end.
“For the next 10 years, more than 90 percent of the employment-based green card will go to citizens of one country”
This is so unfair to citizens of other countries.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Indian immigrants. What they've been through is not tenable in the slightest. I think lifting the cap all together will be a better solution for everyone?
>This is so unfair to citizens of other countries.
Not sure how it's unfair. The bill has a clause that anyone currently waiting will not be impacted.
>I think lifting the cap all together will be a better solution for everyone?
Not sure if you're serious. Even adding a few new green cards is politically impossible in the current climate. Just imagine the attack ads on TV for the next election.
1. The system is unfair in the first place -- Indian's quota is not in proportion to their population.
2. The bill tries to flush the queue, that leads to:
2.1 The perpetuation of this unfair system.
2.2 Other people who will still use this system get unfairly treated.
So I don't think this is a proper solution to this issue. If US really wants all the best and brightest, the cap should be lifted.
Right. So it is a world in which everyone is for themselves.
Companies shouldn't blame employees having no loyality then.
Having survived a few rounds of layoffs and saw colleagues let go, I said to myself "On a scale of 0 to 10, I will love this company as much it loves me -- 0".
Cool, but then you end up with less money overall.
The smart move is to accept the counter, then keep looking for something better with the negotiating position that you're paid $salary x 2. Better yet, push for a title to go with the salary that'll help you land an even better job.
This is assuming all else is equal. If you're moving on for better future propsects, because the company culture is stressing you out, or because of a lack of trust, it might be better moving on anyways.
But there's no guarantee the new lot is going to treat you any better either, and companies do what's best for them, so there's nothing wrong with playing the same games yourself.
> Cool, but then you end up with less money overall.
Highly debatable, because in the real world you need to do multivariate optimization and most people can't (don't have the skills and/or desire) to be constantly optimizing their salary. Thus, choosing a company that is actively trying to fairly compensate existing employees tends to pay off in the long, on multiple fronts, not just immediate salary.
But you don't really know if the new co is trying to "fairly compensate" you if the old co is now offering significantly more? Did you think your salary was fair when you joined old co? You probably did.
But I learned that they don't care about that, didn't I? Would it not be stupid to ignore this information? I have a chance higher than 0 at the new co...
Yet what I see most of the time is that organizations exploit employees' passion. The more you like your job, the less likely you will leave, so why bother paying you more?
I had a moment of epiphany when my manager said to me in a 1-to-1: "You've been very passionate and doing great. Now $competitors are in town, so we will raise your pay by $a-double-digit-number %".
I went out of the meeting and said to myself "Screw it, I have been exploited for $X years. I will start looking for my next job tomorrow".
> "we will raise your pay by $a-double-digit-number %" ... "I will start looking for my next job tomorrow"
I've always wondered how much value employers lose via this sort of error. 'Reactive' compensation absolutely does drive people away, for good reason. Retaining employees by matching outside offers is even worse; outside the very highest levels it fosters instability and encourages people to interview elsewhere.
So sure, your employer saved ($X annually * years without raise). But then they lost an experienced employee, likely to a competitor, had to go through a new search-and-training period, and quite possibly had their prior crappy salaries on Glassdoor driving away candidates.
I assume it's a net win sometimes, but I strongly suspect it's often a short-term tactic that ends up not only mistreating employees but losing money.
> I've always wondered how much value employers lose via this sort of error.
I suspect nobody can come up with a number that would convince everyone in the chain in a large organization. If that could be done, I wouldn't end up in this situation in the first place.
1. They have low-balled me before, they will do it again.
2. They don't pay based on how much value I generate but as little as they can to prevent me from moving.
Royality is a two way street. While the company doesn't have my best interest in mind, why should I have theirs in mind? It would be foolish for me to not look around. Once I put in the effort to look around and got a better offer, I might as well leave the company for good.
So? What is the significance of one single event? Looking at that site it is not that uncommon. Did this event catch your attention simply because it had the right keywords (US Dept of Energy and China)?
So? What is the significance of one single event? Looking at that site it is not that uncommon. Did this event catch your attention simply because it had the right keywords (US Dept of Energy and China)?
For the same reason robbing a bank is a more significant event than robbing a 7-Eleven.
"Who is responding to such an event during the government shutdown?" was my first thought. Assuming nefarious intent, now would be an ideal time to stage an attack.
DoE is currently not affected by the partial shutdown. It's business as usual at the national laboratories and with other employees/contractors. The way it's funded means that there would have to be a prolonged shutdown before DoE would have to start shutting down, but I think even then security and safety essential personnel are exempt.
ESnet is not affected by the shutdown. Also, ESnet does not transit all DoE traffic. ESnet is a purpose built science network and if you look in the AS-Set, this network is not transited by AS293 (ESnet).
The plan includes pay for external contractors and security-essential functions, so yes I would assume so (though I don't know firsthand about them specifically). To the best of my knowledge, DoE will continue to run entirely as normal until carryover funding from previous allocations runs out. Couple months at least. After that it basically goes into hibernation, but I expect that communications and network security would be considered as essential and hence would remain funded even then.
"A person familiar with the analysis told Reuters it had been conducted by global firm Nardello & Co and that customers could ask for more detail on that company’s findings."
So I guess yes you can bypass Super Micro if you're a customer.
I saw that, but it's not nearly enough. Why isn't the report made public? Why do we have to take Super Micro's word for it?
I seem to remember a very hostile and skeptical attitude from HN against Binance doing exactly this sort of thing when they announced the results of their paid-for "audit" of Tether financials. Why aren't we treating Super Micro's report of the audit the same way?
The context of the NYT article is that bad news in Chinese media is censored. GP already said "the kind of ...", which was not about a specific piece or a specific link, so it would be natural for me to interpret GP's comment as "the semantic content about defaults is censored in China", which is not true according to @paradite.
That's especially acute considering China is more and more opening to foreign labour - despite the fact there is no path to Chinese citizenship for foreigners, well, except Nobel prize and Olympic gold winners.
I know a number of people who were non-Chinese "foreigners", but who attained Chinese citizenship. As long as you legally remain in the country for sufficient time it's not impossible.
It would have a completely different effect in China though and serve to raise the average salary rather than reduce it. The fact of the matter is that foreigners are generally paid more in China (speaking from my own experience and that of friends and acquaintances who have also worked in China).
