The claim is that the numbers do not add up for tech workers ro make Bay Area attractive. 125k salary is used as a mid level comp to do cost of living calculations.
The numbers for 125k indeed do not add up. However mid-level in Bay Area is 200k+ and Senior is 300k+. Not sure where 125k comes from.
Finding people with skills expexted for Bay Area’s mid level (forget about Director or VP) is a massive challenge.
125k is entry level for FAANG, but most jobs aren't. I got offers from mid sized companies in the BA, 140k max with +10 years of C++ experience, I guess that qualifies as Senior? +relocation package, green card sponsorship, etc, but still very much not worth it.
125k at FAANG is base. With bonus and RSUs that becomes 160k+.
140k is a very low offer for someone with 10 years. Offers like that are typically made by desperate startups.
Seniority is assessed by skills and not tenure. Requirements for senior positions are pretty stiff in Bay Area. Seniors need to deliver regarless of circumstances.
Ouch, that feels very low to me. Granted, I'm in Boston, but you can get that at nearly any startup around here (I've both held those jobs and hired people for them). The bigger companies can then throw some real equity on top of that.
Mid-engineer is someone who can accomplish all tasks with occasional design-level guidance. Senior is someone who can accomplish complex tasks without any guidance.
They care about your daughters but they care about their children too. If they do not fill in electronic records they will have to stay after work. Many doctors have to work at home until 1-2AM to keep up with recordkeeping.
On the other hand, healthcare administrators who demand doctors spend no more than 15 minutes per patient AND fill pages and pages with summaries of visits really do not care about your daughters even a tiny bit.
> They care about your daughters but they care about their children too. If they do not fill in electronic records they will have to stay after work. Many doctors have to work at home until 1-2AM to keep up with recordkeeping.
I can certainly attest to this, from my own experiences growing up (in the 90's). My father is a doctor, and I distinctly remember him spending most of his evenings in his home office doing paperwork.
I asked him why he didn't do it at the office, and he said that many of his colleagues did... But as a result, they didn't get home from work until much later. (and he was already getting home just barely in time for dinner)
Interesting that he brings up the story of Er. Plato made all the arguments when it comes to philosophy’s why and how. The story of Er is the comprehension test at the end of the book. Sadly, Tim did not pass the Er’s test.
Not sure “intended interpretation” can be used to describe anything in the Republic.
The Republic is written to guide human souls out of the cave. Can the curious readers find the truth themselves in the story of Er upon careful examination? Is Er a philosopher? Does a philosopher need rewards described by Er? Can a philosopher choose an inconspicuous life (especally after the disussion of the philosopher’s life earlier in the book)? Can you take a story given in a book as the truth without examination after prose was denied place in the Republic?
My outside suspicion is that they are (were who knows now with the merger) waiting for Wayland to get to point they felt comfortable supporting it, that or they were waiting for the container ecosystem to stabilize enough that they felt comfortable backing their horse.
Although with the merger I'd assume it's going to be a bit longer regardless.
Holding back a server OS (face it, that's what RHEL is) for good Wayland support makes no sense. But figuring out their Docker/CoreOS/Atomic/OpenShift strategy before RHEL 8 would make sense.
Companies usually like to downgrade when hiring. Amazon does it a lot. So even if you qualified as an L7 they may hire you as an L6 (sometimes with L7 pay) and you need to go through a promotion cycle to get back to L7.
The problem is that metric, like any metric, is both easy to game _and_ can provide misleading information.
Measuring number of commits? Create fewer, larger commits. Measuring commit size? Pull in more third-party libraries, even where it does't make sense. Author count? Add more/less documentation and recruit or inhibit new devs depending on what your goal is.
Not to mention the number of commits/authors before and after an arbitrary point in time might conflate a successful growing project with a project in a death spiral being passed around from group to group.
It's a good idea, but in practice simple metrics like this often (but not always) devolve into prime examples of Goodhart's law.
In science, measuring things until you find a benefit is called p-hacking. Every extra test you do that splits your data along a different dimension, is another independent opportunity for "random chance" to look like positive signal.
There is no programming project in existence with enough developers working on it, that developer-productivity data derived from a change to it would not be considered "underpowered" for the sake of proving anything.
The obsession with measuring is hilarious. There are plenty of things in life (and jobs) that aren't measurable and are worth doing. Probably all of the important things are actually unmeasurable. Think about it this way, if its so easy you can measure it, it probably isn't very important in the grand scheme of things.
No metric can escape gaming when you apply it to rational actors (Campbell's Law / Goodhart's Law). Blind devotion to metrics is just as bad as no metrics at all.
I was just yesterday discussing the opportunity cost of infrastructure changes, as a new team member was bemoaning our out of date patterns...
A high impact infra change will often inconvenience dozens of people and distract from feature work... You know, the shit people actually care about... (this is analogous to how "Twitter, but written in Golang" appeals to approximately no one.)
Goodhart's law is entirely applicable to management (adding scientific in front doesn't actually mean anything). That is one of the prime areas of applicability. People change their behavior to increase a metric at the cost of decreasing other more important things.
The numbers for 125k indeed do not add up. However mid-level in Bay Area is 200k+ and Senior is 300k+. Not sure where 125k comes from.
Finding people with skills expexted for Bay Area’s mid level (forget about Director or VP) is a massive challenge.