I’ve been in several different orgs that held a lot of layoffs and they’re sometimes performance related but other times just wrong place, wrong time as others have commented.
I also see advice that states you should change jobs every few years to ensure you continue to grow as a person, ensure salary growth (a real thing in my experience) and to ensure you’re staying relevant. So it seems that we want the option to move on our terms but we don’t think companies should view it the same. Management is also painfully aware that key employees can be ‘one bad meeting away’ from leaving. It seems like if we want stability then we probably need to offer some as well; many in this thread describe the relationship as either transactional or a negotiation and if we really believe it then we should view it from both sides.
Finally, there are large industries where there is significant stability: government, defense, etc. They don’t have FAANG comp, but can pay reasonably well.
We might not be able to quantitatively measure it but we can run studies to evaluate what individuals and teams can handle. Human factors people do this and it’s a sub field in industrial engineering. The military runs these studies and I’d imagine air traffic controllers do them as well, etc. You sometimes get really surprising results.
Merry Christmas all. Like many of the posters have said, I really treasure this site as this is what I still believe the Internet should be (yep, I’m old). Love all the nuggets I find here and the number of threads and articles I share out. Also, seriously appreciate dang!
Back when I was doing a lot of full time dev, my approach was to figure out how to build Hello World (usually the device driver equivalent) and then debug it and then start for real. But always started with how to build it and debug it.
A couple of years ago I moved from a more structured (not exactly slower paced in the job I was in) employer to a FAANG-like employer. I was making more money (base salary wasn't that different, stock and bonuses were). As I got more integrated and started wanting to make more of a difference, I started having to work longer and longer hours. It became obvious to me that I was on a path to essentially only working and sleeping. It was also physically wearing me out as I'm NOT in my 20's anymore. So essentially, I'd be making more money, but wouldn't have the time or energy to do anything but work. AND ... I'd have to start paying other people to do things for me that I normally would do myself - which then eats into that financial difference. I don't have young kids anymore so technically had the free time, but came to realize that I really didn't want to be forced to spend it solely on work. So I made a change to (again, a bit lower paying) but more structured environment.
This was a more balanced post than I expected. I'm probably older than the median here on HN and I think it's a generational thing. My parents were of the generation when folks tended to work for a company for a majority of their career and work hard to try to stay. But they grew up influenced by their parent who lived through great depression (technically mine did too but they were young) - jobs were a lifeline. So I'm a couple of generations removed from that and, even though I'm still biased towards 'work hard, job is important' my attitudes have been shifting as well (even though I'm in tech, my wife is a schoolteacher and also works incredibly hard).
I did not enter the workforce at an age where I was constantly deluged with 24 hour news and media feeds that the world is a terrible place. I've talked to multiple folks in the past 5 years or so who were just entering the workforce and they were even wondering what the point in getting married, having kids, etc. was. I have to believe that's a factor as well.
I'm a still learning guitar player (I think I've been taking lessons for ~8.5 yrs and did some piano lessons as a kid and was in school bands).
I usually work on solo style arrangements of popular songs but sometimes dabble into learning solos, different parts of songs, etc.
I try to transcribe what I'm working on in standard notation generally. For me the hard part isn't writing down the pitch; it's the rhythm and timing. Trying to document vocal parts and/or solos is hard, because they float all around.
As others have mentioned, different genres of music document their music differently. Standard notation is probably actually pretty rare.
I don't think the pitch notation system in standard notation is harder than learning the underlying concepts (scales are 7 notes, there are half steps between the 3rd and 4th degree and 7th and 8th degree (the octave) of the scales, etc.). It's an interesting approach but I don't think it's solving the harder problem.
I think you can actually flip this situation around a little bit. You've now learned about a couple of things that are really important to you:
- You're ready to move on from being an IC
- You want to help or mentor others
There's no way to know how any given decision is going to turn out. There are some that are obvious but usually you won't know until to make a choice and live it for a bit.
You seem to have the ability to pivot - you've done it twice in 2 years. So now that you know the direction you want to go, you can either work with your management towards that path or you can seek out another opportunity that aligns with your current goals / desires.
You're not incredibly stupid nor are you necessarily a bad decision maker. You took a shot and it didn't work out. A lot of folks get stuck and never make a decision because they're worried it won't turn out. You had the guts to pick a path and, while it didn't work out, you've remained employed, broadened your experience base and learned more about what you want to do now. I applaud you for taking the shot!
In terms of professional help, possibly a mentor or career coach.
(FWIW - I did something similar about 18 months ago and am now pivoting back into a leadership role because I've discovered I miss it as well)
It's definitely steep and getting steeper by the month. The other downside, that's actually more significant than the base salary difference, is the lack of upside from stock, etc. (which a sibling also commented on).
However, there are a couple of significant things that are often overlooked. There's a strong mission that really speaks to some people. Additionally, there's a lot of structure applied which helps to enforce a work/life balance. Some people really want to dive in and work a lot of hours (which is generally allowed) but others (like me) struggle to turn work off w/o that structure.
There are times when complex frameworks are necessary because they've already dealt with the complexity and times when they're overkill or stupidly inefficient.
The point being made in other comments about minimizing dev time vs maximizing reach / impact is really solid (re: Electron).
My real takeaway from the rant (which I found pretty amusing) was that the author isn't terribly effective at discussing these issues with others and feels like they just get labeled as 'Old' when trying to do so.
I think I'm going to take a slightly different approach to some of the comments and the article. Notes: My wife is a long-time primary grade (think Kinder - 2) teacher and I've got 3 kids, 1 fully baked and 2 in college.
1st, regarding Agassi, there are few folks in the history of the world who get to #1 in something and have a "normal" or perhaps "well balanced" life. It takes a lot of innate skill/ability/talent, drive, luck and the willingness to sacrifice. For a really chilling take, look at Ichiro Suzuki's upbringing (baseball).
From a parent's perspective, at least mine, I tried to strike a balance between letting my kids choose their own paths while trying to help avoid closing too many doors. Some kids change A LOT and it would be a shame (to me at least) if they made a short-sighted decision at age 13 that prevented them from doing something later that they might decide they love and are good at. And the reality is, despite the occasional "against all the odds" stories out there where somebody made a late decision to pivot, most of the time the odds win.
I also coached youth sports for a number of years and I struggled because one of my kids was a pretty good athlete but not super intense about it and a bit of a late developer. It meant they got selected out because of these things. I could have forced them to practice more, more intensely, etc. It turned OK because they ended up getting cut from a soccer team (twice no less), decided to work stick with it, lucked into a spot on a good team w/ good coaching and ended up as the varsity keeper on their high school team (well, until COVID became a thing).
Like it or not, the world is super competitive. As a parent, it's hard when you see something that you know will normally close a door for your child. Many times parents are pushing their kids because they themselves are competitive. Other times, it's just trying to keep options open for your child. From a distance, they're indistinguishable.
Finally, the education system is not perfect for all children and situations. It's an XX% solution (pick your number). This didn't sound like a typical ADHD situation. It clearly didn't fit this situation.
Ultimately I see it as helping your children position themselves for situations that are right for them. The hard part is that what's right for them is pretty opaque until they're about 20...
I also see advice that states you should change jobs every few years to ensure you continue to grow as a person, ensure salary growth (a real thing in my experience) and to ensure you’re staying relevant. So it seems that we want the option to move on our terms but we don’t think companies should view it the same. Management is also painfully aware that key employees can be ‘one bad meeting away’ from leaving. It seems like if we want stability then we probably need to offer some as well; many in this thread describe the relationship as either transactional or a negotiation and if we really believe it then we should view it from both sides.
Finally, there are large industries where there is significant stability: government, defense, etc. They don’t have FAANG comp, but can pay reasonably well.