> Managers want workers that will benefit their own career.
+1! This is probably brutal but the most truthful fact not everyone can accept. This is especially true in big organisations. As much as we would like to believe that managers want workers to have a positive impact, that’s usually from the perspective of a manager who has a massive stake in the businesses, for eg, a founder or a small business owner.
Too many “managers” in big organisations are simply employees themselves who care more about their own survival and career, just as with the employees these managerial employees hire.
Yes, I’m aware that we do. I’m just trying to give an analogy of what I’m trying to convey.
In the case of job levels, employees really shouldn’t be shortchanged into believing the job titles given to them. The remuneration is a better indicator when in doubt.
It’s a pretty comprehensive framework and I think it’s great. It would have been better if it also has a table of salary range for each level in different regions so that companies aren’t misinterpreting these job levels or, at worse, misuse the guide to manipulate their employees.
There are companies which make their employees senior or tech lead but pay $50k and use the same framework as expectation. It cannot be based entirely only on job titles because they are “free” to issue. You can easily mint new titles out of thin air. To back these job levels or titles with real value, their corresponding pays need to be relatable.
If we could print money without backing it with something scarce like gold, guess what will happen? Haven’t we seen some companies where there are so many senior, lead or even principal engineers but yet they getting paid lower than a mid engineer at another company? Job level/title inflation.
On the other hand, at companies that don’t inflate their job levels, they could still be underpaying their “seniors” and “leads” with junior or mid level pay while expecting them to operate along with the guide.
I figured I should have given some context to my question on deciding to learn either Rust or Go.
One of the reasons I started thinking which language to pick is when I started diving into web3 development. It seems like there is a trend into either using Go or Rust or both in some of the ecosystems. Think Tendermint, Cosmwasm, Solana, etc. While it makes sense to just learn both languages, I don’t think I have the mental capacity to learn both together quickly. It might work better to learn the one that has the most potential in the long run based on the trend.
I have been thinking to myself whether I should pick up Go or Rust as a new language this year.
Coming from a NodeJS background, Rust looks a tad more complicated but it looks cooler. There are also more job listings looking for Golang than Rust which makes me wonder if Golang might be a more rewarding investment?
What would be a good use case of Rust than Golang cannot do given its extra complexity and potentially lesser monetary reward? Any advice on which I should pick as a new language to learn?
I’m curious that do individual devs of these crypto protocols really earn a lot like what many would have thought about them? By a lot, I mean like at least a million dollars a year that range of income. I mean, as we all know, in many of these protocols, not saying that your protocol is one of those though, the devs have almost full control over the protocol’s operations. It’s not really that “decentralised” as many thought of them.
I’m curious because many of these protocols, such as dex/farms or maybe tomb forks etc, claim they earn pretty well either through fees or what not from participants, and their tokenomics often have a good portion going to devs.
Also, if defi protocol devs really do make that kind of money and I was one of them, I wouldn’t be too worried about employability because I know I could easily retire within a few years! But that’s just me though.
I’ve often wondered if I should be working for a high-growth VC funded company. Does it really make much difference when I still have to go through the same leetcode and interview when switching jobs? I still get left out if I fail the leetcode from the start. Not to mention, these high-growth companies are usually more demanding and long hours are expected. Is it worth it?
I would agree that I’m willing to take a slightly lesser pay for having a private office or at least a cube. I have never felt comfortable working in an open floor plan office.
But, somehow, the non-engineers who make these decisions praise the open office and think it is best for us. Meanwhile, they always get themselves the corner and most private desk, and some even have their own cubicles and private offices.
So the private key will be stored a device for signing in across a few platforms. But what if I need to sign in from another device? I can't do that until I go back home and copy the key over to my mobile?
+1! This is probably brutal but the most truthful fact not everyone can accept. This is especially true in big organisations. As much as we would like to believe that managers want workers to have a positive impact, that’s usually from the perspective of a manager who has a massive stake in the businesses, for eg, a founder or a small business owner.
Too many “managers” in big organisations are simply employees themselves who care more about their own survival and career, just as with the employees these managerial employees hire.