Ah yes, thousands of people benefiting from cheap and effective drugs that can’t be patented because they naturally occur. Of course it doesn’t work. /sarcasm
The medical field has a terrible problem in terms of literature reproducibility and ethics. The beta blocker scandal is a great example.
Sadly, that seems to be the gist of the article. I was really hoping for something a little more, but the whole tone struck me as "millions of people are putting uncontrolled amounts of sugar, honey, and who knows what other sweeteners in their tea without a single double blind study to prove it improves the flavor, and without regard to the potential side effects!" pearl clutching.
I'm all in favor of well designed studies. Not so fond of gatekeeping.
RISC-V SoCs are still underpowered for the job, and the software ecosystem hasn't matured compared to ARM, specially for Windows/x86-64 emulation. The focus on RISC-V chips is simply too recent and has lacked enough demand for it. Your question is at least a decade too early.
Agreed. I've run into so many issues with documentation and sane defaults, and the Vercel team response is to always gaslight you into thinking you've done something wrong.
The truth is, its just poorly designed software.
Where it shines is batteries included for getting started. They realized if you have low activation energy requirements, you will win a critical mass of people who put up with your crap. A good metaphor for devtools overall.
Ironically I think these types of exercises are part of the problem at major software companies; terrible efficiency and over hiring.
Because you need to “brag” to get rewarded, everyone ambitious has a list. And each list is nearly impossible for middle managers to evaluate. Someone may solve a hardcore engineering problem that has no business impact. Another person might redo some docs. Someone may create a design system version. Lots of token achievements, but not real work.
Real work should stand on its own and competent managers should be able to identify it. Mediocre managers rely on lists, so then people start showing up to work and making lists.
> Ironically I think these types of exercises are part of the problem at major software companies; terrible efficiency and over hiring.
They're not the problem they're a consequence of the problems.
> Because you need to “brag” to get rewarded, everyone ambitious has a list. And each list is nearly impossible for middle managers to evaluate.
This will be read mostly by your manager not a middle manager. It's up to your manager then to represent your accomplishments to middle managers and above. Good thorough middle managers will still be able to assess them though.
> Another person might redo some docs. Someone may create a design system version. Lots of token achievements, but not real work.
Competent managers can distinguish between those, if you don't have competent managers that's the problem, not the "brag doc".
> Real work should stand on its own and competent managers should be able to identify it. Mediocre managers rely on lists, so then people start showing up to work and making lists.
No because even competent managers have often a wide span at large companies and cannot be involved in the day to day details for all the work their team does and things can fall through the cracks. This would only be solvable by having first line managers have less reports or less manager overhead so they can be immersed in their team's work. I have done both, but at large companies is often not possible to be immersed in the work of all of your reports, no matter how competent you are. As mentioned in the article, even you often forget what you have done last week.
You can have deep knowledge of a given technology, but still not have an understanding of the details of what your reports are doing at some point in time in a given project. The brag document should include enough detail for the manager to understand (e.g PR, design links that the manager can review to assess what you did). It's in your best interest to keep your manager appraised regularly on 1:1s so it's easier for them to catch up and the disconnect doesn't go for a very long time.
> still not have an understanding of the details of what your reports are doing at some point in time in a given project
What’s preventing the manager from asking? More generally I think this is handled by standups (really any daily report of “here’s what I’m doing”) or some type of ticketing system.
> The brag document should include enough detail for the manager to understand (e.g PR, design links that the manager can review to assess what you did)
These should all be present in some type of ticketing system / wiki. What’s preventing the manager from using those?
Fwiw, on the other end I think managers are overworked too.
> What’s preventing the manager from asking? More generally I think this is handled by standups (really any daily report of “here’s what I’m doing”) or some type of ticketing system.
Nothing, however the level of detail is different. Daily stand ups are good to spot blockers and "take it offline" when there's a problem. If reports do not raise problems and the manager doesn't smell one, they won't go deep into understanding what you're doing. If you have many reports is hard to go deep into everything every day, particularly if you have a fullstack team or a variety of projects not closely related.
Ticketing system would be ideal if everyone was an stellar communicator, and devs, including myself (and I've been told I am a good communicator by managers when I was an IC) often won't update tickets every day with all the nuance required to understand your work deeply. Managers at large companies also are juggling many things that is impractical to do a full sync with everyone every day (hence the need for weekly or fortnightly 1:1s).
Information contained in a ticketing system also will often be filtered for "public" (anyone in the company) consumption, and there will be information (this other team is being unresponsive on chat and docs and I had to book meetings with them, etc) not reflected there. It may also often contain the 'outcome' of an investigation or status, not how you got there (more verbose communicators may include both, but that's rarely the case) which is also important to assess your work.
> Can do your job if you end up rage quitting, getting sick or just needing a day off and there's an emergency.
I'm not sure that we really want our managers getting into our code.
At my company, the company actively worked against managers, being technical. I had to "sneak" my tech, by doing open-source projects, on the side (no I didn't have a "shower clause" in my employment contract).
I'd say that it's a better bet that the manager knows who to grab, and stick on your project, until the leaks get caulked.
I agree! As a manager you should probably not be coding (depends on org size). A manager doing a lot of coding is a good way to commit the sin of "making your team manage up".
However: as a manager if you can't do your staffs job you should not be managing that team. You would be unable to settle technical disputes, or properly assess your staff. You would not know who to grab and shove in the void.
So I'll restate it as such:
Can do your job if you end up rage quitting, getting sick or just needing a day off and there's an emergency. Knows enough NOT to make their team manage them.
I'd say the difference between knowing who to grab and getting your hands dirty as a manager tends to be a function of company size, with the latter being more likely the smaller the company.
I've had to let go of incompetent managers (I used to manage managers). Maybe I am an incompetent manager myself that no one has discovered, so take my input with a grain of salt.
Competent managers will listen and not jump to conclusions, collaborate with you, ask thoughtful questions about your work driven by curiosity and not because they want to control or micromanage. They will usually be able to catch up and understand what you say and the technical work you do when you explain it (make an effort and you'll be surprised). If there's some tech you work on they do not understand they will educate themselves and ask a bunch of questions trying to catch up so they can help you and assess you fairly.
A more comprehensive answer about how managers are assessed at Google (via Google's project Oxygen):
- Is a good coach
- Empowers the team and does not micromanage
- Expresses interest in and concern for team members’ success and personal well-being
- Is productive and results-oriented
- Is a good communicator—listens and shares information
- Helps with career development
- Has a clear vision and strategy for the team
- Has key technical skills that help him or her advise the team
Your manager should at least be striving to excel at those. Different managers will have different strengths, but the most important thing IMHO is that they care about their team and want to do better.
If rewriting your docs and solving these hardcore engineering problems have zero impact, then you shouldn't do them in the first place. If these changes are important, then they do have impact, but the engineers may not know how to communicate it.
Learning to communicate impact is difficult, but it's a really good skill to have. Do these doc changes/engineering problems help reduce KTLO? Does it reduce on-call toil? Is it going to bring security patches? Is it going to make the system more efficient and save money? Are these frequently asked features? Do you have other people (preferably seniors) who can vouch in favour of these changes? All these things are measurable and can be communicated as impact.
There are instances where a change has 0 impact and it's still nice to have, for example, fixing a typo in the internal docs. But these changes are usually very easy to do (take less than 5 minutes), and it won't affect your other tasks. On the other hand, spending several days fixing typos everywhere may seem like a great idea, but if nobody cares about them and it does not move any needles, then you are just wasting the company's time and money. The effort you put in these no-impact changes should be a defining factor for prioritization.
> everyone ambitious has a list. And each list is nearly impossible for middle managers to evaluate.
have you worked at one of the megacorps you're talking about?
everyone has a list, because their manager gets them to write one, and it's very possible for managers to evaluate them because that is their job and they are largely reviewing their direct reports while getting bollocked by their peer managers.
Tech firms and their systems are enormously complex and interrelated. Most business impact doesn’t accrue neatly to one person. To the extent that it does, you have just bizarrely chosen to aggregate a large number of independent startups under one roof vs. build an actual organization with specialization or economies of scale. At best equal to the sum of its parts, when it should be greater than.
They’re just a data structure… and a useful one at that… competent managers work in diverse ways. Schedules are made up of lists of information, do 10x managers not use schedules?
1. The top 3% seed-stage investors are killing it.
2. This seems to be engineered for the bottom 90% of investors. To squeeze out some yield. But venture capital is ruled by the power law.
3. Forcing seed stage tech founders to think about this complexity makes no sense.
I can’t speak to the rest of the things some of you are talking about, but I can speak to this.
It really sucks realizing you’re at a 90% company instead of a 10% company. Statistically speaking you’ve not only worked for one of those, but you’ve worked for two or more in a row. Pain is information and sooner or later everyone tries to act on it. There may be nothing that can be done. Or maybe there’s another undiscovered strategy out there to make a YC for the 90%. Or even just the 25% would be huge news. People are going to search high and low for a way out. And some will continue even if someone proves mathematically that it’s impossible.
(You haven’t lived if someone hasn’t asked you to solve an uncomputsble problem, or offered to let you solve one NP-complete problem in lieu of an easier NP-complete problem).
What is to fix? Gamblers gonna gamble, humans gonna human, markets measure sentiment, both sides of the market [founders and investors] violate the 7 deadly sins all day long – greed, pride, lust, envy, sloth, wrath, gluttony – all of it
If I knew that, I’d be too busy to converse on hacker news.
I think the world would be better off if we had an 80/20 rule like the rest of the world seems to. But slow companies also deserve a bit more respect for finding the 20% in the 80%. I think that’s half undiscovered territory and half a shift in perception.
Slow companies can find that 20%, it's just that they can't raise $2m at a $12m valuation from seed-stage venture capital. The risk/return doesn't make sense.
Thanks Zain :) I tried hard to make it easy to install via homebrew, nix, go, or just downloading an executable. If anyone reading this runs into a problem getting it set up, please let me know here or by filing a Github issue and I'll take a look.
Love the age + free filters. First I'd heard of Swift Playgrounds! I wonder how they decided which ones to include. Also, first time I've seen learning resources broken down by apps, games, videos, etc. To be honest, it makes a lot of sense.
The medical field has a terrible problem in terms of literature reproducibility and ethics. The beta blocker scandal is a great example.