How to Quit a Top Tier Tech Job
oliverzheng.com
oliverzheng.com
Despite the loss of a salary and frustration in getting another job (Tweetstorm about data science job hunting: https://twitter.com/minimaxir/status/951117788835278848), quitting was 100% the correct move in retrospect.
If you don't fit the culture, it's time to leave.
What aspects of the culture do you not like?
I joined Microsoft Canada. Perhaps Corp HQ is different, but here in the sub it quickly became clear that a culture of fear and CYA is alive and well. There are dozens of meetings where the primary objective is to make sure that the organizer doesn't get blamed for stuff.
Honestly, what blew me away even more was the terrible quality of execution. It's 2018, and apparently it's impossible to embed a reg form into a page. Everyone agrees that we should do it, but no one is willing to take responsibility. I tried, but multiple teams agreed that it's not my job to do it - it's not their job either, apparently, but it's definitely not mine!
I'm sure Microsoft is a great place to work (I was excited to join as well), and maybe I just got really unlucky with my manager, but the idea of spending my days writing emails for CYA and not focusing on a great customer experience is not my idea of what I want from a job.
Another anecdote - planning and strategy is done by FTE (full time employees), but the execution is often left to vendors - and no one really cares whether customers see a high quality outcome. It's almost comical how bad some things are.
Sigh, I don't mean this to be a rant, but maybe someone else reads this.
At the end of the day, no job is worth being unhappy at - or worth compromising your own personal integrity (to be clear - here I mean my desire to provide great customer experiences - MS is a very ethical and honest company in my experience)
People interested in backend work get placed on frontend, people interested in frontend work get placed on backend. As a result, retention for Microsoft college hires is rather poor. Contrast this with Google where once you're selected you're often given a choice of a few teams and you can indicate your preference.
On the Google case, even being an industry hire, it was like pulling teeth to figure out where the offer actually was, and who I would be working for, and being able to actually speak with them (as your manager is key to success). I was also told during the interview that they just interview you in general at Google, not for a particular team, which was also unsettling.
However, once you accept a Google offer you're given more choice as to what team you'll be on. With Microsoft (if you weren't a returning intern) you're given very little to no choice and it can be quite arbitrary where you end up.
Certainly both of these systems have massive flaws, but I think the Microsoft system would lead to far lower retention for non-intern college hires.
The first thing I was asked when I interviewed with Microsoft was what I wanted to do and what I wanted to avoid. I said, no frontend, something related to distributed systems and they put me up for interviews with an Azure team.
With Google, it was like "interview first, accept the offer before knowing where you are going to be placed, and we will put you in some team".
Google absolutely has the problem you described and I forgot to mention it in my prior comment. With Google you have no clue what team you'll be on when you're evaluating the offer, but once you've accepted the offer you're given more choice with regards to placement.
I guess I was lucky because I'd already had relevant experience, so I knew exactly what I did and did not want to do. Luckily, the offer I went with was up-front and I ended up doing exactly what I wanted to do.
Playing devils advocate, could it be a lack of experience that is the issue with new hires?
I've heard that the culture varies widely between groups, but the culture in the Visual Studio group was not one which ever had any hope of creating space for me to use the skills and creative outlook everyone genuinely seemed to believe they were hiring me for. If you don't fit the culture, then yes, I agree, leave as soon as you can.
I don't work at MS but generalizing a companies culture by working for a few months is silly. I've worked for 3 years at a big 4 and have seen excellent culture and poor culture and something in the middle. Don't generalize a company by your departments poor culture, there could be shining stars elsewhere.
Do you remember hearing the saying: “It’s easier to get hired at [other very selective tech company] than to move internally at Apple”? So true!
I believe it is because the company that currently employs you knows you relatively well, both your upsides and your downsides, it has seen your good code and your bad code. It has you, and knows your level of work, and assumes you will keep going, regardless.
Whereas the new company has much more limited information and, as it needs someone more, it has to take the plunge.
It is like saying you went to Harvard or MIT. That's neat. You are probably reasonably intelligent. However, even that isn't an automatic and I'll reserve judgement until I've made my own assessment.
I've worked at a couple very high-profile companies in the Valley and have never felt this prestige primarily because I don't hang out with complete douchebags.
If people get all starry-eyed when you announce the company you work for; run in the opposite direction. Also, don't kidd yourself, you and I know both know you're not working on anything that cool. Especially because almost everyone works on a team so responsibility is pretty spread out.
And even if you are working on the very algorithm that determines which ads are shown when, you're still buried in seventeen layers of process and bureaucracy for a change or product that will probably never ship or will take years to market.
The day-to-day is about unglamorous as it gets. People need to realize the big "names" in the Valley are simply large corporations.
Bureaucracy and process often exist, but it varies extremely. Sometimes it can be quite direct.
(I certainly don't think that "working on the very algorithm that determines which ads are shown" is cool, though, as I work on products.)
I'd be lying if there wasn't some reservation or me doubting myself a bit at first when I realized I just wasn't happy there and needed to get out and I'd also be lying if I said some of it wasn't because of the above reaction of family/friends.
> If people get all starry-eyed when you announce the company you work for; run in the opposite direction.
Get over yourself and out of your bubble. American culture constantly pushes the value of prestige and the way of obtaining that being going to good schools and working at popular companies. If you are a person who didn't go to an ivy league or work at Facebook, it's easy to believe that the person who did is better than you in some way. It is more rare to attain that status, so therefor many people both in and outside of the industry look starry-eyed at them.
I don't work at one of the big tech firms and nor do I want to, but I know for a fact most people in my family would think highly of me if I told them I worked at Google, because it is prestigious whether you like it or not. Does that make them douchebags?
I’ve seen this phenomenon in San Francisco quite a bit. That is where the person and their entire social circles become cliques that serve simply to reinforce their ego.
It’s sad and weird to observe first hand.
One of my mates who went to a mid tier public school and he commented he made sure when sending out his cv the fact that he was a old bedfordian was prominent.
And if I had stayed in Birmingham (UK) and my mum's plan to use family connections to get me into King Edwards had come off dam right I would use that - btw this is the school that is always in the top 3 in the rankings.
That’s not prestige exactly, it’s a signal to the Old Boys Network that he can skip the usual process. Some people might describe this as corruption.
- That it's wrong to judge using school etc. when you have no other way of judging. For example, if I give you a choice of a cardiologist from hopkins vs someone from a podunk university you haven't heard of, barring no other information - I can put money on your choice being the hopkins dude:)
- The fact that you are working on crud in google is the same as crud in xyz company: No. At least in a true scotsman way, the good teams I have worked on have always had better crud apps than the worse ones.
- That they are complete douchebags. May be a few are, but that's not exclusive to non-tech. (you might not have meant this though)
IOW your familiarity might have bred some contempt / diluted the glamour. For me, I still am very proud of my history of companies.
I suggest you take a walk in the real world.
That is prestige by association. If you can't see it.... well, I just hope it's not because you're in denial.
EDIT: Also, VCs. It's a lot easier to get a VCs attention, or a recruiter's attention, if you say you previously worked at Google. If any of this is news to you, I don't know what else to tell you...
No it doesn't. Just because you see some articles do that doesn't mean all articles do it.[1] Also, keep in mind that the people writing these articles usually understand tech much better than the layman so that's still not evidence of the general public giving a shit about googlers.
Surely if you work somewhere like that you're pretty employable and not in the middle or nowhere. Why not just go work elsewhere for a bit while you work out what you really want to do next?
You should have an emergency fund that covers six months of expenses, ideally you never touch this. If you quit without another offer it's safe to prepare for a job hunt lasting up to a year. Six more months for safety is just smart.
Work 6 months for minimum wage in a major city and you'll find what most people consider 'low wages' to be laughable.
Of course, you should do everything your power to have and maintain an emergency fund, but two years of savings is insane. Don't waste two years of life if you are unhappy in your job just because you're afraid of not finding new work. 6 months is a good target to shoot for.
Unless what you're saying is "Only 2 years?"
Unless you meant as a childless single person making 200k/yr. Then yes, it's easy.
Does $200k not seem low for a two-income family? Does paying for childcare not seem strange for a one-income family?
Not really, even in the BA, unless they are both in tech or similar; $200K is nearly double the median household (not individual) income for San Francisco & San Mateo Counties.
The article seems to be less about what some objective truth about good jobs is but more about how people perceive themselves, others and their goals in life.
It also matters socially. I went to an Ivy League grad school and a no-name undergrad, so I can provide a point of anecdata that people treat you differently.
Facebook stock was ~$25 in June 2013 which means he has got 10000 RSUs of Facebook while joining. Value of this stock today is around $1.5M. He is in Seattle and his taxes are way low compared to CA.
OP must have been scoring refreshers ($40k (Jan 2014), $100k(Jan 2015), $150k(Jan 2016). Let's assume has around $300K of vested stocks.
OP has made $1.8M in stocks at Facebook and may be some good bonuses and quitting Facebook after has vested his initial grant.
You shouldn't quit Top Tier tech jobs period unless you're this author who has made >2M.
At the growing pace of FB, Google and Amzn, anyone quitting at L5 levels will learn that they could have ended up as Director in 6-8 years if they work hard in these firms.
1. For a software Engineer who has kept their skills up and lives in a major metropolitan area, it doesn't take 2 years to get a job. It usually takes me about two weeks.
2. Who defines themselves by their job? A job is just a way for me to pay my bills. I go to work, come home and twice a month money appears in my account - no more no less. But see #1 about keeping your skills marketable.
The framework I use for leaving a job is simple. There are three reasons to leave a job - technology, environment, and money.
Technology - if you're learning marketable technology, I can deal with a not so great environment and a below market salary for awhile. Once I build my resume, I can leave for more money. On the other hand, don't stay at a company no matter how good the money is if it will cause your skills to atrophy. You leave yourself vulnerable and you cut off optionslity.
Environment - if I can find another job with a better environment, make the same amount of money and move forward technologically. I'll leave. Life is too short to stick with an environment that you hate.
Money - All other things being equal, why not make as much money as you can? I don't want to be in management but if I can make a significant amount more money doing what I enjoy, why not?
I've been hopping jobs for 10 years after staying at one company 9 years when I should have left after 2. But now, I'm starting to get the job hopping stench about my resume and I'm near the top for my local market. It would be counter productive for me to leave by choice in less than 3 years.
I would add that money comes with responsibility and it's the money/responsibilities ratio that really matters.
I was at a top-tier tech company (the one that's getting all the heat lately) for 2 years in a senior eng role, breaking my neck and struggling to maintain healthy work/life balance. Leaving it felt devastating but in retrospect, it was the right decision. Now I'm at a non-tech company, making almost the same money, having twice fewer expectations. All while working on just as exciting tech and problems.
I can likely get a tech position in finance and make even more, but at what cost to my work hours and expectations? Not worth it.
Health - if I'm not healthy mentally and physically nothing else matters. I'm no good to my family and my finances are going to suffer.
Family/Friends - at the end of the day I would rather get a new job than be forced to get a new wife because I'm spending too much time working.
Career/Finances - I've got to work to live but I can't live to work. Your company will never be loyal to you - you are just resource and so are they.
Just quit.
1. It's a job, not your life.
2. It's a company, not a person.
3. "Top Tier" means neither.
4. If you were hit by a bus, they'd cry for 7 minutes and never think about you again.
5. "My work is my reference." is my standard response to that request. It works. To those who matter.
6. Moving on can skyrocket your growth when done properly. Listen to your gut.
7. "I stagnate easily." is my standard response to "Why so many jobs?"
8. You'll probably be surprised how underwhelmed they are.
9. You'll probably be surprised how much energy you wasted over this.
10. You'll definitely be glad it's over.
No one from work cares about you nearly as much as you care about your work. Don't make this so complicated.
You have personal relationships you'll miss and don't want to hurt. If that bothers you, quit over beer.
Why would someone hire you for a non-short-term project in that case?
I've only quit a handful of jobs but every time it has been for a sizable salary increase. Stagnation comes off as frustration with the work when it should highlight the stagnation of salaries and the zero fucks the labor market has about a promotion cycle.
I think this writeup addresses them (to varying degrees of success), even if they don't apply to everyone and some folks may think they're arrogant.
I find it hard to believe that most people in so called "top tier" tech companies do compelling work. Not everyone gets to work on de jour areas, most people work on maintenance and improving old code bases (BTW, there is nothing wrong with this)
That might be irresponsible, from one point of view. I think TFA takes that stand.
Sometimes another four-letter word is substituted for "fine".
Despite the expletive it's not usually used in anger.
I think in many companies, we can define bad work as lacking agency to do what is needed. I don't think maintenance is all that bad if you have the agency to fix it over time. I've been responsible for three complete rewrites of different systems, and they have gone off without a hitch. The key was building trust with management and making slow tactical decisions which each have impact.
Are they self-congratulatory or self-promoting? Or both?
Just from the headline (before I clicked through), I wondered to myself "How hard can it be? Give notice. Be professional during your notice period. Leave." To me, TFA is less about "how to" than "things you might want to consider".
It was certainly useful to me.
That's it. We don't need to project out his intentions any further than that. You're allowed to share your experience and your thought process without it always being some altruistic "save the starving kids in Africa" type message.
The beautiful thing about the internet and the distribution it provides is that you can write content for your niche and actually reach those people fairly easily.
As an extreme example: do you go into Ferrari owner forums and criticize everyone there for being self-congratulatory and living in too much excess? I hope not. Leave them alone and let them have fun with their cars.
From my experience, I think there's a great need in large tech organizations for people that are able to advocate for and drive initiatives that can scale up efforts to improve old codebases.
But it's nearly impossible to find that kind of job because employers tend to go out of their way to hide the fact that they even have existing software, let alone that they want someone to work on it.
They do though, through platform teams. The React team at Facebook, for example, goes to enormous lengths to ensure they aren't hopelessly breaking their downstreams even as they try to pay off previous code debt (e.g. the context api efforts).
What makes it difficult for people to "sell" maintenance work (specifically for product work, as opposed to platform work) is that it usually gets framed in terms of maintenance vs new features, as opposed to e.g. improvements in reliability given some metric, etc. Another problem is that developers have a very strong tendency to want to dive straight into coding without necessarily doing the legwork of gathering metrics to show that some work is actually worth doing. This often gets a pass with new features, because it's easier to get people excited about shiny new things, but maintenance work is inherently going to get people asking for "data" to satisfy their reptilian brain's aversion to risk.
Personally I had trouble selling it but that's probably my fault. One had "clear text passwords of C-execs" before it got any attention and rewrites.
A better answer (and one that the article seems to recommend) is to not find your identity so much in your work.
Well that hit home.
Its sad - but most of us are out at this point..nothing more to add.
It was not an easy decision to make; I don't know if that's because of the culture I was in or just because of me. What eventually pushed me was realizing that it wasn't an all or nothing venture; the most realistic worst case scenario is that I flesh out my portfolio, learn a bunch of skills, and then join another company via a better resume.
I disagree about a lot here though. 2 years of income is unnecessarily lavish for most people. If you've worked at a reputable company for a few years, the "prestige" will follow you. No one will care if you worked there for 3 years or 4.
Done.
I've always heard it as being 6 months. Especially with his next point assuming you can certainly find employment.
Or maybe that's what I chose to remember, because I'm lucky enough to work in a high-employment sector in a region that can't fill enough positions: i.e. my profile is in high demand.
(... for now. I know)
Anyone good enough to get hired by Facebook in the first place is going to have no problem finding a job in two weeks, nevermind two years. Quit, shop around and burn some savings until you find something good enough. If it's not your dream job, stick with good enough while you shop around some more.
No one worth working for actually cares about some amount of job-hopping. More employers care about long gaps than about minor job hopping. Neither is a showstopper if you find a good destination.
You should check out r/financialindependence sometime. A whole community of people (358k subscribers at present) who would consider that amount table stakes. I'll admit not all 358k of those subscribers would actually have that much money but it's still hardly "almost no one".
57% of Americans with less than $1000 dollars in their savings account. Only 25% with more than $10,000. What fraction of those with more than $10,000 do you think have enough to live for two years on it?
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/13/how-much-americans-at-have-i...
This doesn't seem correct to me, but people don't like to talk about their personal financial situation (any of income, expenses, and savings) sooo... I guess hard to say.
I'd definitely be able to live for 2 years on my savings, but I'm pretty frugal and am privileged to not have student loans. I recognize this is not everybody's situation, but I don't think it's helpful to constructive to frame it as "bragging" or "humble" or any such words. People have different situations and I think it should be OK to talk about that.
That said, it's probably overly conservative to say 2 years as a minimum. I'd use the standard 6 months figure for that. 2 years is a good idea if you can swing it, obviously...
Most people are going to need much more than $10,000 to live for two years so I think it's pretty safe to say that almost no one has enough savings to last two years.
57% percent of Americans, according to my source, have less than $1000 in savings which isn't enough to last a month for many of them.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/13/how-much-americans-at-have-i...
If you have a "top tier tech job" then I don't really understand the need for two years of savings. Do you think you won't find a job before two years? I guess it depends on location.
I've left jobs multiple times to take a few months off to work on stuff before job hunting again and I definitely didn't have more than one year of savings.
You are in a very small minority if you saved up that much in your first two years out of college.
Also, FANG comp packages have significant equity components and IMO it would be foolish to rely on that portion of comp for anything important; you can treat vested RSUs as windfalls to add to the retirement savings but should not rely on RSU grants to meet your goal of x% savings rate. New grads will have nothing vested for a few years so their ability to save is especially limited during that time.
I have some friends who have told bosses they and leaving. By the end of the day they are told to pack their personal belongings and leave.
Two weeks is the law for an employee giving notice. There aren’t many laws protecting employees especially in Work at will states.
If you are in an "at will" state, the law applies in both directions. Two weeks is a professional courtesy. An employer that is neither deserves nothing.
It doesn't really matter, though. Always give 2 weeks notice, as professional courtesy, but also take any of your fragile or expensive stuff home first. Depending on your employer, you may not even get a chance to revisit your desk, and instead may be escorted to the door and met with a box of your belongings.
(Most employers don't pull that shit, of course, and instead are very happy to have you tie up loose ends and commit any relevant documentation before you go.)
The "at will" we are talking about here are typically employees in US states that were not offered an employment contract.
You are free to go when you please, just as the employer is free to fire you at any time (not counting certain protected classes and etc)
Yeah the company might have laid you off / have made bad moves, but the question is do you want to leave a bunch of your co-workers in shit without enough knowledge transfer etc. because you are pissed at some part of it. And yeah, these things come back around as well sometimes.
Tit for tat works between true equals, may be. In any case, You are not equal to a company. So yeah, they might not give a second thought about firing you, but as long as you want to be employed by someone in the same industry, burn less bridges :)
My personal and recent experience is that an employer can lay you off with no to little grace period. It's an asymmetry exploited by bad employers. Unfortunately, it's too late by the time you figure out if they're a bad employer.
The taboo of not giving two weeks notice is something that benefits the company only, the same as not discussing salary with other employees.
You can even put a number on it if your new position is getting a raise. Whatever your yearly rate/26 is, is how much money you are losing by being nice to an entity who will walk you out the door the moment they are done with you
Bullshit. 2 years means time for personal projects that could even make you more employable. Even then, your skills and experience don't suddenly become obsolete. You might not get another job at Amagoosoftple but there are a lot of other companies out there that seek skilled workers.
If your company is working with outdated software, or ignoring software best practices like testing or security, or even if you've just started to specialize in a very narrow way, it can sometimes be difficult to translate the skills you're using there into other companies.
It's very common for people to start to specialize the longer they work at a company. You can end up knowing a few things really well, and not much else.
The candidate pool for good devs is still relatively small, too. It does hurt them, incrementally.
This is just BS. I quit about 2 years ago, and am turn down recruiters quite often, very employable.
Stop trying to scare people on the fence.
People take sabbaticals all the time. They raise kids. They start businesses. They take care of sick family members. They work on personal projects. There are a shitload of reasons people take time off. And then they pick up at a new job.
Of course, that's all nonsense. But it makes us feel so, so good.
Sure, if you sit on your ass for two years. But people reenter the workforce after even longer hiatuses all the time. Is it harder than getting a job while currently employed? Of course. Is it impossible? Not at all. Ask the scads of former SAHMs who went back to work eventually.
I urge everyone in tech to try and get to at least 1 year spend saved up.
I didn't live through dot com crash #1, but if #2 is anything like it, a lot of us may be fighting for the same jobs and having your budget right will help.
When leaving a company that has coddled you for years (think top offices, great food all the time, drinks, snacks, perks of traveling, people recognizing the brand, etc...), it can be a tough adjustment for the first two months. You might not miss the work, but you will miss the perks for sure.
Also, the two years salary requirement is a good rule of thumb. It gives you enough time to: 1) Relax, travel, and decompress for few months and 2) Start your own project, and see it to completion (any non trivial project will take at least one year).
I did something similar, and I think the author's advice is good.
When you start at a place some parts of it are great and some are not so great. A few are bad. You chip away at the things you can but at some point you've fixed everything you can. If you're content at that point than great. But if your itch for growth isn't being satisfied in some other way then you start to become uncomfortable.
Unless you came to such a company through a visa. Things get harder when the implication of quitting is "get shipped right back to where you came from."
If you are in the financial situation to do it I would recommend. Granted I work in a location where no one cares if you have a two year gap, let alone a two month, on your resume.
The real trick is not just bum around the entire time otherwise then yes it was probably a bad call.
That time was priceless. I was able to fully decompress from past work stress (shocking how much you build up), get my gaming fix out of the way, and then move on to be incredibly productive with self-driven education with coding things I'd wanted to learn.
I also had a massive amount of creativity come back to me because I was well rested and not stressed or distracted.
If you are ever in a position to do something like a multi month or year break in between jobs, I can't recommend it enough.
I think you're ignoring a lot of human things like that a lot developers are quite isolated and working 60+ hours a week. Their social group is quite likely just their co-workers. Especially for new devs who have relocated.
I think that plays a bigger part in it than we are thinking
Although I work in the same industry as this person, my point of view couldn't be more different. None of this is useful to me and I don't know what he is talking about.
It's presumptuous to assume others share your viewpoint and values. It feels like he is living in a bubble, which is not an uncommon criticism of Silicon Valley employees.
In such a case, I imagine it’s easy to keep putting it off, precisely because you can’t think of a better scenario for yourself.
- "First, make sure you write a public post announcing to the world that you quit Facebook/Google. What's the point of quiting if you can't tell anyone??"
Imagine how disappointed I was.
I quit my job as a Head of R&D for a major tech/publishing company and started https://tradedash.io (crypto desktop trading platform) with an old friend of mine who also quit his job as one of the first employees in a major fintech unicorn. For both of us, it was hands down the best decision we've ever made career wise.
For years we were depressed, working jobs that we didnt value only for nothing other than the money and stability. Even though I make a whole lot less today, I haven't had a single night where I don't sleep like a baby. Quitting our jobs was the easy part once we figured out what it is that we wanted to do.
For anyone looking to quit their job: figure out what to do next. Once you know what you want to do, everything else will become much easier.
Is this person not allowed to put his own thoughts down on his own personal website? It's not like he's getting on CNN and preaching.
Author cites "career vision" as motivation for leaving, but why no moral qualms about working at Facebook?
> enough savings to last at least two years
That's good, because you should lose the mindset that salary is equal to spending in a hurry!
Savings that lasts two years accounts for all of your expenses over a two year period. Yes, if you need medical insurance, and it was supplied by your employer, it no longer will be, and you need to factor that into your expenses.
"Hey Jerry, got a min? Look, I don't think this is working out. Here is my letter of resignation, and my two week notice. Thank you."
Done!
How hard is that to do? There is nothing holding you in chain in that job unless you are actually being held in chain in that job, at which point you should seriously analyze your life choices.
That might not be a good idea to give.
When I quit my job, I intended to give four weeks notice, and to offer to work part time for a month later if they wanted it. Manager took the offer to their upper-management, upper-management came back and said, "nope, two weeks max."
I had prepared for that, but did not expect it, at all. Generally speaking you should only give notice if you're also willing to leave that day.
So, I'd re-phrase the original conversation as
"Hey Jerry, got a minute? Look, I don't think this is working out. I intend to give you a letter of resignation by the end of the day, but I want to discuss how much time you'd need to reasonably fill my position before I give my notice."
Then again, if you
1. hate your job, or
2. your manager is being unreasonable about how much time they need to fill that position, or
3. don't care about burning your bridges
Then go right ahead and give 2 weeks notice. It's up to you to decide how you want to frame the conversation.
Where I live, it's perfectly legal to say "I quit" and leave immediately.
Maybe they should do something about their interview false negative rate then.
Now, you might think, "I don't owe the company anything", and that's totally true. But at the end of the day, you are in fact working with other people, and how you treat other people (and how they perceive you are treating them) has consequences both on your interpersonal relationships with these people, and potentially on your future career path. Tech is a pretty small community, and people have a funny way of having way too many mutual connections, so quitting (and leaving colleagues in the lurch) might come back to bite you somewhere else down the line.
My advice is usually to quit with enough time to wrap things up or hand them off gracefully, and not to blindside anyone (unless, again, of extraordinary circumstances). This amount of time is totally position-dependent; for some it could be 3 days, for others (maybe the director of an organization) it could be months. But 2 weeks in all cases is nonsense - it's totally dependent on your situation and rapport with colleagues.
As the article notes, there are very common cases where you can't just pick-up-and-leave (visas, debts, etc.)
It's not hard at all. The author turned this into a slow dance of neurosis. A job at a big SV company is still a job that eats up the majority of your waking hours. Nobody find's themselves on their death bed wishing they had worked more.
But you worked at FB, so everyone knows you're just a PHP monkey. j/k
I was able to bide my time and leave at just the right time.
No one with experience in the industry gives two shits even if you worked at Facebook, Google and Apple, because they have no illusions about what it means to work there or what it must say about you.
Otherwise your "top tier" employees become liabilities, and it becomes unsustainable to rely purely on everyone being a top player. Basically you want a company that can still operate effectively even if everyone was a dumbass.
Top-tier company != top-tier employees.
It is not a math book rather more of a puzzle book. On a side note - it's full of mistakes (your experience may vary though)
If you like to see difficult math then please try to apply for a self-driving car engineer's job.
Pretty sure the prize for 'most difficult math book in history' goes to Dummit and Foote's ponderous tome, Abstract Algebra.
Besides, cracking the code interview is definitely the hardest. Just check out the amazon reviews
True, but it typically means top-tier interviewer...which would make it more difficult to discover areas where they are lacking.
It's a credential, and like all credentials, if you can precisely measure the thing the credential is certifying, the credential loses its value. Having worked at these companies or at least worked with people who have, many of us feel the credential is not useful. We can personally evaluate each other's skills. But from outside of Silicon Valley, the credential appears, and probably actually is, useful.