Ask HN: Would you rather work for Google or a smaller high growth company? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Would you rather work for Google or a smaller high growth company?

79 pointsjiajiang79 comments

I read this article on Signifyd and HotelTonight on this website (BabyUnicorns.com). The whole website advocates for mid-sized high growth companies as places to work for, rather than large companies such as Google and Facebook. I am conflicted on this. Google is consistently ranked as one of the most desirable employers year after year. They will continue to dominate the world in the near future, and it's a super cool brand to have on your resume. But am I missing out on the big upside provided by these smaller but fast growing companies? Sure they are much more risky than Google/FB, but it's not like HotelTonight or Udemy are startups and can go out of business any minute. It seems like they much a lot of upside through employee ownerships.

What do you think? If you are a 25 year old engineer who wants a corporate career, would you rather go to Google or a HotelTonight/Signifyd/Asana?

View on HN

Counterintuitive to assumptions being made here... you can easily be more of a cog at a 50-5000 employee company than a 5,000+ person company.

The medium companies generally have a single true line of business and are focused on tuning & turning that crank, turning $3M/yr to $10-100M/yr. Doing something else makes you a trouble maker, and budgets are watched.

The bigger companies will have $100M-100B/yr revenue, so they'll do pretty insane engineering on the old product lines ("let's reimplement PHP with a modern VM!"), and take moonshots to enter new markets big enough to make a dent ("Let's give internet to everyone in Africa.") So both quality of life can be better and the projects can be more interesting and career defining.

So yeah, I'd go to bigco, or if a medco, one with enough ridiculous growth/funding to do insane things. But not a lot of years of your life that startups are easily doable, so I switched from R&D to startups, and can always go back later :)

Very much this.

A couple of more points to add:

1. There was a time when the pay distinction between working for big companies and small/mid was clear and present. But these days, the line is blurring.

BigCos have realized that startups are eating their lunch and hence they are investing heavily in new ideas and doing better engineering on the old ones to develop those markets even further, faster.

Smaller companies too have realized that they need to compete with the BigCos and hence have started to offer similar comps/perks. More and more of the VC funded fast-growing companies are offering packages competing with BigCos.

2. Hence, for a software engineer, the main reason to join/not-join a company today is less about pay. It's more about the type of work you will get to do, and the people that you want to work with.

3. There is something to be said about having a brand, but given how tech is percolating everything we do, it is also getting very differentiated. There are hence brands in every "flavor" of tech. e.g. if you want to work on self-driving cars, Waymo is a great brand. But if you want to work on healthcare tech, there are others.

I train software engineers to do better at challenging interviews and I do that for a living. The way I see it, the landscape has been shifting in this direction for at least past 5 years, if not more. At least in the large tech hubs of the US.

I'm going to have to push back on your first point about compensation between large and small companies. At a large brand name tech company, $300k isn't uncommon for a few years of experience in SFBA or NYC. You don't need to land on the right team or have magical luck, you just need to be a solid performer. Even though startups are increasing base salary, they don't have liquid RSUs as a rule and (in my experience) pay smaller bonuses overall.

I would say that if a software engineer is optimizing for income maximization they should almost certainly join one of FAANG, unless they have a formidable appetite for risk and uncertainty. Consider some of the data compiled here: https://www.levels.fyi.

I concur with your sentiments here. For instance, there are so many things brewing inside Amazon that I know I'll always have a new area to explore whenever I want. For e.g., the world is talking about building serverless architectures, but I can actually work on the platform that will power that move. I can work in any of the cloud databases, build workflows or the platforms that power other to do so, build low latency services etc.

So, I can easily get breadth. I can also get depth if I want - embedded systems, etc.

In short, there are opportunities. It's up to you how you utilize them.

I agree but keep in mind it's not that easy to choose to work on those interesting stuff at bigco. If they want you to oil the gears on a legacy application that's what you do. You have to either get lucky, go in specifically to work on those projects, or slowly fit yourself in those teams after doing boring stuff.

> > and take moonshots to enter new markets big enough to make a dent

If you're talking about FAANG, which I assume you are, that's possibly true. But they aren't the only "big companies". There are tons of big cos which do not do any R&D (Cisco, Oracle and the like) and instead acquire startups to grow. And here's the kicker, they don't care for employee development; so choose wisely.

RE:R&D, that's... not true. At the mega-scale, Cisco will fund regular moonshots that they'll "acquire" for ~$0.5B upon success.

In general, because most technical startups are a wreck and otherwise have technical impedance mismatch with the acquirer, acquisitions likely have integration + technical expansion periods for the first few years before thy succeed/die.

Agreed with others: Opportunities are there, more about whether individuals go for them. And if you mean it doesn't just magically happen, yep. AFAICT, even at Google/FB/etc., PMs have to fight for who they get, and they probably fight for a lot of the same people, and the rest no one really knows...

> RE:R&D, that's... not true. At the mega-scale, Cisco will fund regular moonshots that they'll "acquire" for ~$0.5B upon success.

Yes they are external entities, not part of Cisco. Cisco I believe calls them "spin-ins". They aren't Cisco employees though.

Google provides immediate brand recognition that shows future employers that you've achieved a certain level success and/or are capable enough to get in. In addition, Google pays very well and offers equity that has a tangible value since they are already public, highly stable, and still have some growth in their future. Having Google early in your career allows you to then seek future opportunities having some money saved from salary/bonus/stock and with more ability to get into leadership in smaller but still high growth companies.

This is sage advice. The opportunities of your later years are derived from how you've spent your younger ones. A brand-name employer early in life may not "be-all and end-all" but it is a very, very good idea, if you can make it happen.

I wish I received this kind of advice when I was younger and in college.

The other thing I want to point out here which I wish I understood in my early 20s is that cash you invest when you are young grows. long-term long-bets of the type your mom would recommend (whole market index funds, real-estate, etc...) really require time to work, so socking money away when you are young makes a big difference.

I've got friends who earn about what I do who are about my age who, many years, earn as much at this point from income on their capital as they do from their regular job. I would be in that position too, if I had spent my money working for a big company and socking cash away, rather than spending my '20s running a business.

I'd make more money working for other people, too. Having a company with a good brand on your resume means a hell of a lot more than running a lifestyle company, even if that company succeeded as a lifestyle company.

I will share the suggestion shared by "Jack ma", the founder of alibaba group.

He said, To become an entrepreneur "One should work for small companies, generally in big companies, you are part of the big machine, but in small companies, you do most of the work your self and learn it".

So, it depends on what you want to be, if you plan to put your self in stable career without much of risk involved - go ahead with big companies.

If you want to be part of next future companies, where you can learn much more about the process of how company works and other information, start with smaller high growth company.

The only thing that will differ be efforts to sustain and keep rolling upwards for self and the company both in small company, while in big company, you will have primary focus on your self to keep up with the company.

> If you want to be part of next future companies, where you can learn much more about the process of how company works and other information, start with smaller high growth company.

I think this is only true when the startup is really small, say, 5-20 people. I was once part of a startup that had ~100 developers and I hardly learned about its inner workings, was rarely part of any decision-making on business or customer-facing use cases etc.

Not necessarily it has to be 5-20 people. it could be a team of 100-200 people too.

But "~100 developers" that you mentioned, can not be small or mid-tech companies, until half or more than half of the developers are useless.

100 developers in one company have potential to built the next billion dollar product and literally change the world.

As you can see, some one just mentioned, FB has 250 developers ( https://www.quora.com/How-many-software-engineers-work-at-Fa... ) and some people do have mentioned they have approx 700, 900, or ....

But, important factor is - they have only 25K employee (source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/273563/number-of-faceboo...) across world. There are more than 80+ office of Facebook world wide (source: https://www.facebook.com/careers/locations/), so even if you distribute employee evenly on all places - you will have approx 300 employees - each location.

My point is, if you were working in a company where 100 developers are creating product, than you were either at wrong place or judging the company wrong - one of them has to be true based on my research and opinion.

I do not want to offend any one with my post, I am just pointing the fact based on my research, please leave a reply, If my research above is wrong or misleading.

It's absolutely not true that FB currently has 250 engineers. There were over 700 in 2012. The company has multiplied in size many times over since then.

You linked to an answer with no source. Here's a revant post from the FB blog: https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-engineering/ship-ear...

The critical issue there is where you are on the totem pole. 100 engineers as an engineer? Probably not gonna make a big dent unless you’re really good and on the right project (tricky, uncertain).

But, a fresh exec or management track engineer? You could make a difference and climb the ladder.

It depends on where you are. Different folks need different opportunities.

Between the the two groups of companies you list, I'd take Google in a heartbeat. The thing that nobody here is saying is this: at Google, you are in a whole new system where internal moves are relatively easy. The first few years you'll probably have to get tenure (L5), but once you have that, it is very easy to make internal moves. Want to work on search? Start looking at those job boards. Want to do research? GoogleAI is hiring. Want to work on self driving? Google's holding company also owns Waymo.

On the other hand, if you end up on a bad team at a failing startup or midsize, you have to go through the entire interview process all over again. Going through that process can be a good experience, but eventually it gets old and you might be ready to spend 5 - 10 years at one gig making multiple year-long projects come to fruition. That's hard to do at a startup and even at midsize companies. It is much easier at FAANG and particularly Google.

Full disclosure: I recently accepted an offer at Google.

This seems a bit optimistic. Transfers do often happen inside Google, but the laws of supply and demand haven't been repealed. Teams in hot areas with limited headcount get to be choosy, and those positions will be harder to get.

This isnt true.

I've interviewed at lot of companies, a lot of which I had no intention of taking.

The interview process I think says a lot about a company. I was very put off by the processes of 2 of the big companies, so much so I'd never consider them again as I think it's a bit of an indication of how they operate in general.

I found smaller companies tend to have a much more honest conversation with you, and offer a lot of intangible benefits.

That said, if I were looking for money and benefits, the big ones are hard to beat.

Oops, forgot to answer the question. I work for a...smallish company now as I have for years, in a niche market. I appreciate the recognition I get, the freedom I'm afforded, no micromanagement, no stack ranking, etc. That's worth more to me than a larger salary, and having a known name on my resume at this point in my life.

Out of curiosity, why do you think the interview process is a good indicator of how things would be like within the company?

I feel like there must be a lot of variance there --- what if the engineer(s) you were with are bad interviewers? What if it wsa a bad day? What if it was a bad time to interview?

Eh... I'll try. I don't want to name any names or show spite.

One company, the process was a mess. The recruiter I worked with was fired in the process, which took a few days to sort out. It had many rounds of interviews, each expecting me to purchase material to study. One interview was absurdly bad, one of those 'well, that's not what it says on my paper' types. One interview the interviewer seemed almost condescending, asking questions with no possible one right answer.

Another company was much better in most regards, except when it came time for reimbursement. It was a bit 50/50 on whose fault it was, but it amounted to me being on the hook for a few hundred dollars. Not the end of the world, but I was sent a short rather cold message that made me feel like they thought I was trying to cheat them. I was trying to inquire about meeting me halfway, or what I could have done differently to avoid this, and never received a reply. As soon as I removed the flagged charges, it was paid and closed with no further communication. For a company who brags about perks and whatnot, the way they handled that turned me off. It was one of those 'notice how people treat people from who they have nothing to gain' moments. To add insult to injury, another group asked if I'd like to come back out. I replied rather short to that, which in retrospect I feel a little bad about.

That said, it is true I didn't work for those companies. But to me, a recruiter or interview process is a first impression. It's their face to me.

If I'm off base, though, I'd love to hear tales from others.

Edit to add - I will name one company that I really liked their interview...a company in Texas called Meteora. They were using tech way ahead of its time when I interviewed. They never asked me filter questions, or treated me like 'another applicant.' I talked to a competent engineer who explained what they did, what was needed, and their tech stack. I was honest in having no experience with this stack, and they were honest in telling me I wouldn't be a good fit. I wish all interviews were as simple.

What happened in the interview where you owed money? I've never heard of anything like that

I was given the hotel to stay at, and directions that I didn't need a rental car just to use a taxi or uber/lyft. In my city I've had bad experiences with Uber, so asked the hotel to arrange a taxi for my interview needs. It was a small SUV. The driver was nice, knew the company I was interviewing at, said he does these interviews all day, knew exactly where to go, was waved in by security and knew exactly where to drop me off. Three rides, plus tip, was a bit expensive, but I figured hey it's the bay area. It was a good distance from the airport. Although my receipt was basic, it listed a taxi company. The company I interviewed for told me it's not a real taxi company but a private driver service and they will not pay it.

Actually, typing this again made me a bit mad. It was Facebook, who spent the majority of my free day there showing me all the lavish offerings. I actually really liked the people there I met, well most of them. I was very upset by the message they had sent me. I am but a clueless guy from the midwest. They picked the hotel and said get a taxi. I asked the hotel if they'd help with a taxi, and they took care of it. How am I to know it's not a real taxi company?

I thought taxi companies were "private driver service"s?

Thanks for naming the company.

I may remove it, I'm not quite sure what is and isn't proper to share about an interview process. I will also say, I really did enjoy the interview, and met some of the smartest people I'd ever met in my time there. I def wouldn't let an internet stranger's experience with one part of the interview turn you away. Just my experience.

What is it you don't like about the Google interviewing process? Having been an interviewer at both Google and send mid-sized companies, I feel like the process at Google is a lot more objective and fair for hiring people.

See my other reply, you can probably figure out which one that is. Some of it was personal preference, some if it I found silly.

I purposely didn't want to name companies, I felt it's tacky since it's my personal opinion and view. If you'd like to discuss privately feel free to dm me.

Not GP, I recently interviewed there and it felt super dry and impersonal. I think it is designed this way though. The teams ended up being awesome and I accepted on a project I'm stoked for.

Google interviewing process is a joke. If the interviewer can’t remember the name and is reading the wrong resume you’ve failed.

I pretty much quit half way because I haven’t seen such a disorganized interview process.

They probably get so many engineers wanting to work for them, I think they can afford to let things be broken. Kind of artificially restricting the funnel. Good for them I guess.

Dan Luu had an excellent blog post that you might be interested in:

http://danluu.com/startup-tradeoffs

A smaller company (especially high growth) would be my choice any day. I currently work for a smaller, high growth startup, and I prefer it a thousand fold to the experiences in industry giant companies like MS or Google. The bad would outweigh the good, to me. No doubt there is good - the name recognition on your resume, the experience on big products with big-name hitters - but no, even that wouldn't outweigh the burdens of the bigger corporate employment, at least not for me.

A smaller startup / company can get things done faster, give you more experience in potentially more areas and more types of projects. If it's a high growth company it probably will make a fairly good resume item anyway.

The only caveat is that you have said: "who wants a corporate career" -- if by "corporate" you mean larger mega-companies, than of course, your choice should be Google.

Having worked at both, I'd recommend Google for a couple of years, then GTFO. You'll get massively overpaid (save your money!) and you'll learn some useful stuff. But it's a chaotic mess, the employees are spoiled, and you'll never become a real grown-up if you stay there long term.

Looks great on your resume, though.

I've interviewed there and my impression was that the average employee was very young, straight out of college. When I was there I was 27 and I felt slightly old.

I am 45 and I definitely feel* closer to the median at Google than to the eldest extreme.

*Note that I can't back this up with actual statistics. I'm just saying that I don't feel anywhere close to a graybeard elder at Google at age 45.

I'm on a team at Google, am 30s, and the second youngest on the team. Pretty sure.

I definitely got that vibe 5+ years ago, but it's changed.

Work at the biggest and best company you can, with the best position you can get hired for.

There is invaluable brand capital, and the network is priceless.

It’s the same rationale between choosing colleges.

I attended a top 14 university. I have instant respect and credibility.

I currently work for a massive global technology company. I have instant respect and credibility.

Do I ask for it? No. Is it warranted more than the next guy? I don’t think so.

If you work for a smaller company, with a smaller name, you are limiting the network you can leverage, in size and industry.

Brand capital. Signaling. Status. It’s a game, and there are gatekeepers. And it all depends on how you want to play it.

Doesn’t matter what I studied at college. I went to a good college. People think I’m smart.

Doesn’t matter what my position is. I work for a reputable global company. People think I’m successful.

I would recommend putting the work in and playing the game early in your career before you jump to smaller ventures, and take risks working at companies with limited track records and speculative futures.

I scour LinkedIn and pay attention to the work histories of people I respect and admire, and have achieved the success I desire.

There is a pattern.

Are you a programmer? This isn't how any of the programmers I know judge things. (The college part, anyway.)

Sales engineer. Not a programmer.

That's certainly an enviable position to be in, then.

I'm 21. Started at Amazon, Apple, Northrop, then the largest private software firm and have wanted nothing but to exit the corporate world for a remote job at a start up.

Getting closer by choosing a smaller employer that's remote flexible.

How do you have 4 jobs already at 21? No college? Or just EXTREMELY short stints?

On the fifth.

I go to college and work full time.

Some have been short - 4 month contract at SAS, six months at NG. It's worked out though. Liked every job more than the previous.

I vastly prefer smaller companies due to the outsized impact each employee can have on the success of the entire organization, and the ability to wear different hats.

Barring that, I prefer a Google/Microsoft/etc big 5 company.

I don't personally feel like there's a lot of draw to a low level position at mid-sized companies, and I've worked at a few. You're going to sacrifice the personal agency you get as soon as you go above, say, 10-15 engineers. So if you're going to do that, you might as well go all the way and get the massive paychecks, benefits, valuable stock, fringe benefits, and the in-place infrastructure.

If I were looking for positions higher up the chain (CTO, Director, etc), then mid sized companies start to look more interesting because you have the opportunity to have that impact with a big team and product that's already in place.

This is addressed quite well in Robert Coram’s Excellent _Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War_ with the life shaping question:

“Do you want to be somebody, or do something?”

You will be a really big deal at FANG but you are not likely to do as interesting work as you would in a smaller mildly successful company.

https://www.amazon.com/Boyd-Fighter-Pilot-Who-Changed/dp/031...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boyd_(military_strategi...

Are you staying an engineer all your life or eventually be an exec? Do you want to be well paid or influential? Are you a PhD who likes doing one thing in depth, or are you a get-sh*t-done person who likes multiple interesting projects? Do you plan to change jobs a lot or stay one place for a long time?

I agree with your list and would suggest one addition:

What are your competencies and how do they mesh with the requirements of the employer?

There are a lot of competent programmers who would never get employed by Google and there are many brilliant engineers at Google who would struggle in a GSD focused small company.

What is GSD?

not op, but I assume it stands for Get Sh*t Done

I thought it was German Shepherd Dog - highly focussed canines.

That is what I know the acronym as too.

For me this question comes down to: What do you want to learn?

In a big company, most risk has been removed from the equation. This is great for compensation and stability but also limits ones possible learnings as well. You might find your time learning the big company’s systems which don’t apply universally because they’re specific to that company’s needs.

In smaller companies, risk is still a real aspect of life. The downsides are obvious but the joys are that you’re closer to the customer and your actions have real impact. I find these types of learnings to be universal which is why I’m drawn to it.

I somewhat disagree with the idea that a Big Corp reduces your learning opportunity. I work for one of the big companies, and one benefit I don't see highlighted frequently is changing specialties. I have worked in 4 different job families over 6 years. If you do work for a Big Corp and you're an effective employee, you can pretty easily work on jobs at the border between the job you have and the job you want. This may be specific to my employer, but I've been able to find ways to demonstrate my (on the job learned) knowledge in a field and get a job I find interesting.

I’d love to explore that more. That is one advantage of bigger companies, more variety of opportunities and if you’re effective you can move between them or define something in between as you point out.

One aspect that I’d like to put words to is something orthogonal to the opportunities, which is the distance of the opportunity from the customer and a ‘real’ problem. This isn’t always true in big companies but at most you’d feel like a cog in the machine no?

I'd go to a consulting company that builds custom software for customers. In this way I'll see many different projects in different industries. But don't go to a company that sends you to work on site for a customer and bury you there. Stay in the main office.

After some years of that, consider switching sides and find a company that builds its own products, whatever they are.

One thing to consider is that the quality of the individual projects might well be much lower than working at a company that builds their own niche products.

However after 5 or 10 years of that only product you might end up knowing perfectly only one tool, probably not the most relevant one on the market by the time you plan to live. Those jobs always looked to me like dead ends. Maybe it's different in Silicon Valley.

I just went through this conflict myself; there were several great startups to choose from and yet I ultimately anchored myself to Google. A lot of my rationale is anchored in a personal desire to become financially independent and get into more of a semi-retirement lifestyle and may not be relevant, but...

* Higher total compensation (after negotiating!) - though salary + bonus were competitive the additional equity really pushed the offer up and it's less ephemeral than younger companies

* 50% 401k matching basically adds +$9k to the offer and fits right into my financial goals

* Promotion potential; growing into a senior role is (mostly) defined and commensurately compensated

There are also a few other financial perks that Google enables me to take advantage of that further sweetened the deal and were aligned with my financial goals. There were many trade-offs made, but this overall aligned best with my long-term goals.

No reason you can't do both? Start at the one you want now. Transition to the other later. That's what I'm doing. This isn't an either or situation. If you want to take the risk, now is the a best time probably while younger. However, one could argue if you save properly doing the riskier option later might be better. It will depend of course.

The other factor to consider is quality of life. How many hours and what types of stress will the bigco job have versus the younger company? I joined the younger company first and I don't think a single person works 40 hours and the environment is relaxed, the CEO/founders are awesome! The pay is good, but it's not Google levels, but there is opportunity to increase that. We are quite profitable already. I can try for a bigco job another day, in fact any day or not. However, for now, because of my life situation, I chose the smaller company.

As an employee, go with the biggest company paying the more. Some sectors are better (industry) than others (banking or medias). Some countries are better (Germany and Japan) than others (China).

Don't waste your time with a startup or as cofounder (nothing else is good).

I think this is a tough choice and relies on the context. I work at Asana and would be happy to chat with you if you want.

In my experience, the reality doesn't have much to do with the size of a company; what matters is the management. Of course companies of different sizes naturally have different management problems, but all of them can be (attempted to be) solved in a number of ways, and this depends on individuals in charge.

That early in your career I would go with where you would learn the most. That usually means whichever has the most challenging, complex, "buck rodgers" and most importantly interesting to you project(s). For me it was blood pumps and artificial hearts.

I've grown to realise that I need to work on something I care deeply about. My satisfaction is derived from doing something I know is worthwhile and beyond just myself.

Step 1. Take the stable route that pays more.

Step 2.Then save enough money to buy a 4plex house within a couple of years. (5-10% downpayment)

Step 3. Live in thr 4th unit, rent the others and get a roommate in your 4th unit.

Now, congrats! You live for free for doing nothing.

Next step:

Option A)

Save up enough money to repeat the model above.

After 2-4 houses.... you should be able to earn net positive minimum wage and live for free.

Option B)

Save up enough money and put into ETH/BCH (and retire within 3-5 years when next bull market comes)

Option C)

Start looking for remote jobs paying 150k-200k/ year and get them to pay your own 1-man corporation so you control your taxes. While doing Option A and B above.

You can retire by age 30-35 with this model.

Then you basically have "fuck you wealth". (Not "rich", but Wealth).

Then work at the companies You like and leave the moment you don't like them anymore since you don't need them.

All the best,

200-2000 employee companies have a lot less bureaucratic bullshit than 10000+ employee companies, and they also aren't as big of a life commitment as startups.

Google for 5 years, build up a nest egg. Then work wherever.

What about small(er) companies majority owned by bigcos? They have an opportunity to combine the best of bigcos with the best of (growing) smallcos.

You're 25. Go to a small company and see what it's about. Put in 1-2 years. Only you can know if you will like it.

Honestly, it comes down to pay, and whether I get to go home at a reasonable hour. Also, what the company culture is like.

I find google morally repugnant and turned down an interview with them on that basis.

smaller company anytime. or bigger. just not for google

What did Google do to you?

Nothing. I just consider them as dangerous as Microsoft in the late 1990s.

I would never have considered doing anything with Microsoft in the late 1990s.

Likewise, I would never consider doing anything with google now.

No doubt about the upsides to joining Google or Facebook but their compettitive edge is based on stolen user information. Unauthorized tracking of users has been outlawed by SCOTUS. So their key compettitive advantage follwing user around the web will be eventually shut down.

Rethink "corporate career", absolutely insane, especially for an asian american with the bamboo ceiling. You are harming your own prospects. Do what is in your best interests and go work for a company where you're an exec from the beginning: http://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/...

That somehow seems like a tenuous argument, especially when talking about tech companies, when one looks at examples like Satya Nadella (MS) and Sundar Pichai (Google) who’re both Asian - and 1st generation at that. In the case of FMCG type companies, I’d actually agree with you, but in tech the evidence indicates otherwise.

Feel free to read the article I linked, it addressed your comment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com