the tone of this post is so weird. someone 5x'd your salary and couldn't do it while working on passion projects. am i supposed to feel bad for them?
Thus people valuing the symbols of professionalism over actual engineering prowess; LinkedIn profiles over the person themselves; and LLM output over a human's actual thoughts.
Despite this person self-evaluating as having regressed in their engineering skills, all the outward status markers that are supposed to represent outstanding achievement are still there, and project a persona that is not congruent with the author's own self-image.
Worse yet, you must play this game of smoke and mirrors because you are "only seen when [you] do the fake crap like update [your] LinkedIn to celebrate 1 year at $FAANG."
This also reduces the signal/noise ratio when posers begin aping those same status markers in order to represent expertise where none exists. If you want to experience this directly, I suggest you attend some networking meetups and talk to the newer blood in the cybersecurity industry. Not exactly DEFCON 10 any more.
Someone recently asked me if Mark Zuckerberg was a good engineer. I think the answer is a very, very qualified "yes." He knew enough to bash together a prototype in PHP of a social network site. But he was a very good problem-solver; he managed to find a tool space people found use in, and iterated on it until it got so good it dominated lives and became the primary communication solution for millions of people. He also knew enough about people to hire the right folks to do the hard (and tedious; the tedium should never be ignored) work to turn his prototype into product, scale it, and maintain it. And that's every bit as much problem-solving as implementing a breadth-first search to populate a "People you might also know" list.
He didn't need to have Knuth's Art of Computer Programming memorized to do what he did.
Software engineering (and the software it creates) are tools. They give us pleasure to use also. But the tools and the pleasure can become disconnected from what gives other people utility and pleasure without some heads-up checks from time to time.
He was a bad engineer: early implementations of Facebook were buggy, insecure, and not featureful. I agree that engineering is not valued in-and-of itself generally (it is just a tool), but instead of turning it into something inherently valued by changing the definition of it, we should just admit that it isn’t valued in-and-of itself. I mean, in all fields (other than some art, maybe) the end result is valued more by outsiders than the process to get there…
Part of good engineering is knowing what problems to solve. Facebook early version was buggy and insecure and lacked features. And none of that mattered to the target audience enough to not use it; its value outweighed the pain points. A junior engineer can solve today's problems; a senior engineer can build against tomorrow's, and a staff engineer knows what problems should be solved and what shouldn't because time is a finite resource. The further you go up the ladder, the fewer problems can be solved by throwing the right algorithm at it with your programming tool of choice.
A dreamer and a hobbyist can put together a well-crafted site with five users. An engineer keeps working at solving the problems between there and five million, including solving them by building the systems to solve them and finding the people to work in those systems.
I would say the distinction is good sales guys can turn market sentiment into a feature request, good engineers can turn one or more feature requests into behaviors in the system.
But the actual truth is that a sales team with some idea of how software is written coupled to lead engineers with some idea of market sentiment and taste is more powerful than either discipline heavily siloed.
Not familiar with the industry, has cybersecurity taken a turn for the worse in some way?
He is not asking for that. He is explaining why he feels bad for not being able to continue delivering his top notch work that was done for free before and hoping to be able to do that again in the future. I appreciate that although I have never used his open source code.
Instead the writer discovered what we all inevitably do. Companies don’t really care about what you’re capable of. They care strictly if you’ll bend over backwards, give up everything, and grind leetcode to make it through their arbitrary and demeaning hiring process. At least you can somewhat justify it at FAANG given you need an “efficient” way to weed out 80% of the 30,000 applicants you get a year. But this rot goes all the way down to the mom and pop e-commerce startup anymore.
It’s no surprise. I suppose if the writer was a major contributor to a larger project their experience might be different (as you could probably fool ATS and HR using them as experience on a resume). But indeed, no one cares about your toy implementation of a linter.
It’ll only get worse in the age of AI slop, AI slop brained company leadership, and leetcode supremacy.
The thing is this not only used to work, it was The Way. You could short circuit the entire technical interview process by sending a link to your commit histories on various open source projects or hell even your GitHub account if you had decent amounts of public activity on there. Even better, a company's unwillingness to accept these in lieu of infantile "coding tests" was a great way to weed out bullshit organizations you wouldn't want to work for in any case. Now that none of that is the case I haven't the faintest idea how one would go about getting a job writing code these days short of leveraging your network to score a nepo hire?
I do remember a time when projects mattered. I believe my open source work 12 years ago was what got me the job even after I failed their coding test miserably.
It probably won't get better for a long time. I've been casually looking around for a new gig and even with over a decade of experience in software across the backend stack (bare metal and up) I don't fit a lot of the requirements. They want junior engineer grind, mid level pay, and staff+ level knowledge. As expected, it's a employer market now, and we're probably gonna be waiting for the glut of new CS grads, bootcampers, etc to give up and move on to other things.
If we’re lucky, an Open AI collapse will have Lehman Brothers like ripple effects throughout the rest of the industry. Not only will that flush out the chaff, it’ll also burn out genuine talent, so competition in the aftermath will be easier.
It wouldn’t surprise me if they’ve lost the “look at interesting portfolios” muscle and gained the “look at metrics” one.
Most people didn’t work at FAANG back then, right? You worked at FAANG because you were better than people who took the conventional approach, and the really competent growing companies could figure that out.
Not sure who the up-and-comers are now, though.
The competition should get harder; resumes-optimizers are much harder to compete with than thing-builders, in the game of getting hired, right?