something about this doesn't quite sit right when I consider my experience with negotiating for roles at startups. I agree with the approach for big tech, but it sets a weird tone for working closely with a team if you just spent a week stressing them out and shaking them down. I've done that negotiation for myself, tried to hire people who did it to me, and I've watched others go through it. it always leaves a funny smell with the team, because at the startups I've been involved with it's kind of rare to play hardball.

just my experience. I am more on the mission-driven end of the why-do-you-work spectrum, it's not just the money for me. and I've gotten bitten in the ass by the sharks who sit on the board and hand down layoffs, I know it's how the world works. just speaking about the small teams where you are negotiating with the overworked hiting manager.

I think about this a lot as I get older. what I've realized is that being young (like under 30) is a pretty big deviation as far as physiology goes. the rest of life is a long slow decline, so you gotta set yourself up to manage it.

I am so sorry for what's happening to this man, and I hope he finds peace in his last days.

the economics, ethics, and effectiveness around early approvals are really difficult to manage. companies have a strong incentive to get earlier approvals. but once the cat is out of the bag, it's hard to get it back in. if a sub-standard drug makes it to market and gains wide adoption, it makes later drug trials of more effective drugs really hard. where's the outrage for potential beneficiaries of better therapeutics?

I don't mean to say this man and others shouldn't get a chance at a hail mary when they're staring down death. just, it's risky business for others in the future. I hope the best for him and others.

overall this is great. but I'm surprised that meeting acceptance criteria is under "implementation" and considered less important than api design. I agree that api design is harder to change later on, but the most important question is, does the PR solve a problem that currently exists? if it does, then you can think about whether it does it well.

it makes me wonder if the product/engineering split has grown wider than it should. we really should be pretending we're product managers more.

20% seems like an underestimate, especially if you consider a lack of knowledge of how to use one's computer to highest efficiency.

also, most platforms suffer from feature bloat without a cohesive user experience. probably because they are trying to capture the widest audience, without carefully planning alignment/integration across features.

one things that's missing is the ability to ignore politics. you have to know what hills to die on, when to enforce boundaries, when to back off, etc. also, having to make decisions, argue for them, and be accountable to them, without fully understanding all the details. I found these things to be far and away the most stressful parts of management.

if you're trying to build a product, code is a liability. not sure that an esoteric codebase is the best signal to candidates that the bottom line is solving problems for stakeholders, rather than beautiful code.

it's really interesting how polarizing of an issue this is with engineers. I definitely think it's a good idea, but you can really mess it up royally with bad implementation (plus there are scaling considerations). considering how polarizing it is though, it might be one of the best signals to attract the kinds of engineers who care about how their product is used.

actually I think the best targetting is for all engineers to play a support role with their stakeholders, whoever they may be. devops supporting with full-stacks, data eng working with DS, (these already happen), and UX working with the masses.