Used to think this is a great idea. But reality told me this could lead to chaos (way to much chaos), especially when the company is going through a finanancial crisis (hopefully not the case for FB for a really really long time). For most of the companies, leadership should be vital. Things like hackathons are luxury game rich people allow to play.
It's tough to disagree when I don't actually have experience working there, but there are a few telltale signals that the author doesn't know what he's talking about.
Though I'm also wondering if the whole thing is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek (if so, I'm barely getting it).
#3 "Zuck is too involved" states that rather than planning the long-term strategy of the company, the CEO should be "pumping up the stock price". and #4, too much focus on short-term.
That is the problem with most other companies, too much focus on short term, not thinking long-term about the company. A CEO's job is not to promote the company to investors, it's to move the business forward. That is done through products and marketing, not by 'pumping the stock price'.
Good grief people - It's satire. The entire thing is meant to be funny. I didn't even think it was particularly subtle so I'm not sure how others are seeing it any other way.
Pretty obvious only an idiot would write up this rant on his personal blog while still employed at FB. I ignored the content immediately after realizing this. Click bait title. Lame.
He had me until the second point's header. Overall it was a fantastic read if just for the moment of realization. Still it would have benefited with more subtly or fewer items. Some point's like #4 had great potential but needed less sarcasm.
I think it's sarcasm. Well mostly, but with some truth splayed in (because there probably are things that grate on the poster).
No way this is real:
The food is too good. What’s wrong with good food? Well, here’s what’s wrong: there’s too much of it. Three meals a day. Free. Cooked by award-winning chefs. And too many choices: salads, entrees, desserts, vegetarian food, soups, whole grains, usually a second dessert, organic stuff, barbeque, ice cream, fresh-squeezed orange juice. For someone like me with zero gastronomic self-control, this supposed “benefit” or “perk” is a complete disaster. Why doesn’t the FDA step in?
- Some of us have to pay for our food by the way, all three meals, so if you would kindly save the complaining (and grab seconds).
But also the bit about how it's code, code, code, ship, ship, ship, long-term product view, the engineers are involved, the company looks for innovation with the hack-a-thons. I do think it's mostly sarcasm. And with that, disclaimer: I could be wrong =D
"There is a fully-working hot tub in the New York office that interviews are conducted in. I didn’t believe this until I saw the photos on Twitter. It was billed to me as a way to test candidates’ resilience under pressure. I was told that it’s used rarely, and only on exceptionally good candidates as a way to probe the extent of their mettle. This is about the least professional thing that I have ever heard of, and I’m sure it violates laws in several states."
I went from "I disagree" to "This guy is a moron" to "Oh, thank god this is satire" at #3. It's amazing that they can keep this environment after growing so big.
Wouldn't this be better as "10 things I love about working at Facebook"? Why not just drop the "hilarious" satire angle and say what is awesome directly. I hope I don't sound like the death of fun... It sounds a little smug as it is now.
I still don't see how satire is supposed to detect anything other than who gets that it's satire, and who takes it at face value -- which is not even possible until you, uhhh, read or saw the satire. So that point of yours, it's lost on me unless you elaborate.
My premise is that people who fail to detect satire do so because their existing bias makes them see what they want to see. People apparently disable their critical thinking apparatus when presented with an argument that even superficially resembles their own viewpoint.
I completely agree. The article didn't say much new, but it came off as very smug. If the engineers at Facebook are that smug, I'm pretty sure I don't want to work there.
That said, it's good to here Zuck is still focused on building the company and not appeasing the critics. Long term value is what matters.
I agree, and he's slyly discouraging serious debate of his points since Facebook is so "cool". Software actually does need to be discussed. Leadership is critical in any structure of any size. The thought that every brogrammer is making decisions makes me think that he's either overstating this fact (every programmer in the world makes some decisions everyday), or that Facebook is chaotic. The rate of source code commits is fairly meaningless: with 1 shitty rushed commit, you might have to check in another 4 to fix it up. So, with 5 commits in, are you 5x more productive? Hackathons are a great way of interfering with life outside the office. There are other (possibly better) ways to give people a chance to crank out good work on side projects. Like a sabbatical where you spend a few weeks working on something you think is important. The hot tub thing makes me think Facebook is a testosterone-heavy environment.
Maybe I'm just uncool and took his flame-bait. Facebook does sound like a great place to work. But these kinds of puff pieces have a naivete that makes Facebook look like a frat house with a dark side that is not actually discussed.
It would have been funnier if he took a few jabs at facebook. Good satire sometimes mixes actual insults with the satire. I don't know anything about the author, but this reads like something written by a third rate facebook recruiter.
0/10. I knew it was steaming troll feed before clicking the link. If the title was "What I Hated..." instead of "What I Hate...", then we could have had some sweet juicy content.
I actually agree with #1. Code is the enemy of all codebases. Though i'm not arguing against the company culture that produces such productivity. It's just more a case of "with great power comes great responsibility".
190 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 163 ms ] threadThough I'm also wondering if the whole thing is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek (if so, I'm barely getting it).
#3 "Zuck is too involved" states that rather than planning the long-term strategy of the company, the CEO should be "pumping up the stock price". and #4, too much focus on short-term.
That is the problem with most other companies, too much focus on short term, not thinking long-term about the company. A CEO's job is not to promote the company to investors, it's to move the business forward. That is done through products and marketing, not by 'pumping the stock price'.
that might actually be bad - eating too much has been shown to be detrimental to the health of a programmer who hardly moves all day...
As it is, it's just another geek trying to get attention.
As it stands, the satire is both obvious and contrived.
Jonathan Swift (http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html) is crap in comparison to this work of masterpiece (AKA "why I love my job").
No way this is real:
The food is too good. What’s wrong with good food? Well, here’s what’s wrong: there’s too much of it. Three meals a day. Free. Cooked by award-winning chefs. And too many choices: salads, entrees, desserts, vegetarian food, soups, whole grains, usually a second dessert, organic stuff, barbeque, ice cream, fresh-squeezed orange juice. For someone like me with zero gastronomic self-control, this supposed “benefit” or “perk” is a complete disaster. Why doesn’t the FDA step in?
- Some of us have to pay for our food by the way, all three meals, so if you would kindly save the complaining (and grab seconds).
But also the bit about how it's code, code, code, ship, ship, ship, long-term product view, the engineers are involved, the company looks for innovation with the hack-a-thons. I do think it's mostly sarcasm. And with that, disclaimer: I could be wrong =D
Not surprised.
> 4. Do not introduce banner ads that’s moving waaayy backwards...
To me it seems like a passive-aggressive jab at those who complained about working at facebook, and left.
"It's just a joke" is just a lame way of saying something, without anyone being able to actually call them on it.
And to call this stuff satire is kind of extreme, too? Let's ignore the lameness for a sec: what, exactly, does it make fun of and shed light on?
That said, it's good to here Zuck is still focused on building the company and not appeasing the critics. Long term value is what matters.
Maybe I'm just uncool and took his flame-bait. Facebook does sound like a great place to work. But these kinds of puff pieces have a naivete that makes Facebook look like a frat house with a dark side that is not actually discussed.