WSJ.com used to look at the referrer and allow a single click-through a day from some sites (including this one). So it used to be that anybody clicking off HN saw the non-paywalled version, but something must've changed.
Like similar abstractions, participation is an empty goal unless it is gauged in relation to the job to be done. It is a means, not an end, and when treated as an end, it can become more repressive than the unadorned authoritarianism it is supposed to replace… No one wants to see the old authoritarian return, but at least it could be said of him what he wanted primarily from you was your sweat. The new man wants your soul.”
I have to agree. Why waste space on the front page with paywalled content? I have no inclination to ever subscribe to this. I appreciate that others may have different sentiment, but this feels wasted on the majority of us.
That's an overstatement. We need to take into account that (a) sometimes there isn't a non-paywalled version of a good story, and (b) most of these paywalls have easy workarounds. The paywalls suck, but banning paywalled links would make HN worse.
Earlier today, someone told me that I've "drunk the kool-aid" of my employers, Pivotal Labs.
Well, it happens that I decided to work for Labs after visiting the Facebook campus. Literally while I was driving back to SF from Palo Alto.
At Labs I work for 40 hours per week. Not an on-paper 40 hours -- actually 40 hours. When I was new to the company I found myself one night on a train to Philadelphia for a personal trip. I was bored, so I opened my laptop and answered some emails from a client. The following week I got a mild dressing down from my colleagues for working after-hours and I was told by my manager not to do it again.
If I am at a computer more than 10 minutes after 6pm, co-workers start wandering up and saying "you're not working, are you?". I've only worked late twice, and the latest I've worked is 6.30pm (because I thought I'd broken Golang support on Pivotal Web Services and wanted to be sure I hadn't before going home).
Meanwhile, at Facebook, after being shown all the cool workspaces and the free food, I asked what the hours were. "There are no hours, you set your own with your team". On my drive back to where I was staying in SF, I remembered that on their campus, I'd seen a barber's shop.
It struck me that, so that you don't leave for 30 minutes, once a month, Facebook has a barber on the campus. Someone later pointed out to me that the buses they run have wifi. So life becomes: wake up, shower, get on bus, work, get off bus, breakfast, work, lunch, work, dinner, work, get on bus, work, get home, sleep.
I'm an engineer at FB and I work 6-8 hours most days. Most people with families don't work crazy hours. Most people that do choose to because they love their work.
so I opened my laptop and answered some emails from a client. The following week I got a mild dressing down from my colleagues for working after-hours and I was told by my manager not to do it again.
That happened to me at my old non-tech job. By answering a client's emails, you train them to expect you to be on call, which hurts the whole team.
I was a Software Engineering intern on an ads product team at Facebook last summer. My experience was almost exactly the opposite of what you assume here. Most people worked 7-8 hour days. I stayed plenty of late nights because I was dead-set on getting a full-time offer, but I was literally the only one on my entire floor most nights (including interns). On the off chance someone stopped in late and saw me, they were honestly shocked and insisted I go home.
The team working next to mine had a major product launch during the time I was there. A few of them (2 or 3) stayed in until 8 PM for the two nights immediate proceeding launch. That's it.
One of the biggest surprises to me coming from undergrad was just how little the engineers worked at a company like FB. There is a pride in efficiency in the Facebook culture, and an working effectively is more valued than putting in long hours.
Of course, that was my experience on one team. I'm sure some teams work longer hours than others. That said, I think you'd be hard pressed to find an engineering shop that had a healthier work-life balance than Facebook. The idea that its a 'meat grinder' is laughable. I saw another comment suggesting that FB employees leaving after 8-10 years is a sign of burn-out. Are you kidding? In this business 8-10 years is lifetimes.
> I'm sure some teams work longer hours than others.
That's actually a point I implied but didn't expand.
If you don't set a standard, any one employee's experience is going to depend on the local subculture.
So it's a lottery. Maybe I'm in the team composed of grizzled 3-4 year veterans, who've seen it all, some of whom have young families or hobbies outside of work.
Or I fluke into the team of whizkids who moved to Palo Alto 3 months ago, straight out of college, and who have no social life and nothing to do except work at the most exciting stuff they've ever done in their lives.
Alternatively, I can work at a company where 40 hours is always 40 hours, no matter what project you're on, no matter what your life situation is, no matter how long you've worked there -- and regardless of when the Big Project Is Launching.
Every product goes through design-development-testing-launch-maintenance cycle (with occasional major bug fixing between launch and maintenance).
It's natural to work in overdrive during the launch phase, but is just not that productive during any of the other phases.
With Facebook's breadth of products someone somewhere is always launching, so it's reasonable to assume that some employees are putting in 50-hour weeks for a short period of time.
More important than official lines on hours worked or dressing down by colleagues for working late is how realistic the company is about what's expected of you and the resources you are given to achieve it.
If you are assigned more work than you can achive in 40 hours, yet only given 40 hours to do it in, you are either being set up for failure, or the company really does want you to work as many hours as it takes, but just not be so open about it.
[Earlier today, someone told me that I've "drunk the kool-aid" of my employers, Pivotal Labs.]
I guess perspectives can be very different. I consider "Kool-Aid' you are referring to as plain insult to software engineering :).
Couple of years back Pivotallabs was preaching ideal pair programming. I am assuming it still does?
If two people using a single keyboard, single Monitor is so efficient how come CEO's and CFO's, aren't advised to use the same approach?
Is it because Developers are just lineworkers with no individual creativity? I would never consider working at a company like that :).
it's great if you like to pair program every day. I get sick of pairing after about 3 hours. So it's not one-size-fits-all but I often meet people who can't imagine disliking pairing and try to convince me that my lived experience is somehow incorrect but theirs is accurate.
Personally, I agree with you: pair programming is not suitable for everyone. After a day of pairing I definitely want some quiet time.
We recently had an energetic internal discussion about whether we are simply selecting for extraversion in our process.
I suspect we're probably filtering out very strong introverts, but I've honestly seen a wide band of personalities. I've worked with men and women ranging from those who are chatty as I am, to the downright laconic. Some who want to socialise after work, to others like me who just want to go home for some personal time.
You didn't answer my question.
Why wouldn't Pair Programing concept be applicable to CEO's and Other Executives?
Why only programmers/Designers need to be Pair Programmed?
Deciding what to build is different from deciding how to build it.
Typically at Pivotal we have a single Product Manager per product, who acts as the single decision point for how to prioritise the stories and bugs in the backlog.
This increases the odds that a clear product direction will emerge -- it avoids the mum and dad game. The Product Manager and the team do most of the planning for a week at an Iteration Planning Meeting, and the PM remains available during the week to answer questions, accept stories and to update priorities according to changing circumstances.
Once you know what to work on, it's important to build the system correctly, and to ensure that there is shared understanding of how it is going to work.
Pair programming with frequent rotations is an outstanding way to do that.
Incidentally, as it happens, I've seen Pivotal management pairing on management problems. And they retain the habits of communicating clearly, openly and frequently with each other and everyone else.
I've also seen Product Managers pairing as well, typically when we have provided a PM from Labs to work with, and help train, someone from the client who will take over as Product Manager.
The biggest thing that Facebook gets right is having respect & trust in their employees regardless of their position or prior experience. They're willing to let their employees own an idea and fail if necessary. Traditional top-down organizations (99% of companies) equate respect & trust directly with title & seniority.
Facebook can be disorienting for some older employees, who feel their past experience and accomplishments aren’t valued.
Maybe I'm in the minority but I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. Past experience and accomplishments get you in the door but beyond that those things don't matter, the question should be: what are you doing now to bring value?
The idea is that past experience helps you make better decisions in the future which is the value they are bringing to the company. I sense that you don't have much experience yet otherwise this would be fairly obvious.
I sense that you don't have much experience yet otherwise this would be fairly obvious.
You sense wrong. Anyway, I don't disagree with your first point, and it doesn't refute mine.
The point here is that no-one should get extra "rank" just by being experienced. If that extra experience doesn't help you out-compete someone without it then you might as well not have it.
(I'm not going to subscribe to read this so I'm just assuming...)
Is this a good time to bring up the Tyrany Of Structurelessness? http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm The observation is: if you pretend that you don't have a hierarchy, then your de facto hierarchies will be harder to see, harder to criticize, harder to improve.
For WSJ, just google the title and the first hit will generally be the article. When you come in with Google as your referrer, the full article loads instead of the paywall'd version.
55 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 127 ms ] threadSo it's just another Silicon Valley meat grinder. They just grind the meat a little differently.
– William Whyte, The Organization Man, 1956
click170: The point is to penalize sites that employ paywalls by taking your pageviews elsewhere.
One usually penalizes behavior they consider wrong.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8777971
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8634076
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8647853
Well, it happens that I decided to work for Labs after visiting the Facebook campus. Literally while I was driving back to SF from Palo Alto.
At Labs I work for 40 hours per week. Not an on-paper 40 hours -- actually 40 hours. When I was new to the company I found myself one night on a train to Philadelphia for a personal trip. I was bored, so I opened my laptop and answered some emails from a client. The following week I got a mild dressing down from my colleagues for working after-hours and I was told by my manager not to do it again.
If I am at a computer more than 10 minutes after 6pm, co-workers start wandering up and saying "you're not working, are you?". I've only worked late twice, and the latest I've worked is 6.30pm (because I thought I'd broken Golang support on Pivotal Web Services and wanted to be sure I hadn't before going home).
Meanwhile, at Facebook, after being shown all the cool workspaces and the free food, I asked what the hours were. "There are no hours, you set your own with your team". On my drive back to where I was staying in SF, I remembered that on their campus, I'd seen a barber's shop.
It struck me that, so that you don't leave for 30 minutes, once a month, Facebook has a barber on the campus. Someone later pointed out to me that the buses they run have wifi. So life becomes: wake up, shower, get on bus, work, get off bus, breakfast, work, lunch, work, dinner, work, get on bus, work, get home, sleep.
Frankly? I prefer the damn kool-aid.
We just think it should stay at work, during sustainable working hours.
With an average age of 28[0].. what percentage do you think have families?
0. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/technology-workers-...
That happened to me at my old non-tech job. By answering a client's emails, you train them to expect you to be on call, which hurts the whole team.
I've been handing out free kool-aid samples pretty much since that first project.
The team working next to mine had a major product launch during the time I was there. A few of them (2 or 3) stayed in until 8 PM for the two nights immediate proceeding launch. That's it.
One of the biggest surprises to me coming from undergrad was just how little the engineers worked at a company like FB. There is a pride in efficiency in the Facebook culture, and an working effectively is more valued than putting in long hours.
Of course, that was my experience on one team. I'm sure some teams work longer hours than others. That said, I think you'd be hard pressed to find an engineering shop that had a healthier work-life balance than Facebook. The idea that its a 'meat grinder' is laughable. I saw another comment suggesting that FB employees leaving after 8-10 years is a sign of burn-out. Are you kidding? In this business 8-10 years is lifetimes.
That's actually a point I implied but didn't expand.
If you don't set a standard, any one employee's experience is going to depend on the local subculture.
So it's a lottery. Maybe I'm in the team composed of grizzled 3-4 year veterans, who've seen it all, some of whom have young families or hobbies outside of work.
Or I fluke into the team of whizkids who moved to Palo Alto 3 months ago, straight out of college, and who have no social life and nothing to do except work at the most exciting stuff they've ever done in their lives.
Alternatively, I can work at a company where 40 hours is always 40 hours, no matter what project you're on, no matter what your life situation is, no matter how long you've worked there -- and regardless of when the Big Project Is Launching.
It's natural to work in overdrive during the launch phase, but is just not that productive during any of the other phases.
With Facebook's breadth of products someone somewhere is always launching, so it's reasonable to assume that some employees are putting in 50-hour weeks for a short period of time.
http://pivotallabs.com/crunch-time/
If you are assigned more work than you can achive in 40 hours, yet only given 40 hours to do it in, you are either being set up for failure, or the company really does want you to work as many hours as it takes, but just not be so open about it.
I guess perspectives can be very different. I consider "Kool-Aid' you are referring to as plain insult to software engineering :).
Couple of years back Pivotallabs was preaching ideal pair programming. I am assuming it still does?
If two people using a single keyboard, single Monitor is so efficient how come CEO's and CFO's, aren't advised to use the same approach? Is it because Developers are just lineworkers with no individual creativity? I would never consider working at a company like that :).
We're hiring. If you want to see what it's like, apply. We use pair programming sessions as the core of our hiring process.
It's a straight up great place to work.
Personally, I agree with you: pair programming is not suitable for everyone. After a day of pairing I definitely want some quiet time.
We recently had an energetic internal discussion about whether we are simply selecting for extraversion in our process.
I suspect we're probably filtering out very strong introverts, but I've honestly seen a wide band of personalities. I've worked with men and women ranging from those who are chatty as I am, to the downright laconic. Some who want to socialise after work, to others like me who just want to go home for some personal time.
Typically at Pivotal we have a single Product Manager per product, who acts as the single decision point for how to prioritise the stories and bugs in the backlog.
This increases the odds that a clear product direction will emerge -- it avoids the mum and dad game. The Product Manager and the team do most of the planning for a week at an Iteration Planning Meeting, and the PM remains available during the week to answer questions, accept stories and to update priorities according to changing circumstances.
Once you know what to work on, it's important to build the system correctly, and to ensure that there is shared understanding of how it is going to work.
Pair programming with frequent rotations is an outstanding way to do that.
Incidentally, as it happens, I've seen Pivotal management pairing on management problems. And they retain the habits of communicating clearly, openly and frequently with each other and everyone else.
I've also seen Product Managers pairing as well, typically when we have provided a PM from Labs to work with, and help train, someone from the client who will take over as Product Manager.
Maybe I'm in the minority but I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. Past experience and accomplishments get you in the door but beyond that those things don't matter, the question should be: what are you doing now to bring value?
You sense wrong. Anyway, I don't disagree with your first point, and it doesn't refute mine.
The point here is that no-one should get extra "rank" just by being experienced. If that extra experience doesn't help you out-compete someone without it then you might as well not have it.
Is this a good time to bring up the Tyrany Of Structurelessness? http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm The observation is: if you pretend that you don't have a hierarchy, then your de facto hierarchies will be harder to see, harder to criticize, harder to improve.
This is reflected in the standard failure modes of agile process ( http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com/2014/09/why-scrum-should-ba... )
so, tell me - who actually makes decisions at Facebook?