Combined with now-rampant NIMBY-ism from the last generation to enjoy tax-funded higher ed, spiraling property costs mean the dream of owning a reasonable home and starting a family is a receding vision.
The "way up" is "supposed to be" tech -- one of the few industries often paying enough to get you a slice of California. And for the lucky few, it absolutely is.
But the path to that is brutal.
The dull pain of 1.5+ hour bus commutes and ridiculous hours are numbed only by remembering how lucky you are to be on that bus at all. What's bad for you is *terrible* for the rest of the state.
Why isn't this widespread pain a crisis that management is furiously trying to solve?
It's a deep question, with unsatisfying answers, but know that the pay scale isn't linear upwards; it's exponential.
Every promotion is another step to join the Landed Executive Class.
Folks like Urs have been been wealthy enough, long enough, that their commutes aren't 1.5 hours.
As a class, the Landed Executives do not experience this pain. They do not ride busses. They are close enough to bike. They can afford "help" and private schools _in Palo Alto_.
And so everyone getting hired in at L3/L4 is wrenched between a promotion system that offers a (fleeting) chance to tough it out long enough to rise to a point where, in one's late 30s, they can afford enough space for a family...or not.
The pay is good, and the benefits are great, but it's not anything like self-actualization. That requires Director+ money. Until then? Get on the bus and watch house prices spiral further away every year from your choppy wifi.
Now, imagine one of the Landed Executive Class -- a group that pours *tons* of lobbying money towards reducing your Mega Corp's tax bill -- gives up on the dream. Moves away. So wealthy and (in your world) powerful they don't even *need* the Palo Alto house...
Are they funding an full-court press to fix the NIMBY causes of the solution? Nah. Are they gonna let you have the same flexibility?
Hrmm....
So you've gotta be in the Bay Area, else there's no way up. Something something "creative teams" something something "open plan" something something.
Now add absolutely _killing it_ for the COVID year, despite being fully remote.
Managers who aren't viscerally in touch with just how seething their folks are for the shit they've been asked to gin-and-bear for years should stop and think very, very carefully about their next move.
And whatever you do, don't take liberties you won't extend to your L4s.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
My contention for something like a decade has been that if your tree is closed for half the year, you're "kept source", regardless of the license code eventually drops with:
It *is true* that working across layers is a key trait of highly effective engineers. Respecting those who do it on the client is good.
The idea that one must "graduate" to the back end carries the same stench as every overconfidently presented "full stack" failure I trace.
Front-end demands humility because it is *different* and, in key respects, *harder*.
There's an asymmetric hubris here: those of us who work the client don't tell back-enders that their work is trivial. Nor do we gate-keep the "full stack" crowd, no matter how poorly they do.
The cognitive dissonance of anti-web and anti-choice rules made & justified because device resource scarcity [1] against the marketing of ALL POWERFUL CPUs [2] is dizzying.
For a sense of scale, when the anti-choice, anti-web rules were laid down, Apple's fastest device was the iPhone 3G; a single-core, 32bit, in-order, ~400MHz chip attached to 128MiB of system memory.
Today, the slowest device you can buy directly from Apple is based on the A12...
The A12 is a 64 bit, 6-core, 2-and-change-GHz part with ~~8MiB of L2 cache~~ attached to 3GiB of RAM in the most resource-impoverished device Apple markets today:
Trying again: Apple's iOS store shenanigans include a subtle & unique catch-22 journalists should grok:
- when apps violate policy, Apple says "use the web"
- ...except every iOS browser is required to use Apple's engine...
- ...and it's Apple keeps it year behind
This is hidden from view because no iOS browser maker dares to submit a browser that shows a "this isn't _real_ Firefox" (e.g.) banner...because what is the user supposed to do? Buy a new phone? They also can't afford to be cut off from all the world's rich users.
But why is Apple's engine & browser years behind?
Because Apple doesn't fund the WebKit team with anything like the headcount they'd need to keep up. And let's keep in mind that this isn't down to some sort of cash crunch.
Now imagine a world where Apple hadn't cut off the web at the knees and the things we regularly do on Android were possible, e.g.: WebGL 2, WASM threads (soon), Audio Worklets, large media storage, prompted PWA install, push notifications -- not to mention the upcoming stuff...