London used to be the tech hub of Europe before Brexit (VC investment, # of tech positions, big tech presence etc). I lived/worked there for 5 years and it was great.
Still a good place... but Brexit is making EU engineers explore options outside the UK like this, one at a time:
As someone who has seen London tech at its prime, I think one of the biggest misses of the current UK government is not doing more to "retain" the London tech hub.
Dublin, Amsterdam, Barcelona, Berlin and other EU "hubs" are slowly, but surely pulling London EU folks away.
My response to "what is your take on choosing the next city?" was this:
"What will the next EU* tech hub be?"
*taking the UK out of EU.
My take: it should have been Paris... if they capitalized on it, and changed a bunch of policies (which they don't and won't).
Amsterdam & Dublin are the biggest winners, and plenty other gainers).
And here's an inbound DM on why Paris (sadly) is a place that will struggle to attract tech talent. Even though it has all many characteristics in location, size, population, transport to be a tech hub.
The language for tech is English, and in Paris you *need* to learn French.
A person weighing in (over a DM that I edited to remove personal details) on Barcelona.
And on how you should expect to (eventually) learn the local language either way. Which I agree with - I'm slowly improving my Dutch as well in Amsterdam.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Every now and then there's this prediction of when we will see the first one billion dollar company ran by one person...
... and I think back to how in 2016 there was this one product inside Uber that had crossed a $1B annual run rate that had a total of one dev allocated to it.
And half a data scientist (part-time).
It was cash.
Funny how headcount games can work inside fast-growing companies, especially when the product is a stated goal of what a founder does NOT want to support (but turns out to be essential!)
I only have second-hand details here but the story was along the lines of not being able to get official headcount (because when Uber was founded, no cash and no tipping were table stakes).
It only got funding after crossing the $1B landmark.
"We just fired an engineer after ~15 days on the job who lacked basics skills on the job but aced the interview - clearly, using cheat tools.
He admitted to how he did it: he used iAsk, ChatGPT and Interview Coder throughout"
(I personally talked with this person and know them well)
This company hired full remote without issue for years: this is the first proper shocker they have.
They are changing their process, of course. In-person interviews, in-part likely to be unavoidable.
As a first change, they have started to be lot more vigilant during remote interviews, and laying some "traps" that those using AI assistants will fall into.
Just by doing that they think about 10% of candidates are very visibly using these (they just stop interview processes with them)
I used Windsurf, but would work just as well with Cursor (and maybe VS Code as well now). Under the hood its all the same!
When setting up, took an hour to get it to work, thanks to my local npm + npx being out of date. Updated it and then worked fine.
The Windsurf MCP interface: just set up the Postgres one. But again behind the scenes its "just" an npm package that you can invoke from the command line as well! Which is the beauty of it
I'm starting to understand why there are company eng blogs not worth reading.
When doing a deepdive on an interesting company in @Pragmatic_Eng, we do research, talk with engineers, then share the draft back for any minor corrections. Usually it's a "LGTM." But sometimes:
Sometimes the Comms or Brand team gets actively involved, and mistakenly assume they are the editors, and attempt to rewrite the whole thing on how they would usually publish it on eg their blog.
Every time, it's a disaster to see, but also amusing. Because a good article becomes SO bad. Interesting details removed, branding elements added etc.
(We never allow edits - and if they insist we simply publish nothing, throwing out our research. This has not yet happened, but it might be the first time it will)
Btw here are some of the deepdives we did. In most cases, it was a "LGTM"
In other cases, we rejected edit attempts... because its not their engineering blog!
(The bigger the company the more sterile those edits can become, in general, btw.)
One thing that really bugs me about VCs and others projects claiming how AI will mean many devs redundant because smaller teams can do more with less: is ignoring the last.
Some of the most impactful / successful software was built by tiny teams in the 80s, 90s, 2000s. Like:
Microsoft’s first product in 1975 years ago: 2 devs
Quake in 1996: 9 devs
Google’s first search engine in 1998: 4 devs
We could go on.
Small teams with outstanding people doing great things happened before GenAI and will happen after as well (and without as well!)
What happened in all cases was the product got traction and there was more stuff to do that needed more outstanding people! So they hired more standout folks
The same will happen with GenAI: companies taking off thanks to using AI tools will hire more devs who can help them get more stuff done *using the right tools*. Some of those tools will be GenAI - but some of it not!
A good reminder why you can pick up GenAI - and you probably should. Real story:
Small company, 5 devs. Last time they hired was 12 years ago. AI comes out: company wants to add AI feature. But they don't have the expertise. So hire an AI agency.
Agency spend 3 months planning:
After 3 months, the present a very complex architecture to build: several services multiple databases, SageMaker models etc, using a language a company is not using (Python - this is a Java shop)
It will take 6-9 months to build
Operational costs will be higher fort this one feature than all of the SaaS operational costs for the company!
Lead dev who is close to retiring (and has been at the company for 25 years) thinks "this cannot be right, surely."
So he says "screw it." Reads up on GenAI, builds a few prototypes and tells company to drop the agency: they will build it in ~3-4 months, much faster and cheaper.