As a tech lead or eng manager, you so frequently get request from above or from other teams to drop what you are doing and work on this thing they need, *now*.
During my 4 years at Uber after asking these questions, 9 out of 10 times it turned out it wasn't really urgent:
1. "What is the impact of this work you're asking for?" If the impact is unclear: sorry, but we can't do the work. Why would we?
Just this question made the requester realize half the time they just think it's urgent, but don't know what the work will actually result in.
2. "Do you have a spec that is agreed with stakeholders?" A writeup answering the "why" and the "what" that is signed off by relevant business folks.
I've seen so much engineering work thrown out as later the business goes "that's not what we wanted, why didn't you tell us?"
3. "We're not committing to any work before we have done a rough estimation."
With #1 and #2 done, many stakeholders will come and say "drop what you're doing, this is a 3-day work we need ASAP."
Hold your horses. You don't make estimates: the team doing the work does...
4. Make the cost of dropping what you're doing very clear.
This cost is always forgotten by the person coming with the request. But it's a relevant one: wrapping up work, onboarding to the new work, then later onboarding to the old work. Plus a hit on morale for a sudden change!
Uber has some very hectic times when there were reasons we needed to do some new work ASAP. Like a regulation change that means the company would be banned from operating in a region if not building something.
Even in such a place, most "urgent" things turned out to be noise.
The way I always approached these requests was to educate the person coming with them, and have them realize their work is actually not as urgent or as important or as impactful of what the team is already doing.
Doing so meant building empathy both ways, and less hard feelings.
A huge upside of this approach: when committing, you *can* commit with a very high certainty that you will not be interrupted with your work.
The alternative: take on this "super urgent" work, then someone else comes along saying " I need you to drop what you are doing *now*..."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
My personal anecdote on the impact of AI (aka Claude Code + Cursor)
There was this tool I wanted to build that would have helped my business a little bit at @Pragmatic_Eng, but not enough to
1. Do it myself (would have taken ~days) 2. Hire someone (too much onboarding)
But...
... but then I gave it a go with Claude Code + Cursor open.
In 30 minutes, I had something promising. In an hour, I got it done, exactly how I wanted (this was an addition to my existing codebase.) In another hour, I moved it over to a new stack I've been wanting to play with!
... and now it's done, and I've onboarded the first company on to this feature.
Here's the thing without this AI tool, I don't think I would have EVER done it! Not worth it.
So I think AI tools will do this. People + companies doing stuff they wouldn't have, before!
Linear has a 30-minute weekly meeting called "Quality Wednesdays." I sat through one and WOW
Devs show a quality or perf-related fix they did last week. It can be big, or small. We went through 17 issues, from massive backend performance wins, to this tiny one. Can you see it?
On one end, it was super casual. On the other, it was really dense.
A dev spent 2 minutes showing how because styled-components *feels* slow, they tried out 3 other frameworks & measured how they compare for build time, JS bundle size, CSS size, and LCP rendering performance.
Based on this, they'll probably move off styled components... mainly for LCP rendering for massive pages to be faster. But it's all tradeoffs.
And it could really be *anything.* Some devs showed work they picked up as reported by users that resulted in higher quality.
Most devs though found a small thing or two to fix last week. That first bug (off by 1px) was found and fixed by a frontend engineer.
Lots of small but irritating things fixed like moving the mouse over an element takes a small delay to show the tooltip, or the tooltip first shows as empty etc
Amusing use of LLMs at a more traditional company:
“A project with ~50 people got stuck. There are too many JIRA tickets, no clear specification, and anytime one team tries to make progress, the others shoot it down.
So a dev built an LLM to try and break the deadlock: (cont’d)
- Fed all JIRA tickets to the LLM. Built a basic RAG with vector DB
- Had it generate questions about the project, about topics not covered by the tickets
- Had the LLM attempt to answer the same questions
- Generated a report of what areas are not specified
- Tried to use this to stop teams rejecting suggestions “because this is not well specified”
A PM at this company told me this story. Asked him if this LLM helped break the deadlock? His response:
“No. We’re still stuck. But it was good fun to build it and an excuse to play around with vector databases!”
Regarding the Windsurf sale (part of the team acquihired by Google, prob a great exit, but not all the team):
I feel we’re forgetting well-funded startups today are NOT scrappy startups in the past where employees work for pennies, paid well under market.
Its a different game
What is true, and always has been true: founders and decision makers always have the biggest potential upside - for anything! Including negotiating and acquisition.
This is why so many accomplished employees eventually become founders - because its hoe you have more control of your destiny
It still stings to have some people get much better outcomes during an acquisition.
It’s a reminder that as an employee, you really don’t have leverage beyond hoping founders look out for you… sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t
There was this engineer on my team a while back who was: a good dev, but not the best dev. Got everything done. But had zero ego, a very nice personality, and got along with *everyone* on the team very well.
When he joined, the team became... better. Nicer. More balanced.
I just got a reference check about this dev, asking the usual questions ("what is an example where they delivered over and beyond," "how did they execute", "what are growth areas" etc)
He did fine on all of them, but I still think how much better he made my team. With stuff that's hard/impossible to measure!
Makes me realize how hiring is not focused on this stuff: "how would this person make the team better."
I guess, it is hard to be focused on this.
But this was one of the *very* rare devs who made every team much better. Nicer. More motivated. More a "team."
So predictable that we’ll see an explosion of digital products selling “ideas for million dollar businesses” that you can “just vibe code quickly”.
Basically: “buy my digital product for $500, spend $1,500 on Lovable / Claude Code and become a millionaire.”
Another hype train
Ofc these products promoted by influencers will work just as well as crypto sh*tcoins launched by influencers in 2023.
We’ll see doctored evidence (“someone who built one of ideas idea is at $5K MRR after 2 weeks”) and nontechnical people will spend thousands for $0 in return
The predictable winners: AI infra companies! Lovable, Vercel (with v0), Claude Code, Cursor, Replit, Gemini and any and all products that (at least partially) position themselves as “AI tools to build your idea that work even if you’re not a developer”
And it’s stated. A gold rush where - and the surest winners are those selling the shovels!