google reader refugee.
1661 stories
·
40 followers

get a new job with this massive discount on the Ask a Manager job-searching bible

2 Shares

how to get a jobLooking for a job?

For the next few days, I’m offering a discount on
my e-book, How to Get a Job: Secrets of a Hiring Manager. Use this discount code today for a massive 40% discount: newjob

If you’ve ever wished that you could look into the brain of a hiring manager to find out what you need to do to get hired, this is for you. Written from my perspective as a long-time hiring manager, this e-book gives you step-by-step guidance through every stage of your job search … explaining at each step what a hiring manager is thinking and what they want to see from you … from getting noticed initially, to nailing the interview, to navigating the tricky post-interview period, all the way through your offer.

You’ll learn things like:

  • what hiring managers are looking for when they ask common interview questions
  • how to talk about sensitive issues when you interview — firings, bad bosses, and more
  • how to avoid companies that aren’t a good fit
  • 6 ways you might be sabotaging your job search
  • 2 ways you can turn rejection to your advantage

Here are some things readers have said after purchasing it:

“This morning my husband had an interview. I bugged him for over a week about reading your guide and he ignored me. Yesterday, I twisted his arm and finally got him to read it. He liked the advice so much he read it a second time. He really took it seriously and followed all of the advice you gave … He just called me to tell me the interview was done and that it had been the best interview he had ever had.” — Kim J.

“I used to have 50/50 luck getting past phone interviews and into the actual in-person interview. Once I read your book, I went 100% in getting past the phone interview, and I was ALWAYS in the top running for every position since then. I absolutely know it was because of your advice in the book. I could just feel the quality of my interviews go up exponentially after I read it.” — Russell B.

“I just received an offer for an excellent position, and your advice helped me clinch it. I never had a more relaxed interview, and my interviewers were all smiles the entire time. I literally had an offer before I made it back to my car.” — Kat S.

Get your copy with your 40% off discount code (newjob) now!

get a new job with this massive discount on the Ask a Manager job-searching bible was originally published by Alison Green on Ask a Manager.

Read the whole story
pfctdayelise
8 hours ago
reply
Melbourne, Australia
Share this story
Delete

A poem about Silicon Valley, assembled from Quora questions about Silicon Valley

2 Shares
"Why has crowdfunding not worked for me? Is it worth pre-ordering a Tesla Model 3?"  
Read the whole story
pfctdayelise
5 days ago
reply
Melbourne, Australia
Share this story
Delete

The Revelations of Lady Murderface

1 Share
Backchannel on the whistleblower who outed low pay at Yelp, which led to raises after her firing  
Read the whole story
pfctdayelise
5 days ago
reply
Melbourne, Australia
Share this story
Delete

A New Play Will Scramble Your View of How Language Means, Mystifies, and Falls Short    

2 Comments and 3 Shares

How can we come together if all our words are corrupt? Revolt. She Said. Revolt Again., by British playwright Alice Birch, poses that question in ways that are fascinating even if you can’t make it to a performance at Soho Rep in Manhattan. (If you can, though, do.) The play, having its U.S. premiere, is a puckish, yet deadly serious serious, meditation on how language molds our experience of sex and gender, a scalding cascade of interconnected vignettes exploring words and their limits.

Start with the script, a flat notation of actors’ voices, a dead thing.

“There should be at least one female character (that should probably be played by a female actor) in every scene,” the first page insists. The instructions march on: A dash indicates a change in speaker (the script refuses to assign particular lines to particular characters), words in square brackets are not spoken. “Most importantly,” Birch writes, “this play should not be well behaved.”

It’s a sly nod to the prompt that accompanied the Royal Shakespeare Company’s commission in 2014: that, per American historian Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, “well-behaved women seldom make history.” Birch and the RSC envisioned Revolt as counterprogramming to the company’s deeply male, Henry IV –centric summer lineup -centric summer line up . With its dissolving structure, actors who are encouraged to stumble over and forget their lines, and radical politics, Revolt stands for everything that Shakespeare’s paean to celestial and earthly order is not. Robert Frost once suggested that a poem, “like a piece of ice on a hot stove,” must “ride on its own melting.” Revolt has the subversive and poetic desire to unmake itself before our eyes.

Directed with anarchic gusto by Lileana Blain-Cruz, Soho Rep’s production features three women, Molly Bernard, Eboni Booth, and Jennifer Ikeda, all excellent, and one man, Daniel Abeles, magnetized in his doofy good looks to power tides of misandrist rage. Each stand-alone scene presents a kind of linguistic puzzle, a case study in language failing to do what it’s supposed to. Usually that breakdown disadvantages women, though men can be casualties as well.

The first sketch opens midseduction, mid-seduction, as two people murmur about how they want to pleasure each other. He plans to “make love to” her, but she prefers that he “make love with” her. She starts to say she will “take” her vagina; he interrupts that you cannot “take” a vagina because a vagina is a gap. “I’m pushing,” he begins again, and she resists serving as his grammatical and sexual object. “I am completely wrenching you and I am jumping you and hiding you and chomping down upon you!” she explodes. “I am blanketing and locking you and draining the life of you with my massive, structured, beautifully built, almighty vagina!”

The date does not end well.

Birch’s opening puzzle underscores how language shapes reality—how different words can describe and inform the same thing. Her second deconstructionist game showcases the same words signifying different things. Scene 2 transports us to the wreckage following a man’s marriage proposal. He and his girlfriend sit on the floor, looking shell-shocked. “I just told you I loved you,” he says. “I want to have a life with you … I just said that I just wanted to commit to you.” “No,” she replies. “You essentially said you wanted to reduce your income tax.”

To understand each other, we need our language to be pure, and yet it reeks with motive, insinuation, history. How can we join together if all our words, our invitations to marriage, our romantic overtures, are polluted? Birch explores both the careless phrasing of the proposer and, elsewhere, those who extrapolate overtones and connotations instead of taking communication at face value. In the third scene, an employee tells her boss over and over that she would like Mondays off. He will not hear it, and evades her explicit meaning by inferring subtexts she never intended: “So you’re saying you want to bring your dogs to work?” “OK, is it cancer?”

The stakes rise as Birch’s neat schoolroom demonstrations of linguistic failure admit more and more violence. Words and bodies blur together. Now a woman “speaks” with her naked form, lying down in the fruit aisle of a grocery store amid stacks of ripe melons. “Where my body stops and the air around it starts has felt a little like this long continuous line of a battleground for about my whole life,” she says. But “there are borders here no more. … more… Because there is no in to come into, you cannot overpower it. Because I have given it you cannot rape it.”

By Act 2, the discrete scenes have followed her lead, melting their edges to form an unbroken, disorienting narrative. In a polyphonic, breakneck finale, the cast wheels through a fantasia of female stereotypes and gender memes: police harassment, porn stars, body image. Revolt imagines people as embodied verbal signs: “She’s … adjectives,” “She’s…adjectives,” one character says helplessly of another. When our words get messy, so do the proprieties by which we live our lives. Somehow, Birch argues, we need to liberate language, lift it off the page. And yet it may be too late for these tainted relics, the rotten fragments of a vocabulary that for centuries doubled as a prison.

Actually, the play doesn’t equivocate about that last point. Revolt’s crescendo of demented femininity ends in a tremendous explosion, replete with epileptically flashing lights and smoke flowing into the audience. It’s not hard to imagine Birch’s script immolated in the apocalyptic reset, the show consuming its own words in order to set the actors free. In retrospect, the description of such a play as “not well behaved” falls hilariously short of the mark. But what else would you expect from language?   

Read the whole story
pfctdayelise
6 days ago
reply
Melbourne, Australia
Share this story
Delete
2 public comments
sirshannon
6 days ago
reply
I know at least one local group that should perform this play.
gangsterofboats
6 days ago
reply
So, not a play then.

you are reading way too much into things employers say to you

1 Share

Most job seekers have a terrible habit of reading waymore into things employers say than what’s actually meant. That’s understandable — job seeking can be anxiety-producing, and it’s natural to try to find clues about your candidacy.

But this tendency to try to read between the lines or take things far too literally can make job searching much more frustrating and disappointing.

A few years ago, I did a round-up of ways that people commonly misinterpret things their interview might say. Here are some additions.

What the employer says: You’re a really great fit for this job.
What you hear: We are highly likely to hire you, and possibly even entirely certain.
What they mean: You’re a good candidate. There will probably be other good candidates too, maybe some who are stronger, but you’re in that general group.

What the employer says: I’m looking forward with talking with you more.
What you hear: We will definitely be talking more, either when you advance to another interview or when we call to make you a job offer.
What they mean: We might talk more, if you move forward in the hiring process.

What the employer says: You’re a finalist for this job.
What you hear: You’re about to get an offer.
What they mean: We’ve narrowed down our candidate pool, and you’re still in it — but so are several other people, and we have not made a decision yet.

What the employer says: This is where your office would be.
What you hear: Here’s your new office! You’ll get a job offer soon.
What they mean: If you get the job, this would be your office. We show it to most/all candidates as a routine part of the interviews.

What the employer says: 

We’re talking with other candidates but should have a decision in a couple of weeks.
What you hear:I’m trying to let you down easy here.
What they mean:We’re talking with other candidates but should have a decision in a couple of weeks. I’m not trying to indicate anything about your candidacy; I’m giving you process information.What the employer says:

You’re not the right fit.
What you hear:We don’t like you, or you wouldn’t fit in with our culture because you are too old/too young/too quiet/too loud/too something/not enough something. Ugh, you’re awful or maybe we’re awful.
What they mean: We are rejecting you for reasons that could range anywhere from not liking you, to thinking you’d be unhappy here, to someone else having better qualifications, to deciding to hire the CEO’s niece. We’re just not hiring you, and there’s no clue here about the reason why.

What the employer says: Your credentials are impressive. (said in a rejection note)
What you hear: They were really impressed by me. (This often leads to bitterness, because if all these employers are so impressed by you, why aren’t they hiring you?)
What they mean: We are rejecting you, and your credentials may or may not be impressive. This is the normal boilerplate rejection language that we use with all candidates.

you are reading way too much into things employers say to you was originally published by Alison Green on Ask a Manager.

Read the whole story
pfctdayelise
6 days ago
reply
Melbourne, Australia
Share this story
Delete

Programming blogs

1 Comment and 2 Shares

This is one of those “N technical things every programmer must read” lists, except that “programmer” is way too broad a term and the styles of writing people find helpful for them are too different for any such list to contain a non-zero number of items (if you want the entire list to be helpful to everyone). So here’s a list of some things you might want to read, and why you might (or might not) want to read them.

Alex Clemmer

This post on why making a competitor to Google search is a post in classic Alex Clemmer style. The post looks at a position that’s commonly believed (web search isn’t all that hard and someone should come up with a better Google) and explains why that’s not an obviously correct position. That’s also a common theme of his comments elsewhere, such as these comments on, stack ranking at MS, implementing POSIX on Windows, the size of the Windows codebase, and Bing.

There’s a lot of depth behind these comments and I’m hoping I can goad Alex into blogging more about these and other comments.

Allison Kaptur

Explorations of various areas, often Python related, such as this this series on the Python interpreter and this series on the CPython peephole optimizer. Also, thoughts on broader topics like debugging and learning.

Often detailed, with inline code that’s meant to be read an understood (with the help of exposition that’s genereally quite clear).

Chris Fenton

Computer related projects, by which I mean things like reconstructing the Cray-1A and building mechanical computers. Rarely updated, presumably due to the amount of work that goes into the creations, but almost always interesting.

The blog posts tend to be high-level, more like pitch decks than design docs, but there’s often source code available if you want more detail.

Code Words

This is a quarterly publication from RC. Posts vary from floating point implementations in various languages to how git works to image processing.

I wonder why web publications like this don’t get more press. There’s been a bit of a revival lately, and we’ve seen plenty of high quality publications, from high-profile efforts like The Macro to unpublisized gems like Snowsuit, but you don’t really see people talking about these much. Or I don’t, anyway.

Dan McKinley

A lot of great material on how engineering companies should be run. He has a lot of ideas that sound like common sense, e.g., choose boring technology, until you realize that it’s actually uncommon to find opinions that are so sensible.

Mostly distilled wisdom (as opposed to, say, detailed explanations of code).

David Dalrymple

A mix of things from writing a 64-bit kernel from scratch shortly after learning assembly to a high-level overview of computer systems. Rarely updated, with few posts, but each post has a lot to think about.

Eli Bendersky

I think of this as “the C++ blog”, but it’s much wider ranging that that. It’s too wide ranging for me to sum up, but if I had to commit to a description I might say that it’s a collection of deep dives into various topics, often (but not always) relatively low-level, along with short blurbs about books, often (but not always) technical.

The book reviews tend to be easy reading, but the programming blog posts are often a mix of code and exposition that really demands your attention; usually not a light read.

Evan Jones

A wide variety of bite-sized technical tidbits, from how integer division behavior varies by language to data corruption that isn’t corrected by Ethernet or TCP checksums. Usually bite-sized and easily read.

EPITA Systems Lab

Low-level. A good example of a relatively high-level post from this blog is this post on the low fragmentation heap in Windows. Posts like how to hack a pinball machine and how to design a 386 compatible dev board are typical.

Posts are often quite detailed, with schematic/circuit diagrams. This is relatively heavy reading and I try to have pen and paper handy when I’m reading this blog.

Fabrice Bellard

Not exactly a blog, but every time a new project appears on the front page, it’s amazing. Some examples are QEMU, FFMPEG, a 4G LTE base station that runs on a PC, a javascript PC emulator that can boot Linux, etc.

Gary Bernhardt

Another “not exactly a blog”, but it’s more informative than most blogs, not to mention more entertaining. This is the best “blog” on the pervasive brokenness of modern software that I know of.

Greg Wilson

Writeups of papers that (should) have an impact on how people write software, like this paper on what causes failures in distributed systems or this paper on what makes people feel productive. Not updated much, but Greg still blogs on his personal site.

The posts tend to be extended abstracts that tease you into reading the paper, rather than detailed explanations of the methodology and results.

Gustavo Duarte

Explanations of how Linux works, as well as other low-level topics. This particular blog seems to be on hiatus, but “0xAX” seems to have picked up the slack with the linux-insides project.

If you’ve read Love’s book on Linux, Duarte’s explanations are similar, but tend to be more about the idea and less about the implementation. They’re also heavier on providing diagrams and context. “0xAX” is a lot more focused on walking through the code than either Love or Duarte.

Jessica Kerr

Jessica is probably better known for her talks than her blog? Her talks are great! My favorite is probably this talk with explains different concurrency models in an easy to understand way, but the blog also has a lot of material I like.

As is the case with her talks, the diagrams often take a concept and clarify it, making something that wasn’t obvious seem very obvious in retrospect.

John Regehr

I think of this as the “C is harder than you think, even if you think C is really hard” blog, although the blog actually covers a lot more than that. Some commonly covered topics are fuzzing, compiler optimization, and testing in general.

Posts tend to be conceptual. There’s often code as examples, but the code it tends to be light and easy to read, making Regehr’s blog a relatively smooth and this a relatively easy read even though it covers a lot of important ideas.

Juho Snellman

A lot of posts about networking, generally written so that they make sense even with minimal networking background. I wish more people with this kind of knowledge (in depth knowledge of systems, not just networking knowledge in particular) would write up explanations for a general audience. Also has interesting non-networking content, like this post on Finnish elections.

Julia Evans

AFAICT, the theme is “things Julia has learned recently”, which can be anything from Huffman coding to how to be happy when working in a remote job. When the posts are on a topic I don’t already know, I learn something new. When they’re on a topic I know, they remind me that the topic is exciting and contains a lot of wonder and mystery.

Many posts have more questions than answers, and are more of a live-blogged exploration of a topic than an explanation of the topic.

Kamal Marhubi

Technical explorations of various topics, with a systems-y bent. Kubernetes. Git push. Syscalls in Rust. Also, some musings on programming in general.

The technical explorations often get into enough nitty gritty detail that this is something you probably want to sit down to read, as opposed to skim on your phone.

Kyle Kingsbury

90% of Kyle’s posts are explanations of distributed systems testing, which expose bugs in real systems that most of us rely on. The other 10% are musings on programming that are as rigorous as Kyle’s posts on distributed systems. Possibly the most educational programming blog of all time.

For those of us without a distributed systems background, understanding posts often requires a bit of Googling, despite the exensive explanations in the posts.

Marek Majkowski

This used to be a blog about random experiments Marek was doing, like this post on bitsliced SipHash. Since Marek joined Cloudflare, this has turned into a list of things Marek has learned while working in Cloudflare’s networking stack, like this story about debugging slow downloads.

Posts tend to be relatively short, but with enough technical specifics that they’re not light reads.

Mary Rose Cook

Lengthy and very-detailed explanations of technical topics, mixed in with a wide variety of other posts.

The selection of topics is eclectic, and explained at a level of detail such that you’ll come away with a solid understanding of the topic. The explanations are usually fine grained enough that it’s hard to miss what’s going on, even if you’re a beginner programmer.

Nitsan Wakart

More than you ever wanted to know about writing fast code for the JVM, from GV affects data structures to the subtleties of volatile reads.

Posts tend to involve lots of Java code, but the takeaways are often language agnostic.

Oona Raisanen

Adventures in signal processing. Everything from deblurring barcodes to figuring out what those signals from helicopters mean. If I’d known that signals and systems could be this interesting, I would have paid more attention in class.

Paul Khuong

Some content on Lisp, and some on low-level optimizations, with a trend towards low-level optimizations.

Posts are usualy relatively long and self-contained explanations of technical ideas with very little fluff.

Rachel Kroll

Years of debugging stories from a long-time SRE, along with strories about big company nonsense. The stories often have details that make them sound like they come from Google, but anyone who’s worked at Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, or another large company will find them familiar.

This reminds me a bit of Google’s SRE book, except that the content is ordered chronologically instead of by topic, and it’s conveyed through personal stories rather than impersonal case studies.

Russell Smith

Homemade electronics projects from vim on a mechanical typewriter to building an electrobalance to proof spirits.

Posts tend to have a fair bit of detail, down to diagrams explaining parts of circuits, but the posts aren’t as detailed as specs. But there are usually links to resources that will teach you enough to reproduce the project, if you want.

Steve Yegge

This is one of the few programming blogs where I regularly go back and re-read posts from the archive. I learn something new every time. Posts span the entire stack, from how individual programmers can improve at programming to how orgs can improve at recruiting. I re-read that last post before posting the link here and this bit jumped out:

Well, in case you hadn’t noticed, they’re kicking our butts at recruiting. Even in our own backyard. Professor Ed Lazowska at the University of Washington told us last year that Google’s getting about 3 times as many UW hires as we are. A candidate at last week’s recruiting trip told me that of the nine or ten students he considered to be the best programmers at the UW, about half of them went to Google; only two went to Amazon, and the rest went to “no-name” places.

Actually, his story had one more interesting tidbit: he said that although Microsoft is considered one of the top three places to work by the UW CS students (along with Google and Amazon), he claims that Microsoft is hiring lots of mediocre programmers. He said they gave offers to a whole bunch of programmers who he knows aren’t any good — and this guy was my strongest interviewee of the trip, so I was inclined to trust his judgement. He said that in his eyes, this disqualified Microsoft as a potential employer.

That’s not to say we don’t lose candidates to Microsoft. We do! Microsoft has determined that Amazon is very good at talent assessment, but crappy at selling the candidates and clinching the deal. So when Microsoft hears from a candidate that they’ve got a full-time offer from us, Microsoft doesn’t even interview the person. They take the candidate for a ride in the company hummer, have execs wine and dine them, let them spend the day with the team they’re going to join, show them the private office with a door they’ll get so they can concentrate on innovation… it’s a straight sell job after we’ve made an offer.

This is exactly what happened to me with Microsoft – I had a number of offers from other companies (though not Amazon), and someone from Microsoft called me up and sold me on Microsoft. I technically had an interview, but the interview was basically a sales job. Basically every time I re-read a Steve Yegge post, I notice that the post reflects some recent experience of mine.

Ted Unangst

A mix of technical posts about security and BSD and commentary on how broken software is. Some examples of the latter are this post on automation failure and this post on how Netflix handles CDs.

Even when there’s code, the posts tend to be about a high-level idea that just happens to be illustrated by the code, which makes this a lighter read than you’d expect from sheer amount of code.

Rebecca Frankel

As far as I know, Rebecca doesn’t have a programming blog, but if you look at her apparently off-the-cuff comments on other people’s posts as a blog, it’s one of the best written programming blogs out there. She used to be prolific on Piaw’s Buzz (and probably elsewhere, although I don’t know where), and you occasionally see comments elsewhere, like on this Steve Yegge blog post about brilliant engineers1. I wish I could write like that.

RWT

This isn’t updated anymore, but I find the archives to be fun reading for insight into what people were thinking about microprocessors and computer architecture over the past two decades. It can be a bit depressing to see that the same benchmarking contreversies we had 15 years ago are being repeated today, sometimes with the same players. If anything, I’d say that the average benchmark you see passed around today is worse than what you would have seen 15 years ago, even though the industry as a whole has learned a lot about benchmarking since then.

Vyacheslav Egorov

In-depth explanations on how V8 works and how various constructs get optimized by a compiler dev on the V8 team. If I knew compilers were this interesting, I would have taken a compilers class back when I was in college.

Often takes topics that are considered hard and explains them in a way that makes them seem easy. Lots of diagrams, where appropriate, and detailed exposition on all the tricky bits.

Yossi Kreinin

Mostly dormant since the author started doing art, but the archives have a lot of great content about hardware, low-level software, and general programming-related topics that aren’t strictly programming.

90% of the time, when I get the desire to write a post about a common misconception software folks have about hardware, Yossi has already written the post and taken a lot of flak for it so I don’t have to :-).

I also really like Yossi’s career advice, like this response to Patrick McKenzie and this post on how managers get what they want and not what they ask for.

This blog?

Common themes include:

I still sort of can’t believe that anyone reads my writing on purpose. If I had to think of one flattering thing to about my blog, it would be that even though my blog posts are often substantially longer than Steve Yegge’s, I have literally not seen a single person complain about the length in internet comments. I expect that’s a self-defeating prophecy, though :-).

The end

Note that this list is relatively tilted towards blogs I find to be underrated. So it doesn’t include, for example, the high scalability blog, mechanical sympathy, or Patrick McKenzie even though I think they’re great. In that case, you You might say that it’s strange that I have folks like Steve Yegge and Kyle Kingsbury listed. What I can say? I still consider them underrated. This list also doesn’t include blogs that mostly aren’t about programming, so it doesn’t include, for example, Ben Kuhn’s excellent blog.

Anyway, that’s all for now, but this list is pretty much off the top of my head, so I’ll add more as more blogs come to mind. I’ll also keep this list updated with what I’m reading as I find new blogs. Please please please suggest other blogs I might like, and don’t assume that I already know about a blog because it’s popular. Just for example, I had no idea who either Jeff Atwood or Zed Shaw were until a few years ago, and were and still are probably two of the most well known programming bloggers in existence. Even with centralized link aggregators like HN and reddit, blog discovery has become haphazard and random with the decline of blogrolls and blogging as a dialogue rather than a monologue. Also, please don’t assume that I don’t want to read something just because it’s different from the kind of blog I normally read. I’d love to read more from UX or front-end folks; I just don’t know where to find that kind of thing! blogging as conversation and blogrolls.

This post was inspired by the two posts Julia Evans has on blogs she reads and by the Chicago undergraduate mathematics bilbiography, which I’ve found to be the most useful set of book reviews I’ve ever encoutered.


  1. Quote follows below, since I can see from my analytics data that relatively few people click any individual link, and people seem especially unlikely to click a link to read a comment on a blog, even if the comment is great:

    The key here is “principally,” and that I am describing motivation, not self-evaluation. The question is, what’s driving you? What gets you working? If its just trying to show that you’re good, then you won’t be. It has to be something else too, or it won’t get you through the concentrated decade of training it takes to get to that level.

    Look at the history of the person we’re all presuming Steve Yegge is talking about. He graduated (with honors) in 1990 and started at Google in 1999. So he worked a long time before he got to the level of Google’s star. When I was at Google I hung out on Sunday afternoons with a similar superstar. Nobody else was reliably there on Sunday; but he always was, so I could count on having someone to talk to. On some Sundays he came to work even when he had unquestionably legitimate reasons for not feeling well, but he stillcame to work. Why didn’t he go home like any normal person would? It wasn’t that he was trying to prove himself; he’d done that long ago. What was driving him?

    The only way I can describe it is one word: fury. What was he doing every Sunday? He was reviewing various APIs that were being proposed as standards by more junior programmers, and he was always finding things wrong with them. What he would talk about, or rather, rage about, on these Sunday afternoons was always about some idiocy or another that someone was trying make standard, and what was wrong with it, how it had to be fixed up, etc, etc. He was always in a high dudgeon over it all.

    What made him come to work when he was feeling sick and dizzy and nobody, not even Larry and Sergey with their legendary impatience, not even them, I mean nobody would have thought less of him if he had just gone home & gone to sleep? He seemed to be driven, not by ambition, but by fear that if he stopped paying attention, something idiotically wrong (in his eyes) might get past him, and become the standard, and that was just unbearable, the thought made him so incoherently angry at the sheer wrongness of it, that he had to stay awake and prevent it from happening no matter how legitimately bad he was feeling at the time.

    It made me think of Paul Graham’s comment: “What do I mean by good people? One of the best tricks I learned during our startup was a rule for deciding who to hire. Could you describe the person as an animal?… I mean someone who takes their work a little too seriously; someone who does what they do so well that they pass right through professional and cross over into obsessive.

    What it means specifically depends on the job: a salesperson who just won’t take no for an answer; a hacker who will stay up till 4:00 AM rather than go to bed leaving code with a bug in it; a PR person who will cold-call New York Times reporters on their cell phones; a graphic designer who feels physical pain when something is two millimeters out of place.”

    I think a corollary of this characterization is that if you really want to be “an animal,” what you have cultivate in yourself is partly ambition, but it is partly also self-knowledge. As Paul Graham says, there are different kinds of animals. The obsessive graphic designer might be unconcerned about an API that is less than it could be, while the programming superstar might pass by, or create, a terrible graphic design without the slightest twinge of misgiving.

    Therefore, key question is: are you working on the thing you care about most? If its wrong, is it unbearable to you? Nothing but deep seated fury will propel you to the level of a superstar. Getting there hurts too much; mere desire to be good is not enough. If its not in you, its not in you. You have to be propelled by elemental wrath. Nothing less will do.

    Or it might be in you, but just not in this domain. You have to find what you care about, and not just what you care about, but what you care about violently: you can’t fake it.

    (Also, if you do have it in you, you still have to choose your boss carefully. No matter how good you are, it may not be trivial to find someone you can work for. There’s more to say here; but I’ll have to leave it for another comment.)

    Another clarification of my assertion “if you’re wondering if you’re good, then you’re not” should perhaps be said “if you need reassurance from someone else that you’re good, then you’re not.” One characteristic of these “animals” is that they are such obsessive perfectionists that their own internal standards so far outstrip anything that anyone else could hold them to, that no ordinary person (i.e. ordinary boss) can evaluate them. As Steve Yegge said, they don’t go for interviews. They do evaluate each other – at Google the superstars all reviewed each other’s code, reportedly brutally – but I don’t think they cared about the judgments of anyone who wasn’t in their circle or at their level.

    I agree with Steve Yegge’s assertion that there are an enormously important (small) group of people who are just on another level, and ordinary smart hardworking people just aren’t the same. Here’s another way to explain why there should be a quantum jump – perhaps I’ve been using this discussion to build up this idea: its the difference between people who are still trying to do well on a test administered by someone else, and the people who have found in themselves the ability to grade their own test, more carefully, with more obsessive perfectionism, than anyone else could possibly impose on them.

    School, for all it teaches, may have one bad lasting effect on people: it gives them the idea that good people get A’s on tests, and better ones get A+’s on tests, and the very best get A++’s. Then you get the idea that you go out into the real world, and your boss is kind of super-professor, who takes over the grading of the test. Joel Spolsky is accepting that role, being boss as super-professor, grading his employees tests for them, telling them whether they are good.

    But the problem is that in the real world, the very most valuable, most effective people aren’t the ones who are trying to get A+++’s on the test you give them. The very best people are the ones who can make up their own test with harder problems on it than you could ever think of, and you’d have to have studied for the same ten years they have to be able even to know how to grade their answers.

    That’s a problem, incidentally, with the idea of a meritocracy. School gives you an idea of a ladder of merit that reaches to the top. But it can’t reach all the way to the top, because someone has to measure the rungs. At the top you’re not just being judged on how high you are on the ladder. You’re also being judged on your ability to “grade your own test”; that is to say, your trustworthiness. People start asking whether you will enforce your own standards even if no one is imposing them on you. They have to! because at the top people get given jobs with the kind of responsibility where no one can possibly correct you if you screw up. I’m giving you an image of someone who is working himself sick, literally, trying grade everyone else’s work. In the end there is only so much he can do, and he does want to go home and go to bed sometimes. That means he wants people under him who are not merely good, but can be trusted not to need to be graded. Somebody has to watch the watchers, and in the end, the watchers have to watch themselves.

    [return]
Read the whole story
pfctdayelise
7 days ago
reply
So much to read!
Melbourne, Australia
acdha
3 days ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories