apaitch

I dunno, either you will reformat using some kind of automated tool before you check in or you won't.

If you will, then why not do it before the review and spare everyone the trouble? In a codebase that conforms to certain standards steps away from the standard stick out and distract from the content.

If you won't, then maybe it's good that people point it out so that you can fix it manually?

Of course there is a difference between a comment saying: "Nit: Trailing whitespace" and "According to Section V, Subsection VII of the Coding Manual you should never add trailing whitespace. Please see that you don't." or some stuff like that. The latter is a passive-aggressive potshot, the former IMO is just a quick reminder.

Thanks a lot! I'll definitely check some of these out!

I don't seem like a good fit for any of these positions (Java/C++ engineer >.<), but I'd love to learn more about database internals and how things work and how to make them better. Is there much to do in that area, or is it pretty much complete? Should I just pick a bug and try to fix it, or is there some process to follow >.<

Let's say I'm lazy. Sure, maybe I "haven't found what I'm meant to do" quite yet, but if I'm lazy AND armed with the "I don't want to do it - the universe is telling me not to!" rhetoric then how will I ever find something I love? You have to be willing to invest effort into things that hold your interest, but until you've done something for a while the aspect that holds your interest is the result and not the process. For example, I didn't get into programming because I loved programming. I got into programming because I didn't know what to do and I thought making video games would be cool. After a couple of semesters (yes, this was late in my life >.<) I realized that hey, programming is actually quite enjoyable! Now I try to invest in opportunities for self-improvement in the programming space (among others).

"Self-help books and workshops arm us with ways to trick ourselves into doing things we perhaps should, but generally don’t want, to do."

That seems like quite a generalization. I get that it's hard to create a catchy title without making some form of generalization, but... really? I guess the author is talking about workshops like "How to write and sell your awesome novel in 7 days", but what comes to my mind when hearing "self-improvement" is something like the 7 habits. I hardly saw the latter as an attempt to trick myself into doing things I don't want to do.

That's part of the reason I put visionary in quotations. It's a slippery term. In this case, when you think Steve Jobs = visionary you don't think "he made Apple a great place to work." Since Steve Jobs seems to be one of the paragons of "visionary" leadership in the valley, all I meant to say was that Marissa is not in the same mold.

As I said, I barely know her/of her so my opinion is based on superficial things like reputation. The main point I was trying to make is not that she's not a "visionary" but that the things she's doing to help Yahoo are admirable and worthy of praise >.>

That's actually what I'm trying to say - she doesn't come off as a visionary (in my opinion) but if she is able to set up a good and healthy work environment then she won't need to be the one coming up with all the ideas.

I know almost nothing about her, but Marissa Mayer doesn't come off as a Steve Jobs or Elon Musk-like "visionary" who will drive Yahoo to unexplored and unexpected market openings. Her approach seems to be to make Yahoo a great place to work, attract and empower talent, and let said talent churn out great products. Some would say that she should focus on changing the market direction of the company, and that's certainly one of her responsibilities. At the same time, I think what she's doing is admirable and valuable. It's certainly putting Yahoo on the map in the communities that matter. Let's hope Yahoo can ride this momentum and make something of it!

Commuting does kind of suck if you're trying to roll in during rush hour. But without super-heavy traffic I find driving to be rather enjoyable in itself. Even more so if you're riding a motorcycle :) Perhaps the problem is not commuting, but the fact that many companies want their employees at work at 9:00 and out of work at 5:00?

Most people want to get the promotions and the money, but I think it's not only to buy the materialistic stuff they want. For many white-collar workers it's about the prestige, the status, the self-validation, and the respect these things tend to bring about. I think the thesis of this article applies to these "emotional" indulgences as well. I'd say if you respect yourself and have a sense of inner peace AND you acknowledge that you don't NEED to go from $75,000 to $175,000 (though of course it'd be nice) it gives you a kind of freedom from the shackles of what goes on at many a workplace. You can develop your skills because you enjoy getting better, do good work because you like what you do, and often get a promotion and more money as a byproduct without having to focus on it. That's one of the good things about the programming field :)

With regard to the "giving", I wonder what theories there are about why many people feel good when giving things up to benefit others. Is it just a societal/cultural thing, influenced by religions?

I think that spending 4-6 years doing research in an area you love is something anyone would be interested in. In addition, going into it with the decision that you don't want to have a career in academia would free you up from much (though of course not all) of the "game." The OP echoed this sentiment in the memoir. You can go to conferences without worrying about proper "networking" and just talk to people. You can focus on research that interests you even if it's not a "hot" or "prestigious" field among academics, as long as your results are publishable. You still have to bend to the system in some regards if you want to graduate, but I think not having to worry about securing a professorship would really take a lot of the weight off. In fact, I would consider doing a PhD under these conditions :)

I didn't mean to get into the debate between natural talent and skills acquired by work - probably should've cut the "natural" part out of the definition to make that clear. I was thinking of the "potentiality" aspect of talent. I agree that employers want capable employees - preferably able to contribute from day one. I think investing in employees who have the potential to be great contributors but are not quite there yet is worthwhile, and is something that's under-emphasized in most recruitment strategies. To me, "talent" is when a master finds an apprentice he knows could be great with the right guidance. The job market demands masters (dubbed "talent"), but few are willing to help create masters by actualizing the potential of those who are less experienced.

Note: I'm not talking about on-the-job training from someone who doesn't know what a computer is to a master programmer. I'm talking about allowing people who are less immediately capable into the workplace and mentoring/growing them into strong contributors.

From the outside looking in, it certainly doesn't seem like everyone is eager to snatch up mediocre graduates. I can't say I've done much research on the subject or crunched numbers, but I noticed two things: 1) Complaints about "talent shortages" from top companies and startups in the Valley and otherwise. 2) Companies evaluating people based on experience, GitHub profiles, open source contributions, etc.

Not that it's wrong to evaluate based on that criteria. However, for people like the hypothetical John it's quite hard to keep up with a good CS program and manage to do impressive things on the side. So you end up with people with strong potential, much of it not yet actualized, who spend the first years of their careers in a job of questionable usefulness (excel macros?). I think there are more of those people than commonly assumed, and I do think they can contribute well in much better places. They may be slow at first, but give them 6 months and they will be strong members of the team. Granted, a startup may not have 6 months to give, but once you've got some resources under your belt a green-but-talented engineer can be a great investment.

It's totally understandable for a 10-man startup to not want to take in a relative newbie and have him/her drag down the team's productivity when they've got to ship in a month. However, for bigger companies (not necessarily giants like Google either) it may well be worth it to invest in a number of somewhat less experienced employees and grow them internally. The only problem, I suppose, would be selecting the right people.