limelight

I switched to Windsurf recently and it's been pretty good for providing a Cursor-like experience; pricing is pretty similar.

I was skeptical of Devin after the launch, but it's been writing most of my code the last few months.

> There is just such a disconnect with reality here I am having a hard time thinking the author has done any actual technical recruiting.

There might be a disconnect, but I think it's probably not in the direction you expect.

The vast majority of high-performing engineering teams (good startups, big tech companies) don't hire standard SWEs for specific language/framework expertise. The truth absolutely is that languages are interoperable enough that someone who is smart and understand the underlying principles can get up to speed in a new ecosystem quickly.

It's truly baffling how they manage to consistently make the software worse every single release. I was a huge fan of 1Password many years ago (and have been happy to pay for it throughout), but each successive release is more confusing and less reliable.

Exciting to see Rust's power applied to codegen. It's quickly supplanting Go as the tool of choice for these use cases.

> No one uses "fuck" in corporate communication either.

Swear words are specifically used to be provocative, so naturally they're not going to disappear. Words like "motherboard" or "whitelist" were historically neutral and primarily used in professional settings, so removal from corporate speech is correspondingly a much bigger factor.

To be clear, I'm not particularly worried or concerned about this. I don't consider it any great loss if we start saying "allowlist" and have happily changed my projects to match. It's not a big deal, and the kind thing to do is to go along with those who do care a lot.

They 100% would be. In fact, people in the Alphabet Union are on the forefront of DEI initiatives like this.

It's a little of both. There's enough woke influence over corporate communication to drive all employees to want to avoid non-inclusive words in docs. At that point, this becomes useful even for employees who don't agree with it—I'd rather just have the word flagged now and fix it instead of going back and forth later.

However, the net result is that words are driven out of the language even if everyone involved in the document wouldn't care.

You are being deliberately vague with your position and relying on ad hominems.

I'll help you. For each of these questions, do you think it's something employees should be told:

1. How many shares are outstanding and what preferences are included in the cap table? 2. What was the valuation at last raise and when did that round close? 3. What's the burn rate and remaining runway? 4. What are the 6/12/18 month plans for the company? What are the biggest risks and opportunities currently facing the company?

> You don't seem to understand the material being presented

Again with the ad hominem.

> You're talking about two different things, which gives credence to my point that 'interviewee doesn't know what they are asking'.

Your position is inconsistent and conceited. If you have actual points, you wouldn't resort to denigrating others.

Especially since you're moving the goal posts, your contribution to this thread is useless. You've swiftly gone from saying employees should scrounge info on funding rounds from the web to admitting employees need to be told info about outstanding equity and valuations.

I hope you're never in a position of hiring for a startup. Anyone with an attitude like yours would chase away quality candidates and only leave clueless rubes behind.

> You'll want to get a sense if the company is healthy, and even 'burn rate' isn't so much the right question, it's probably new customers.

This shows how incredibly uninformed you are. It's easy to acquire many customers by selling $1 for $0.50. It doesn't mean the business is healthy.

> there are actually legitimate issues with privacy there

~Every interview process I've gone through required an NDA at some point.

> I mean - I think it's fully legit for people to have a 'broad sense of the state of the company' - and companies should be prepared to speak to it in some way. But not exactly in the way people are asking.

A "sense of how the company is doing" is not anywhere near enough. The company can be doing extremely well and that still doesn't give me any indication what (for example) 10,000 shares are worth.

If a company won't provide at a minimum the percentage your equity grant represents and valuation at last funding round, you should rightfully value stock at $0.

This is a great signal of which companies value their employees or not.

In my experience, all the good startups are transparent in helping employees evaluate equity offers. Ex. all YC companies I interviewed at were happy to share info on outstanding share count, valuations, and even preferred stock.

Meanwhile other lesser startups (often run by finance types) thought I was insane to even ask.

It's clear which group actually values engineers.