As others have said, levels and titles are generally for compensation and performance reviews. Each company has their own bespoke ladder but it generally maps to:
Each company has their own numbers and names but it generally progresses like that. Impact and scope scales as you head up the ladder.
L5 or Senior is usually considered a “terminal” role. That means all engineers should be able to get to this role. And people without the headroom get managed out if they can’t get to L5.
Staff+ is usually “special”. It means that people count on you to drive initiatives and you have something special other than just writing code. You are able to make product and business impact.
Distinguished and Fellow are very rare. Large FAANG companies will only have a handful of these engineers. It means you’ve made industry-wide impact like inventing map-reduce or DynamoDB or Kubernetes.
You're describing a very small number of companies that all copied each other's systems. The idea of a terminal role, for example, is pure Facebook. These do not apply in general across the industry except where managers from those small number of companies came in and shoved them in before they were fired.
In all fairness, a LOT of this was copied over from the military. From ranks to "High Year Tenure" (aka "Up or Out") nothing here is particularly innovative.
> L5 or Senior is usually considered a “terminal” role. That means all engineers should be able to get to this role.
Doesn't it mean more like it's an acceptable end, a destination - obviously not everyone's career track is to take over the company as CEO one day, but nor is it necessarily to progress to Staff and beyond.
The idea being that it's a bit of a role change, to a greater extent than the levels before it which could be seen as advancement. Or, we've long had the idea of 'technical' and 'management' tracks, the more recent (I think?) idea here being that actually maybe they're both specialist tracks you switch onto, and you don't necessarily have to do either.
But I think, outside FAANG et al., whether companies subscribe to that sort of thinking is vastly more varied (or it's more niche) than titles and 'track' splits (or lack of them) already are.
This does remind me somewhat of military command structures with L1-L5 being enlisted ranks and L6-L10 either being NCO or Commissioned depending on your view of how much gatekeeping is involved.
Western militaries have a parallel commissioned officer and enlisted command structure where an O1 (junior officer) is technically senior to an E9 (senior enlisted NCO) and can order them around.
The idea is that command requires a separate set of skills and that experience needs to start early to have senior officers in their 50s.
In practice, junior officers are "advised" by senior enlisted on how to order people around and not taking that advice is a bad idea.
Kind of like how companies have managers and technical tracks where a line manager ignoring a senior technical person always blows up in their face.
> Each company has their own numbers and names but it generally progresses like that.
But the big difference, I believe, is that being at the top of a ladder in one company may be completely different from being at the top in another one.
It's easy to be the CTO of a company of 2, much harder for BigTech. Even if the company of 2 has the same levels.
I have met people being very very proud of their title of CTO, and when I asked, their company had a handful of developers.
How come it's so hard for people to drink water? Honest question. Like why don't you just wake up in the morning, take a whiz, brush your teeth, and drink a glass of water?
What gets in between? Because the first two are 99% success rate I'd bet.
But is that bad? Do people actually need to drink more than they are thirsty for? Why is it that our hunger sense is over-tuned, but conventional wisdom says that our hydration sense is under-tuned?
Honestly, I feel like "always be drinking" only appeared once bottled water did.
Honestly I forget brushing more than I should too, and I skip breakfast most days even though I'm hungry. The friction required to pour the glass or set things up can be a lot early in the morning.
It helped me to get a water cooler or something to fill a bottle?
Most orgs should just be shipping features. Before starting an Experiment Program teams should be brainstorming a portfolio of experiments. Just create a spreadsheet where the first column is a one-line hypothesis of the experiment. Eg. "Removing step X from the funnel will increase metric Y while reducing metric Z". And the RICE (Reach-Impact-Confidence-Estimation) score your portfolio.
If the team can't come up with a portfolio of 10s to 100s of experiments then the team should just be shipping stuff.
And then Experiment Buildout should be standardized. Have standardized XRD (Experiment Requirements Doc). Standardize Eligibility and Enrollment criteria. Which population sees this experiment? When do they see it? How do you test that bucketing is happening correctly? What events do analysts need? When do we do readouts?
That's just off the top of my head. Most orgs should just be shipping features.
Beg to differ. I live in Yaletown in one of the Concord Pacific towers. David Lam Park and George Wainborn Park are vibrant as is the whole seawall. My kid goes to the daycare along one of the parks.
I'm sitting at my desk in an office in Gastown in a low-rise. The streets are covered in feces and broken crack pipes.
"towers in the park" refers to a pretty specific layout where the towers are surrounded and separated by parks. Yaletown has parks that are surrounded by towers, which generally seems to work better
I have a 9 month old and we are drowning in toys. We have bought very few of them. The article is clearly not written by a parent because it barely touches on Buy Nothing Groups on Facebook.
We've barely bought any clothes either. They all come from Buy Nothing groups. Kids grow out of toys and clothes every 3 months. Parents are desperate to offload this stuff.
And my wife has become a hoarder as have other parents in the neighbourhood. Buy Nothing groups seem to set off some sort of hoarding affliction in parents.
My local group is not "buy nothing" but rather "zero waste" but yeah the amount of quasi-trash that my wife keeps bringing home ("this is broken but I'll fix it!") is crazy.
A few weeks ago she managed to offload a pink salt lamp to a lady, mentioned "this is not working but should be easy to fix" and the lady replied she's just gonna feed it to some goats and it was glorious.
> The article is clearly not written by a parent because it barely touches on Buy Nothing Groups on Facebook.
The author very clearly indicates they have children. I don't think the author wants to make it an article about themselves.
Keep in mind: Toys just show up from well-meaning people. There's a lot of social momentum around gifting; I started dreading Christmas because it means a bunch of toys my kids won't play with.
And, not only am I drowning in toys, I'm drowning in books too.
pretty much the only toys i get for my kids to get are lego compatible bricks. with those it doesn't make a difference if you have 1 or 10 kg of them. just add to the pile.
no books in my house because we are moving to often. but i grew up in a library. my dad probably has 10-15m worth of bookshelves. from my granddad we inherited 3 or 4 times as much. but they were both collectors, curating their collections with care. still, sorting through those books to figure out whats valuable is a lifetime occupation. and i can see how a lot of books can be overwhelming if you are not into that.
a year ago i heard about someone passing away leaving behind a house with a collection of 75000 books. the cost to sort through them would be higher than the value of the collection, so instead it all goes to a landfill because i a not even sure it can be recycled or the cost of getting it recycled was to much too.
There are a few types of toys that my wife and I are still ok with getting and Lego is one of them. She's started using the phrase "more really is more" to describe the category. Basically, it's systems where you build something and the more you have, the more things you can do: Lego, Brio, Magna-Tiles, Hot Wheels track, etc. Even things like Pokemon cards (if your kid actually plays the game) can fall into this. You do have to be careful not to end up with too many of these systems, especially really similar ones.
We're also still ok with getting books. We have a few too many for our shelf space, but at their current ages, our kids are aging out of books about as quickly as they receive new ones. I just need to do a better job of giving away the old ones more regularly.
Yes! I've run out of ways to tell MY parents not to get toys for my kids for Christmas/birthdays. I can ask directly for no physical things; I can suggest tickets to shows or evens, memberships to museums or zoos, etc; I can point out every time they come over that there's not enough space for the things we already have; I can tell them what sorts of clothes the kids could use instead. They're still going to get each kid a "showstopper" (toy workbench, Big Wheel, something physically large) plus several cheap plastic trinkets... plus the clothes.
And that's just my parents. I can politely talk to them about not getting physical things for my kids, but then there's all of the extended family that loves to get them big, cheap plastic stuff, too. I know they're trying to be generous and don't really understand the fallout, but I'm starting to reconsider the whole "it's the thought that counts" idea.
I need to do a better job of helping the kids periodically go through and give stuff away, but 1) try explaining to a 3-year-old why giving away your toys is a good thing, and 2) the influx of new things always seems to outstrip the rate at which I can find time to get rid of stuff.
Probably has something to do with the price of zero. The concept keeps showing up in random feeds for me, and it’s something both marketers and behavioral economists like to talk about. It seems free short circuits a lot of our normal cognitive pathways.
That said, I learned an interesting trick years ago. If you’re trying to get rid of junk, leaving it on the side of the road with a free sign is not as effective as using a sign with a slightly more than nominal amount. $25 used to be the sweet spot, $50 might be better today. Probably depends on the thing. Make it look like they’re getting a deal. Items tend to disappear after that, though I did once have someone knock and pay.
This is great. This reminds me of Chris Hecker's Rigid Body Dynamics series from GDMag/Gamasutra that I read (checks watch) almost 30 years ago! This is the classic/canonical set of articles.
(Aside: My goodness, Medium has gotten terrible. The article will not scroll for me because of some random overlay that won't dismiss. Why do publishers stay on Medium? I regret it every time I click a link.)
L5 or Senior is usually considered a “terminal” role. That means all engineers should be able to get to this role. And people without the headroom get managed out if they can’t get to L5.
Staff+ is usually “special”. It means that people count on you to drive initiatives and you have something special other than just writing code. You are able to make product and business impact.
Distinguished and Fellow are very rare. Large FAANG companies will only have a handful of these engineers. It means you’ve made industry-wide impact like inventing map-reduce or DynamoDB or Kubernetes.
reply