OP says they don’t think the engineers hired by doing leetcode hard problems (and screening out the …

Re: Twitter: Should we be striving for companies to be so short staffed that they can't take sick leave and need to sleep in the office?

My argument is not that 'I found interview easy and hence not so bad'. My argument is that in Lyfts case engineering hasnt been the problem with why its business is failing. > Then the question becomes what exactly are you paying top dollar to these engineers for? Again Engineering is one vector in a company's success but not the only one. It might well make sense for Lyft to pay well for good engineering talent there. Maybe not paying well might have doom'd them much faster. Your take on OSS is also a naive one . OSS helps in off boarding long term maintenance costs (if the project becomes popular enough) and staves off bit rot. It helps attract talent , creates industry standards etc. Engineering is feature multiplier and for some companies it does make sense to OSS.

> Elons original thesis of Twitters problems was absolutely correct, why you needed 8000 people to run that org (or whatever the number is for Lyft especially on the engineering side) is beyond me. Overengineered is absolutely the correct term in these cases I think. Anybody who read the mythical man-months knows that adding engineers to a project gets be detremental if it leads to a point where the marginal added communication overhead gets higher without really needing more people to achieve the goal. The usual solution in big companies for the overengineering problem is that people who don't want to fight the org self-select, drink lattes all day long, and let the few people who are needed to solve the engineering problems do the work.