The conversation

kgp7HNSource author
Lessons learnedExperience excerpt · English

My argument is not that 'I found interview easy and hence not so bad'

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.

Original discussionLyft to Cut at Least 1,200 Jobs in New Round of Layoffs to Reduce Costs183 source comments · at import
2

What was this responding to?

Parent context · original excerpt

RA
ramraj07HN

OP says they don’t think the engineers hired by doing leetcode hard problems (and screening out the folks who can’t) does not engender a good future for the org. Your argument is “I found the interview easy, and hence it’s not that bad.” Just pointing out that perhaps OP thinks the culture you’re part of is not a good one. I’m not taking sides here but curious what this clarification means to you. Your point about engineering not being part of the problem is another. It’s partly true - unless your technology is true main selling point (like openai or maybe google search), then sure engineering makes or breaks the future of the company. So in one way you yourself point out the commodity nature of what companies like Lyft do - given how many companies around the world do it as well now that is. Then the question becomes what exactly are you paying top dollar to these engineers for? Create …

Full original

Community replies 0

No community replies yet. Add your perspective.

Replies from the source 2

Direct replies available in this import. Original-language excerpts.

RA
ramraj07HN

I’m not against OSS, just frivolous ones funded by companies who should have no business doing that stuff. It’s not news that orgs like Uber were indulging the development and release of such projects so they can keep the fairly jobless highly paid engineers happy. There’s no way you can make an argument that the development and maintenance of airflow had any real bottom line effect on their ability to make a home rental market place. The true technology companies don’t and never did release oss solutions that were not fundamental things they could do well and needed to do well. I’m again happy (maybe I’m not) that airflow exists thanks to airbnbs indulgence, but as a bottom line for the company it doesn’t make sense. Especially in the current environment where you now are suddenly forced to show real value for your spend on engjneeeing.

Full original
HI
hitekkerHN

Your views were commonplace 3 years ago. Now, the idea of paying for free OSS development with expensive engineer time, at an unprofitable company, in the middle of a tech-recession, is indefensible. I would be careful not to express luxurious views in future interviews. Saying that Lyft engineering wasn't swollen and engaged in silly side-projects flies in the face of the layoffs announced in the article we're talking about. An interviewee expressing those views would be seen as out-of-touch, if not stupid.

Full original
Continue on Hacker News

Respect different perspectives. Share concrete experiences.

Sign in to post, reply, repost, and quote.