For the record: that's not a "strong work ethic."
That's exploiting young unattached engineers and spinning it as "team culture."

Toxic 💀💀

That's not something to aspire to. That's not good management. If you're working sustained 70+ hrweeks, somebody is taking advantage of you.
We have fetishized the overworked engineer. It's toxic but so pervasive that Mr. Ng (and others) feel it's ok to advertise as a positive.
Having this as "culture" breeds a monoculture of unattached, young engineers. Not good for them & not good for your company long term.
It's not good for them because their first job burns them out and physically wears them down. This happened to me and many of my coworkers.
And I don't mean "I got tired, but then slept." I took almost a year off from working (privilege!) & still had wrist pain and lack of "go."
It wrecks you. Not just me; to everyone around me.
If your company is asking for sustained 70+ hrs they're hurting you & they know it.
It's bad for the company too. Breeds a monoculture, and deifies lack of experience. What veteran programmer wants to work 70+hrs sustained?
What person with a family can or would want to spend 70+ hrs most weeks on something they own so little of.
What person with outside responsibilities can make time for literally almost two jobs worth of work?
When you're requiring 70+ hrs most weeks, you're not saying "have a strong work ethic" you're saying "I don't want to pay for this work."
Your "culture" dooms your infrastructure, reliability, & product to underpaid, overworked, unseasoned engineers who you'll burn & discard.
To be very clear: it's not the employees. They're doing their best. It's the
CEO/C-team & the short-gain-at-long-expense tactic they chose.
If you can, if you have the choice, when you see this in a job rec. run the other direction. Fast.
They want to burn you up for their gain.
In the end, your employment in this culture is trading your time, your youth, and the wellbeing of your body & mind for their gain.
Beware.

More from All

You May Also Like

🌺श्री गरुड़ पुराण - संक्षिप्त वर्णन🌺

हिन्दु धर्म के 18 पुराणों में से एक गरुड़ पुराण का हिन्दु धर्म में बड़ा महत्व है। गरुड़ पुराण में मृत्यु के बाद सद्गती की व्याख्या मिलती है। इस पुराण के अधिष्ठातृ देव भगवान विष्णु हैं, इसलिए ये वैष्णव पुराण है।


गरुड़ पुराण के अनुसार हमारे कर्मों का फल हमें हमारे जीवन-काल में तो मिलता ही है परंतु मृत्यु के बाद भी अच्छे बुरे कार्यों का उनके अनुसार फल मिलता है। इस कारण इस पुराण में निहित ज्ञान को प्राप्त करने के लिए घर के किसी सदस्य की मृत्यु के बाद का समय निर्धारित किया गया है...

..ताकि उस समय हम जीवन-मरण से जुड़े सभी सत्य जान सकें और मृत्यु के कारण बिछडने वाले सदस्य का दुख कम हो सके।
गरुड़ पुराण में विष्णु की भक्ति व अवतारों का विस्तार से उसी प्रकार वर्णन मिलता है जिस प्रकार भगवत पुराण में।आरम्भ में मनु से सृष्टि की उत्पत्ति,ध्रुव चरित्र की कथा मिलती है।


तदुपरांत सुर्य व चंद्र ग्रहों के मंत्र, शिव-पार्वती मंत्र,इन्द्र सम्बंधित मंत्र,सरस्वती मंत्र और नौ शक्तियों के बारे में विस्तार से बताया गया है।
इस पुराण में उन्नीस हज़ार श्लोक बताए जाते हैं और इसे दो भागों में कहा जाता है।
प्रथम भाग में विष्णुभक्ति और पूजा विधियों का उल्लेख है।

मृत्यु के उपरांत गरुड़ पुराण के श्रवण का प्रावधान है ।
पुराण के द्वितीय भाग में 'प्रेतकल्प' का विस्तार से वर्णन और नरकों में जीव के पड़ने का वृत्तांत मिलता है। मरने के बाद मनुष्य की क्या गति होती है, उसका किस प्रकार की योनियों में जन्म होता है, प्रेत योनि से मुक्ति के उपाय...
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?