Here’s my framework for how I think about making career decisions, arguably one of the most important decisions we make in our lives.

I break it down into four categories, ranked by how important each is to me:

1) The People

My top priority is working with great people. Everything else is secondary to that.
1a) Are these smart, passionate, high EQ people that care about their work? Would I enjoy working with them? Do they lift the rest of the team up? Are they welcoming and inclusive? Do they strive to continue learning? Would I learn from them?
1b) It’s sometimes hard to get a good gauge of the people through just interviews. If you haven’t worked with the team prior or knew them for an extended period of time, values are a good place to start.
1c) Talking to past employees at the company and past colleagues at other companies can tell you a lot. Don’t skimp on reference checks. Ask questions like:
- Would you work with that person again?
- How did they resolve disagreements?
- How much did they care?
2) The Mission

Second on my list is the mission. Because I only get to take 1 bet at a time on a company working for them, it’s important that I’m working on something I can get behind.
2a) Is it a mission that gets me excited to wake up and work on everyday? Is it actually something important? Will I be able to make an impact - not just in the company but externally as well?
2b) It’s also totally fine to work for a company not “changing the world”. IMO mission = excitement and it’s whatever will make you happy. Why spend 2,080 hours each year doing something that makes you miserable?
3) The Role

If the people and mission check out, it’s probably important to start thinking about if the role is a good fit.
3a) Does it make sense given my background and skills? Is it a role I’d be good at? Will I be in a position where I can succeed?

A good sign the role is a good fit is if it overlaps with your zone of genius.
3b) I also very much believe in compounding, especially when it comes to careers.

If a role doesn’t compound on the skills I’ve grown throughout my career, probably not a good fit. I like to reflect on the things I’m good at and not so good at and double down.
4) Lastly, upside.

Not everything has to or should be a money driven decision, but it’s important. Everyone’s financial needs are different.
4a) For me, upside has always meant “is my ownership * potential value of the company large enough to help me reach my financial goals.”

For some that could be $1m in net worth, for others $100m.
4b) A q I also frequently ask myself is if I believe this company can be worth 50-100x from today.

Stage of company drives some of this thinking. An earlier stage company can have a 100x growth ($5m -> $500m) but its also possible that a public company does too ($5b -> $500b)
And that’s it. I haven’t yet made a career decision without being able to fit a factor into one of these categories, but curious to hear what others find important as well.

More from Tech

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.

Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.

6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices

https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x


PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.

735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices

https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ


The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.

The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.
The 12 most important pieces of information and concepts I wish I knew about equity, as a software engineer.

A thread.

1. Equity is something Big Tech and high-growth companies award to software engineers at all levels. The more senior you are, the bigger the ratio can be:


2. Vesting, cliffs, refreshers, and sign-on clawbacks.

If you get awarded equity, you'll want to understand vesting and cliffs. A 1-year cliff is pretty common in most places that award equity.

Read more in this blog post I wrote:
https://t.co/WxQ9pQh2mY


3. Stock options / ESOPs.

The most common form of equity compensation at early-stage startups that are high-growth.

And there are *so* many pitfalls you'll want to be aware of. You need to do your research on this: I can't do justice in a tweet.

https://t.co/cudLn3ngqi


4. RSUs (Restricted Stock Units)

A common form of equity compensation for publicly traded companies and Big Tech. One of the easier types of equity to understand: https://t.co/a5xU1H9IHP

5. Double-trigger RSUs. Typically RSUs for pre-IPO companies. I got these at Uber.


6. ESPP: a (typically) amazing employee perk at publicly traded companies. There's always risk, but this plan can typically offer good upsides.

7. Phantom shares. An interesting setup similar to RSUs... but you don't own stocks. Not frequent, but e.g. Adyen goes with this plan.

You May Also Like

राम-रावण युद्ध समाप्त हो चुका था। जगत को त्रास देने वाला रावण अपने कुटुम्ब सहित नष्ट हो चुका था।श्रीराम का राज्याभिषेक हुआ और अयोध्या नरेश श्री राम के नेतृत्व में चारों दिशाओं में शन्ति थी।
अंगद को विदा करते समय राम रो पड़े थे ।हनुमान को विदा करने की शक्ति तो राम में थी ही नहीं ।


माता सीता भी हनुमान को पुत्रवत मानती थी। अत: हनुमान अयोध्या में ही रह गए ।राम दिनभर दरबार में, शासन व्यवस्था में व्यस्त रहते थे। संध्या को जब शासकीय कार्यों में छूट मिलती तो गुरु और माताओं का कुशल-मंगल पूछ अपने कक्ष में जाते थे। परंतु हनुमान जी हमेशा उनके पीछे-पीछे ही रहते थे ।


उनकी उपस्थिति में ही सारा परिवार बहुत देर तक जी भर बातें करता ।फिर भरत को ध्यान आया कि भैया-भाभी को भी एकांत मिलना चाहिए ।उर्मिला को देख भी उनके मन में हूक उठती थी कि इस पतिव्रता को भी अपने पति का सानिध्य चाहिए ।

एक दिन भरत ने हनुमान जी से कहा,"हे पवनपुत्र! सीता भाभी को राम भैया के साथ एकांत में रहने का भी अधिकार प्राप्त है ।क्या आपको उनके माथे पर सिन्दूर नहीं दिखता?इसलिए संध्या पश्चात आप राम भैया को कृप्या अकेला छोड़ दिया करें "।
ये सुनकर हनुमान आश्चर्यचकित रह गए और सीता माता के पास गए ।


माता से हनुमान ने पूछा,"माता आप अपने माथे पर सिन्दूर क्यों लगाती हैं।" यह सुनकर सीता माता बोलीं,"स्त्री अपने माथे पर सिन्दूर लगाती है तो उसके पति की आयु में वृद्धि होती है और वह स्वस्थ रहते हैं "। फिर हनुमान जी प्रभु राम के पास गए ।