candybar,

Aren't google recruiting offers good for a year? Just wait till a recruiter hits you up for a director spot and accept it.

cb,

In earnest, I wouldn't spend time prepping for an interview. At your level I doubt anyone is going to ask you any questions that you'd be able to prep for, and it'll likely be more about fit. (You raise this point with your issues of how larger tech companies hire.) Have you considered CIO jobs? I' ran across a consultant who seem to have vaguely similar skills (more role specific, but significantly less experience) who was angling for those sort of roles. Then again this may not meet pay requirements, and doing tech work for a coal miner may not be your idea of a fun time.

Congrats on making it far enough to be in the position where you can pick and choose among a variety of job most people dream about ever having.

my final solution, I think this is close to optimal? perhaps using a binary search at the end would do better if the number of iterations gets super large

Quick comment:

-- in your function approximate() compute inverse_n * inverse_n outside the loop too since it is loop invariant.

-- you should handle the case where the input parameter is zero somehow to avoid division by zero exceptions and it decouples the dependency between the caller's to approximate() from the implementation of approximate().



Overall, don't do this:

double approx = 4.0f,

The f implies a type of type float, not of type double. I am almost positive the compiler will not add any unnecessary overhead but still not necessary.

double approx = 4.0; // sufficient, probably the best way imo

double approx = 4.0d, // ok too but not necessary.

auto approx = 4.0d; // if using c++ 11 version and later might be the best

thx a lot for ur feedback, i will modify it a bit more

Not sure what you mean here - are you saying that I could pass the general interviews but refuse whatever specific position/slot/team I'm placed into for up to a year until something sufficiently good comes along? That would be great for me.

If you ever want to start your own thing, experience seeing it first-hand without the extra risks that come with being a founder are very valuable. I would argue more valuable than a lot of the money that comes from the BigTechCos. But if you aren't serious about doing your own thing, then obviously it is a negative in terms of security, lifestyle, and immediate financial interests.

If you are actively being recruited by Google, their offers are valid for a year. They will probably come stalk you again in a few years if you reject them before. I don't know anything about anything lower than Director, or if you can slot into a different role. (Being recruited for Spanner and want to work on AdX or whatever.) I'm pretty sure at that level you'd have a decent amount of leverage.

Anyway, if you do get an offer, you can certainly wait to accept it and shop around. If you decide on another position, they will almost certainly come back to you. They are in the business of finding, recruiting and retaining the top talent.


Working at a startup shouldn't be that much worse on the comp front and be compensated by a solid options package.

There is a lot of variation, but you're not gonna convince someone to take much worse compensation packages. You'll still get mid-six figures.

I would be going through a technical interview at most non-finance jobs I'd want so it may make sense to brush up on this just to be safe. Again I could be wrong but I don't think I'd be able to join at a high level on either management or technical track at these places though I can probably get on a management track fairly quickly. I have some but not a lot of people management experience because we're so small and most of the technical challenges I've run into here are domain-knowledge-driven, enterprisey and product-specific in nature and usually not of the scale that a big software company would care about. I'm pretty much the main product person but mostly from the perspective of ideas and ownership (and I guess in the sense that I do whatever I want) not necessarily in the sense of managing the process. So I'm well-rounded and in a vague general sense I feel that I'll be a strong asset but I don't know where I necessarily fit into. But I could be wrong about the needs of large tech companies.

I'm not sure how my skill set comes across here but I think I'd maximize learning by being surrounded by talented peers and working under technical management that knows what they are doing. Again, not ruling anything out but companies where technology is not a core asset tend not to have the kind of jobs I'm looking for at any level. I'm also fairly sure I don't want to do management exclusively quite yet because I think that's good from a learning perspective.

Thanks! I don't really feel that I can pick and choose though - I think I'd have to wait and work hard to find the right situation.

But that's the exact situation I'm in at the moment. We're a small software company that's trending towards a profitable small business and away from a real startup and I'm like somewhere between #4 and #6 (and #1 among actual technologists) here depending on the perspective and have significant equity stake. I think we're content to work towards ~100MM-ish valuation over several years, which I'm not entirely happy with.

I'm not sure if "being recruited" means anything here - maybe things are different at a higher level but Google has their recruiters spamming people like every other tech company. I know multiple people at Google that I've worked with or know from school (including a very close college friend of mine with whom I've both worked professionally and done multiple CS projects together) so getting a referral is not a problem.

By mid-six figures, we are talking about 130-170K, not 300-700K and salaries, not all-in comp (salary + bonus + equity) right?

Btw, thanks a lot guys, for working through these with me - really appreciate it. Can't talk about the specifics and the #s here but PM me if you guys want to connect. Would also love to meet over coffee or something if anyone one here is in NYC. Suzzer is the only person here I've met IRL and that was really cool.

cb,

Do you have someone e-mailing you with a offer? That would be what I'm referring to.

And I'm referring to 300-700k yearly monetary compensation. Options/benefits on top of course.

Ha - I was wondering the same mid-6 figures questions myself. Good luck dude.

I missed this post! I think I imagined you were a rung or two higher than you actually are. (Not sure what that means about my level of ability.) Generally CTO-ish startup jobs are viewed pretty favorably since they consist of a variety of challenges and its tough to just kinda slide by. You may be pleasantly surprised, but without specifics I have nfi.

I figured I'd just toss that out there. CIO jobs may or may not have what you're looking for. It is just a title that is more common in non-tech businesses for the person responsible for all the tech stuff. Like you may end up modernizing an inventory system while moving to a HYBRID CLOUD solution or something of the sort. Except you work for a large shipping company or whatever. I think the probability of working for a derp in this is much much higher than a tech company, so there is that obvious downside. But you may end up in a role where you can pick and choose a bit of who you work with/manage/etc.

Another side issue is that when I mention a job title there are lots of actual roles. Like CTO/CIO, may not do any actual coding. Or they may actually be in more of a head of prototyping role. Or they may actually do some coding with a core team for the core product and have a separate head of prototyping. Or you're Facebook, and the CEO is actually CTO/Head of Product. Anyway, that is just a side rant about how job titles aren't super descriptive to explain what people actually do day to day at higher levels.

Regardless, best of luck. I'd be interested in following what happens and how it turns out.

Unless you're a public figure or personally know the decision makers in question, I don't think you get offers over emails without first interviewing, unless by offers you mean offers to interview, which lots of people get. Even the offers I got through connections where I knew I was 100% in before I walked in the door, I still went through perfunctory interviews in part because it gave them an opportunity to sell me on the job.

So 300K-700K in salary+bonus/incentives? YMMV but I wouldn't classify companies where there are people making steady 300K-700K a year in cash (excluding salespeople who happen to do really well one year) as startups. At this point I'm treating late-stage, high-valuation startups as large tech companies because there's no real difference from my perspective. And yes, at that kind of comp range, I'd be interested because that will let me save enough to give me more options in regards to starting my own company. But from what I've seen, salaries above 300K are rare and cash comp above 300K is usually weighted towards bonuses and incentives that are performance-based. Which is quite a dicey proposition given the economic outlook over the next couple of years.

If you need a good technologist, you will need to pay them the equivalent of what Google or someone else pays. Those pay packages are on the high end of the mid-six figure range, this is offset by the higher upside options at most startups. Again, I was talking about what is likely a couple rungs above where you are. So that might have led to some confusion.

If you want to pretend that every team lead or senior engineer is a "solid technologist" that is fine, but there is a world of difference between the guy at Google making 600k and the guy making 200k.

You're also conflating the stage of the startup with the need for a real technologist. You could easily find a promising company in their Series A with a solid product with 1m ARR and great growth, but they realize their current solution won't scale and they need to get someone who can scale it. Programming is a creative field, and there are some things that many people will never be able to solve whereas someone more talented can code it up in a matter of weeks. Then again, I'd say a small number of tech companies need these people before they hit their growth phase, and those who find themselves in this situation are obviously in a bad spot. (Unscalable tech, maybe make it to 5m ARR, not a huge war chest, and a need to recruit/develop/scale a better solution before they burn through 3m.)

I won't quibble with you about the structure of high end pay. That is a complex topic and I'm grossly simplifying it for this example.

Thanks!

Is this true? I have pretty much CTO-ish responsibilities here because our CTO is not technical - I do more technical and architecture stuff as well as some general engineering management and less B2B/RFP/Sales responsibilities and also avoid dealing with some other minutia that I'd have to deal with otherwise. Should I highlight my management responsibilities more? I'm basically thought of as the Chief Architect with some management responsibilities - I don't have that title because someone else who wrote the bulk of the code for the first iteration of our product who is quite a bit below me in the actual hierarchy now has hung on the title and while being quasi-retired and (barely) working remotely as a consultant.

My thought was that top tech firms would be somewhat skeptical of startup CTO types because most of them are picked by non-technical people for reasons that often have more to do with trust and relationships and competence and what they do, outside of technical responsibilities, which are easily delegated, is hard to determine and usually not that difficult.

Also, do you guys think my current title matters? I can pretty much get any currently non-occupied title but I don't know what would be a good title for the wide variety of jobs I'll be going for.

Yes. The level of responsibility someone undertakes to even manage a crappy app and backend consisting of 4 people is way way larger than grinding out an entry level developer job, and career progress will show that. (Obviously doing that for a decade isn't going to mean anything, but there are people who progress into senior roles at large companies never managing more than 20 people and solely at startups.)

They will definitely be skeptical. You can't just slap "Startup CTO" on your resume, but if you can articulate what you did and what worked/didn't work with your tech and can convey that you were the critical person in making the tech side of a tech company work, that is tremendous and way better than managing a team of 5 people as a cog in a giant machine. Your level of accountability and responsibility are just orders of magnitude more. You probably did a bunch of important stuff to make your company succeed, and making it clear is important.

VP of engineering? I don't think it matters personally. No one is going to know what internal structure you have. I'd just shy away from anything really weird. Like SVP of Product or something totally insane. Conveying what you actually did (# of reports, what you actually do, etc) is far more important. wtf does your CTO do?

You could that kind of compensation at Microsoft for sure.

This discussion of high level roles, responsibilities, and options is super interesting and I just want to thank you guys for discussing this publicly

what engineers are making that kind of money?

Not really feeling this one - I think you're mixing up the technical ladder and the management ladder and also being "an amazing technologist" vs being one of the few people who happen to be experts in a hot area (scaling could be considered one of them, though I think that's pretty commoditized). Virtually no one gets to 600K+ by being just an overall amazing technologist who's better than everyone at everything - you get there by either climbing up the management ladder and becoming a multiplier for other engineers and/or becoming a domain expert in a hot area where there's no substitute for the actual experience and exposure that few people have.

Not that there aren't genius generalists who are worth 600K+ or do make that kind of money but it's very hard to get that point and even harder to prove it. Of course being a genius technologist will help you in both climbing up the ladder or acquiring domain expertise - but the latter is very much of a supply and demand thing, not a genius vs a chump thing.

No one. That is general director pay at Google. I assume other companies pay similar. (Well high end.)

cb,

They are the same. I think you are assuming people that become Director/VP or CTOs at smaller tech companies are on different ladders and that is fundamentally wrong. No engineer is a "technologist" and no one who is simply an architect moves up the ladder. Working as a cog in a team of 4 people is inherently limiting. Being able to design large and complex systems, and writing coherent tech spec for these systems. (This is where agile hurr durrs tend to check out due to inherent stupidity.) THEN being able to recruit/manage the people to maintain and expand that system is what people do at higher levels.

I may well be blessed with mostly have the chance to interface with genius generalists, and being able to choose among merely great engineers. But there is simply literally a handful of people who are engineers who make these levels of pay. The other thousands+ are technologists who can player/coach. (Think Bill Gates.) TBH I don't feel there is any difference in productivity between someone who can leverage a larger team vs an extremely skilled engineer who can do what a 10 person team does on his own. They both deliver, but one has a more extensible skillset.

Regardless, we're kinda deviating off track. Just an FYI there is a level of tech fixer that will come in and un**** whatever someone else ****ed for lots of money and some equity. They exist, they are heavily recruited, and they are probably going to be the most talented people you'll ever work with. I'm simply flattered when they ask my opinion on anything tech related.

NB: Generalizing "scaling" is brutally wrong btw. Google ran batch scripts till 2012. Real timing search results is trivial. (DDG) Except when you run them in coordination with a ton of specific ad algorithms and then do it on google scale. Scaling depends on task and can result in people paid 80k or 8m.

There are separate management and technical ladders at Google and similarly run companies. I don't know the exact levels but the technical ladder goes from something like senior to staff to principal to distinguished to fellow levels. Also I think you're confusing leadership with specific people management responsibilities - you can lead without having anyone reporting to you. There are multiple hierarchies at any large company.

Most Director-level and above people at Google or similar companies don't do that much of this, except reviewing work that's been delegated. There are just far too many people for them to manage and too much work in terms of strategic stuff and inter-departmental and inter-team work to coordinate for them to work on design and specs, except for reviews. Of course there are all types - some Director types may be mostly on the technical track with token people management responsibilities to give themselves leverage or options. But the most important thing to note here is that at better-run organizations, reporting to someone does not mean that person leads you from a technical or a product perspective. Technical leadership, product management and organizational/people management are all separate hierarchies.

Having a separate technical ladder also ensures that climbing up the management ladder at a larger company isn't about being a genius programmer or a technologist or whatever - it's about understanding the big picture and being able to align the team with broader needs of the organization and incentivize and inform them accordingly.

Again, I do all these things but wearing multiple hats is not what makes you some kind of amazing technologist - it's what you do because in a small organization, it's the most efficient way to do things and I can do it because I'm good enough at everything.

What is your actual background? You seem well-read on some of these topics but it doesn't feel like you have much hands-on experience with any of this. Is your experience with software engineers from SEO or online advertising, that kind of stuff? Arbitraging on ad networks?

This is obvious but again, almost all of the pay difference in this area is not about some kind of magical ability that makes people uber technologists but concrete experience and expertise that allows them to know what to do in specific situations.