That's odd they would ask you to resign although 2 levels lower is weird.
I had something similar happen to me last year. When receiving an offer, I was told I would be at L6 but found out after I was hired at L5 (both levels are considered Senior Engineer). The title is the same and the comp was as agreed, just that I thought the level would be higher.
Lesson learned for next time. Always get something like that in writing.
One of the toughest things about discrimination is being able to prove it. I'm a white man, but I spent time living in Japan where I was an obvious minority.
Some situations were clear to me that I was being treated a particular way because of my race. But then others were not so clear cut.
For example, one time I was talking in Japanese with a group and someone kept repeating what I said like "He said...". I was getting angry at that as I took it to mean that they were basically "translating" my Japanese for others. But then later, I was watching a Japanese TV drama and the same thing happened on there (with only Japanese speaking). That made me think that maybe this was just a cultural thing that people do and didn't have any reflection on me personally.
Having mentored a female engineer, I've seen that if you are constantly on the lookout for signs of discrimination against you, you will find so much of it. You'll go crazy thinking the whole world is out to get you because of your sex, race, etc. It's tough because there are no doubt situations where that does happen. But there are also situations where a white man would have been given the same feedback or treated in the same way. As a minority though, you only have your own experience to go on. It becomes tough to recognize what is legitimate discrimination vs what is just ordinarily communication.
I have this issue with my SO where I'll sigh heavily and she'll interpret it as me disapproving of whatever she just did or did not do, inventing scenarios in case there's no immediately obvious cause.
Instead my head is somewhere else entirely, and I might have been annoyed at myself for forgetting to pick something up at the store or whatever.
We've gotten better at handling it, I try to remind myself to immediately tell her it wasn't her, and she asking me what it was if I forget. But there has been a lot of unnecessary bad times that originated from such episodes...
I was watching a Dog Whisperer episode where this couple had a violent pitbull. It turned out the two people (mostly the girl) just wanted out of the relationship and deferred the conflict onto the dog as the conduit of the problem.
This is not uncommon for men or woman to do, and more commonly expressed as ‘you are looking for things to point out’.
You can run your own little test. Convert the sigh to something similar like shrugging. Consider it debugging with console.logs until you find out the source of the bug.
There's a real epistemological problem that people of protected classes face that I hadn't considered before reading this article and the comments here; one unintended effect of the current zeitgeist is that, because overt sexism against women is so heavily policed, almost nobody is going to be explicitly sexist against women, so women can get stuck questioning the motives behind potentially any interaction.
For those perceived as belonging to a privileged class, people feel free to (and in some cases relish in and are socially rewarded for) voicing their sexist opinions. A man has a lot less reason to dwell on whether a particular interaction was sexist against them, because when it does happen it is often overt.
It'd be interesting to see demographics on moderators. My perception is that they must skew young because who else has time to do all that work for free?
Volunteer moderation is one of those things that must baffle economists. Here you have people putting in a lot of work for free for a profit seeking enterprise.
>Here you have people putting in a lot of work for free…
I'd wager it's either a perceived, or in some instances, actual, power that motivates a few few of these folks. I don't doubt there are do-gooders out there who want to see their artisan needlepoint subreddit do well, so they volunteer their time to the community... but I also believe that once a community reaches a certain size, the folks motivated by power start to seep in.
Some economists maybe? Perhaps, if you think the only thing to gain is money? Some people do silly things because of other reasons (fame, ego, obligation, greed, retribution, etc). See recent 'stonks' as a good example of people actually spending money for non monetary gain. It is these other factors which feed into many economic models unknowingly. When those variables move they can radically change a model and cause it to do funny things.
There’s an economic concept called “psychic profits”, and it encapsulates exactly those non monetary gains one gets from volunteering like power, recognition, respect, status, and so on
People have funny beliefs sometimes and sometimes they're dicks about it. Like I only want to back someone that is an entrepreneur and entrepreneurs only act this way.
I had a friend apply at my former work place. He was a brilliant programmer and a millionaire. He wanted a job to get immigration. So he said he would work for the minimum required to get immigration. My boss at the time was insulted that someone would offered to work for cheap. He didn't hire him and went on to ridicule the guy, assuming he would have been a bad hire. Little did he know the guys priorities were different due to money he had made offshore.
I'd say that is what is happening here. Some people can work with folks like that. I wasted to much time with those sorts. I'd rather not personally.
This was a pretty thorough traffic analysis of their Max Lumi device. I think it would be pretty similar with the Note Air. I bought a Max Lumi after this as there didn't seem to be much concern.
I can't stress the the "ideally successful" part enough. I've worked at a couple startups where the entrepreneur was serial but this was their first "success". I felt I learned very little. Both companies reached a comfortable point and then the founder didn't know what to do beyond that.
I came to understand why there's a lot of stories of VCs forcing out the founder and bringing in a new CEO who had experience in growing a company.
I agree. I didn't want to make too much of a point of that, because if you filtered just for founders with prior exits, you might have a hard time scoring early opportunities with them (they usually have plenty of people to fill the first 20-50 jobs). But yes - joining Square the day it was announced that Jack Dorsey started another startup would have been a no-brainer for that career path (same with Max Levchin's Affirm and many other examples).
This is very cherry-picked. Actually research has found that prior business success does not predict future success at all. Though failure does predict failure, so at least avoid that.
1. Take a population of 100 people. There is a 50% chance that a random person from that population can create a successful business (obviously 50% is a made up number)
2. All 100 attempt to start a business. 50 succeed, 50 fail.
3. The 50 that failed now have a 25% of succeeding in their future business endeavors. The 50 that succeeded apparently have the same 50% of success.
4. Now, given the same population, there is only a 37.5% chance that that a random person will succeed in their next business, which is in direct contradiction to point number 1.
I'm not entirely sure I did that right. I'm no statistician so there may be some glaring logical flaws there, but that seems correct according to my intuition.
> There is a 50% chance that a random person from that population can create a successful business... All 100 attempt to start a business. 50 succeed, 50 fail.
This is the most glaring wrong assumption that causes your and GP's confusion.
90+% of startups fail.
Note: "failure predicts failure but success does not predict success" could still be true even if business failure rates were >= 50%! But the fact that failure rates are higher than 50% is the first and simplest mistake in this line of reasoning.
I know nowhere near 50% of startups succeed (and have heard the 90% failure rate many times). However, I don't think that is relevant to the mathematics of it.
Remember that these are correlational studies! They're not directly comparing raw counts of data points, they're checking for statistical significance.
while also being the case that "there is not a statistically significant correlation between past success and future success".
Think about generating a dataset using the process you outline and then performing a statistical test for correlation on the resulting dataset.
Think about the percentages in step 2 and 3. If those get small enough, then there could be a statistically significant (failure, failure) correlation in your generated dataset and also not a statistically significant (success, success) correlation in your generated dataset.
The 90% number [0] explains how those percentages get small enough that (success, success) is not picked up by a significance test but (failure, failure) is.
You don't have to take my word for it, though. You can actually implement this process, run your favorite test for correlation, and verify that as those success probabilities get small you have the above effect.
But just because this is true doesn't mean that there will be a statistically significant success -> success correlation.
Again, the most fundamental reason that can happen is because failure rates are over 50% [0].
--
[0] I mentioned in my first comment you can get this result even with a 50% failure rate. How? Companies and founders aren't 1:1, founders drop out of the data generation process, etc. You can play with that to create similar effects even in extreme cases like failure rates dropping to 50% but it'd be a bit contrived.
- Prior failure, most likely the next venture will fail.
- Prior success, most likely the next venture will fail.
Basically, odds are that a venture will fail regardless of past performance, similar to how past lottery winning doesn't predict future lottery winning. Personally, I don't think it's necessarily true (successful founders will already have an existing audience and investors for their next product), but mathematically this could be one way it holds true.
"All else equal, a venture-capital-backed entrepreneur who starts a company that goes public has a 30 percent chance of succeeding in his or her next venture. First-time entrepreneurs, on the other hand, have only an 18 percent chance of succeeding, and entrepreneurs who previously failed have a 20 percent chance of succeeding."
I remember reading something that had a collection of anecdata indicating that b2b success seemed to be repeatable but b2c did not.
Would love to see what other research data is out there.
I should have added some context for why in my opinion it's important to have an experienced founder when you're an early employee. Remember - based on the framework I presented, the goal is not to optimize for wealth generation - for that you would have stayed at your mega corp. For simplicity, I am assuming that you cannot predict success at this early stage of your career (although clearly some people have phenomenal track records).
Instead, the goal is to learn the best practices (lean startup, hiring above your weight, shipping early, doing things that don't scale, etc), meet the right people (colleagues and investors), and also very importantly, learn how to build the right culture (this is a far more complicated issue than most first-time founders realize - hence the need for someone with ideally some historical perspective).
How come when I login to my interviewing.io account I don't see Twitter but it's shown in the screenshot? Is that an accurate representation? I do see the other companies from the screenshot but with fewer jobs.
I had something similar happen to me last year. When receiving an offer, I was told I would be at L6 but found out after I was hired at L5 (both levels are considered Senior Engineer). The title is the same and the comp was as agreed, just that I thought the level would be higher.
Lesson learned for next time. Always get something like that in writing.