[am1m]

Place I used to work at, a more senior colleague in his late 40s got laid off about a year ago. Fortunately he found a role in under a month and got 3 month's severance. Unfortunately, since it was a startup and most other employees were in their 20s, the idea that went around was that he 'couldn't cut-it' in that 'high-learning' environment. Which, since I know the guy and the others, was bs. Even more unfortunate, management was a part of contributing to that narrative.

A year later, most of those guys are also out and the company is basically shutting. So, it was basically incompetent management that landed the company where it was. The twist in the tale is this guy who was let go earlier, really went out of his way to help his former colleagues find jobs and to network. What a guy.

Worth repeating- love your job, not your company. Be nice to your colleagues, don't drink the company/management kool-aid and sell them out. When push comes to shove, your colleagues are the ones more likely to help.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

The assumption that the amount of IT work will keep increasing to match the improvement in productivity is just that, an assumption.

It is not an assumption, but a historical pattern.

AI is a productivity tool, and every productivity tool has always opened up new wave of jobs. Biggest example happened in banking. Some old jobs will vanish, it will be replaced by new types of jobs.

[DigitalOne]

Originally Posted by Samurai

It is not an assumption, but a historical pattern.

AI is a productivity tool, and every productivity tool has always opened up new wave of jobs.

Hope so. Worst case scenario is that all software engineers turn into "Prompt Engineers".

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

"Prompt Engineers".

Hmm, that sounds very similar to what I described here. I wonder why they call that engineering, maybe there is more to it. Isn't that a business analyst role?

[girishkamath]

Here is what I read recently -
Will AI take jobs of humans? No.
But, Humans who know how to use AI will take jobs of humans who would not know how to use AI

Well, this is not a universal truth but this I felt is a fair assessment in the technology space.

I see AI as an enablement rather than a replacement.
People can use AI to do things efficiently and thus increase the productivity.

[am1m]

When I was in college, a friend's dad who had come to visit told us to take our first jobs based on 'how much we could learn' instead of 'how much money was in it'.

I can't say I took his advice because when we graduated in 2001, the IT job market had tanked thanks to the dot-com bubble-bust, so we just took whatever jobs we got. The money certainly wasn't anything great- quite bad, in fact. But since it was a very small company, I got to do a heck of a lot of stuff.

Remembered that because just today (almost exactly 22 years later!), at my present job, I got to use something cross-functional I learned back then, to solve a problem that had been bugging us for a while. And I'm quite sure I wouldn't have picked that bit up, if my first job had been with a gigantic IT firm with well-defined and narrow job roles.

[am1m]

As always, "do as I say, not as I do!"

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...8.cms?from=mdr

"Many Indian IT C-suite executives are joining direct competitors without any cool-off period."

"These leaders are privy to sensitive deal pricing, client milestones, financial obligations, post-acquisition integration, penalty clauses and market-moving competitive business intelligence."

"HR consultants say most would have non-compete clauses in their employment contracts, but that does not seem to bother them. Because such clauses are not enforceable in courts."

"Law firm Nishith Desai Associates says courts in India frown upon any form of post-employment restraint, as such restraints are considered to limit the economic mobility of the employees, thereby limiting their personal freedom of choice of work/livelihood."

Good that it applies to all employees!

[Samurai]

McKinsey & Company, which is in the business of advising large companies how to do things efficiently decided to pontify on something that beyond their understanding. Not a surprise, these consulting companies tend to think they know everything. This is one of the dangers of MBAs trying to manage software engineering.

Yes, you can measure software developer productivity

I have witnessed many attempts by non-technical management to measure individual performance, producing utter garbage. But they don't give up.

Originally Posted by video description

Grady Booch said “It’s rubbish”, Kent Back said “The report is so absurd and naive that it makes no sense to critique it in detail” and Daniel Terhorst-North said, “Don’t try to measure the individual contribution of a unit in a complex adaptive system, because the premise of the question is flawed”.

In this episode software engineer and author, Dave Farley joins in with the critique, and while agreeing with Kent Beck on most things, does look at the report in some detail to critique it. He finds that the McKinsey developer productivity article is as useless and ill-informed as the reactions of many other industry experts would suggest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuUBZ1pByzM

[DigitalOne]

Buy now pay later startup ZestMoney will be shutting down and will let go of the remaining 150 employees.

The management informed employees in a townhall on December 5 that it will be winding down operations and will let go of the remaining 150 employees. It will retain a skeletal legal and finance team to see through the shut down.

Source: Moneycontrol

[Small Bot]

Originally Posted by am1m

"HR consultants say most would have non-compete clauses in their employment contracts, but that does not seem to bother them. Because such clauses are not enforceable in courts."

"Law firm Nishith Desai Associates says courts in India frown upon any form of post-employment restraint, as such restraints are considered to limit the economic mobility of the employees, thereby limiting their personal freedom of choice of work/livelihood."

Good that it applies to all employees!

Well, technically, non-compete clauses beyond the employment period are almost never enforceable and it's generally just a toothless clause used as a mythical stick by recruiters and hiring managers to scare people into staying. Mostly to reduce their work of hiring someone else.

I hope all young professionals reading this call their bluff if somebody wants to enforce it post employment without proper cause. Most professionals just don't want any legal issues, so they abide by these random clauses, which is exactly what is being taken advantage of.

I had a case a few years ago in my previous company, a Bank, where some other smaller financial institution mailed a notice to us stating that a new hire to our company had a non-compete clause in her contract with them, that prohibited her from working for another financial institution for six months. They threatened to file a case if we did not dismiss her or at least take disciplinary action against her and confirm to them. Quite petty of them, I thought.

Our response, sent by our legal team, was quite detailed, but in essence read: Go ahead, file a case and we'll see you in court.

That employee is still working in my previous company, so everything turned out peachy.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Small Bot

I hope all young professionals reading this call their bluff if somebody wants to enforce it post employment without proper cause. Most professionals just don't want any legal issues, so they abide by these random clauses, which is exactly what is being taken advantage of.

There is a situation where the clause holds good, and it is not even in the employment contract.

We have technology partnership agreement with many companies that work closely with us. Everyone one of those agreements have non-solicit clause. If I hire anyone from those companies, I will be in breach of agreement and lose their business.