We would get better results by collaborating, and because defecting (and using the thing in its unsafe, and unhealthy ways) is rewarded we defect.

> Each job ad contains a warning: "Please don't join if you're not excited about… working ~70 hrs/week in person

If a company is going to demand long weeks, this is the only way to do it: Be up front and explain it in the job listing so nobody is surprised or wastes time interviewing for a job they’re not compatible with.

It is also interesting that a surveillance startup that abuses sales people thinks they are doing "incredible things".

at my current company i happen to work 70hrs/week but it doesn't feel like a ton of work, i'm having fun and let's be honest a chunk of the "work" is meetings & hanging out with my coworkers who are also my friends. the vast majority of people's productivity drops off after 4-6 hours of focused work. if i wanted to rest and vest there's plenty of companies to do that but your upside is capped hard

a company that 'requires' 996 doesn't understand why people work that hard in the first place.

Last year a company reached out to me about an interesting job on their Developer Experience team. What the company is building is super interesting, and DevEx is something I love and am good at.

In our second conversation, the hiring manager mentioned that they all work ten hours a day, five days a week, in the office. I guess you could call it a 975 schedule.

I don't think of myself as "old", but that kind of in-office schedule sounded grueling. So I declined continuing with further interviews.

A 996 schedule sounds like a great way to say, "older developers need not apply."

they cannot judge a brilliant insight from a slacker that would have saved thousands of man-hours rushing the wrong way.

do you really want to work for such a company?

70 hour weeks weren't unheard of. Why... because the money was stupid and you had skin in the game.

Lots of people got wealthy, very wealthy. Fuck you money wealthy.

I know a lot of people who did that and then kept working. The large majority of them in fact.

If you're here and you're looking at one of these jobs, this is the critical sentence you need to ask when negotiating: "Can I see a cap table." If they say anything other than yes, then your response is "with out a cap table the value of the equity being offered is ZERO, I'm going to need a lot more cash".

“Is not life on earth a drudgery, its days like those of a hireling? Like a slave who longs for the shade, a hireling who waits for wages, So I have been assigned months of futility, and troubled nights have been counted off for me. When I lie down I say, ‘When shall I arise?’ then the night drags on; I am filled with restlessness until the dawn. My flesh is clothed with worms and scabs, my skin cracks and festers; My days are swifter than a weaver’s shuttle; they come to an end without hope.”

Of course, critical deadlines occasionally require overtime to compensate for poor planning or acts of god, but it should be a last resort, not something to "embrace".

The goal is his work is to literally reduce the value of his work. He gets finite reward (even if above market average), then is fired, while owners continue extracting value from the work indefinitely.

I think we need to come up with a third alternative to communism and capitalism. I'd like to see a system which attempts to reward people for the full transitive value of their work as long as the work remains valuable.

“ Rilla, a New York-based tech business which sells AI-based systems that allow employers to monitor sales representatives when they are out and about, interacting with clients.”

Which idiots are giving away their lives for this.

In a bad market, there is always someone desperate enough to take any opportunity.

Over 20 years ago I joined a startup that leaned way into Extreme Programming and it was a lot of fun. It helped a lot that everyone working there wanted to try working that way.

We worked sensible hours and went home feeling very productive. The startup failed, though, in part because "pivoting" wasn't really a thing yet.

- How layoff culture backfires: companies that lean into this culture tend to underperform compared to those that do not.

- The deleterious effects of overwork on employees: work carries diminishing returns after a certain number of hours per week, and eventually the mistake rate from exhaustion outweighs the productivity from more hours. Not to mention, this causes burnout which leads to valuable people leaving.

- How AI removes flow: this is something I've seen in myself, but using agents means I do not achieve the cognitive engagement necessary for flow, which is one of the most pleasant states I can get into while working (and it often makes work feel worthwhile).

I'd also note: if you get hired at Rilla for their senior engineer position, and you're able to command the top of their stated band (300K), that is defacto ~165K for 40 hours worked / week.

Many people fought very hard for a long time to secure a 40 hour work week, and it's pretty silly how easily a lot of tech people will throw it away. Time is your most important asset, don't waste your life behind a screen not seeing your family or friends.

For knowledge worker jobs, it's stupid to measure performance by number of hours spent in an office.