I just spent a lot of yesterday tweaking a docker image with xfce and vs code so I can just let codex go full access mode without too much worry in a throwaway sandbox. The agent runs similarly-namespace-constrained and without sudo. I think it's a relatively safe middleground- do you really think container escape is still a big deal here?
Finally getting this setup also allowed me to very quickly troubleshoot what was breaking my build in the codex cloud hosted container which obviously has even less risk attached.
Now I'm juggling and strategizing branches like coding is an RTS game... and it feels like a super power. It's almost like unlocking an undiscovered tech tree.
I think that completely discounting the potential of new emergent capabilities at scale undermines this thesis significantly. We don't know until someone tries, and there is compelling evidence that there's still plenty of juice to squeeze out of both scale and engineering.
What is preventing any of those mentioned card vendors from integrating with FedNow either directly or via some abstractive layer through another entity? I don't understand why the answer would be 'no for these reasons'.
The retail payment companies I've seen all use the same structure: they provide a retail interface and then handle monetary transfers within their own proprietary network (effectively a centralized database). To interface with the financial system, they provide a mechanism to occasionally wire funds to/from a traditional bank account. If FedNow has any role in these systems, it's just to speed up the occasional funds-wiring process by a few hours. I have yet to see anyone actually directly using FedNow in any meaningful sense for retail payments.
(Last reply I’ll post here): I guess just to be ultra clear so there’s no ambiguity.
At our company no candidate talks to anyone at our company before talking to our 3rd party recruiter who screens all candidates before they make it to us. The recruiter has short 15-20 min pre-screening calls with candidates and she’s responsible for weeding out candidates who are likely to not be a fit.
A major category to evaluate is mutual compensation expectations (what are they expecting to be paid, what are we expecting to pay).
I don’t have full visibility into how our recruiter articulates this part of the screening call. She says some candidates don’t have a salary in mind, in which case she shares the lower bound of our range to feel them out.
All roles have a salary range, e.g. could be $130-160k. We don’t just come out and say that, otherwise everyone will want the top end of the range, even if (in our opinion) their experience matches closer to the bottom or middle of the range.
It’s an art, not a science. My goal is to not overpay for a role if we don’t have to. (Important: overpay doesn’t mean underpay!) more importantly, I want the person we’re hiring to be happy with the compensation. I don’t want to hire someone who’s going to quit in 6 months for a higher paying role.
It’s a negotiation and both sides are trying to find the “market rate” through the process. You can be bitter about this fact, but it’s a simple reality in business. That’s just how things work.
> otherwise everyone will want the top end of the range, even if (in our opinion) their experience matches closer to the bottom or middle of the range.
My perspective of this, sometimes stated, sometimes not, is that if I'm getting the offer I should at least be in the top 50% of the range.
Why?
How many candidates did you interview, with all their experiences, some more than me, some less than me, but you chose me, which means you saw me as the highest caliber candidate, but you also see me as "closer to the bottom of the range"? Barring other contributing factors, "does not compute".
As a 12 person engineering team, we really need a strong team lead or someone who we can put on a management track over the next 2-3 years (SWE to Lead to EM to Director to VP). We prefer to promote from within rather than hire those roles directly.
So, the top end of our range for engineering roles right now is reserved for people with management potential because we’re willing to pay a premium for that, but doesn’t mean we will reject good individual contributors.
(This is my last reply on this thread, the debate could go on, e.g. “how do you know if someone has management potential”, etc - hiring and finding a job is an art, not a science, no right answers, nothing is perfect)
Actually, that's a good perspective that I hadn't considered. I can appreciate that.
I can't really find much justification for hiring in the lower third of a band, but I could see what you've said, or middle third being the default, upper third.
I usually don't like the "we prefer to leave room for raises and such", because that's trite - you set the bands, you can adjust them.
(I also get - and have been burned by companies who didn't - the need for a pipeline: not every engineer can be a senior engineer, you need juniors to be able to grow and evolve and be the seniors when those people become EMs etc.)
As an EM I've also had circumstances where the person we're interviewing is borderline between two levels. They rate out as very promising, but really should be leveled at the lower level. However, for a variety of reasons they need to be leveled at the higher level.
And in those cases when it seems worth it, I've offered the higher level at the lower end of the range.
> We prefer to promote from within rather than hire those [management] roles directly. ... So, the top end of our range for engineering roles right now is reserved for people with management potential...
So, disclose that.
You clearly have two ranges, one for folks who are decent tech folks, and one who are decent tech folks who can (and are willing to) do management.
Disclose both pairs of numbers, along with the caveat that the company is very, very highly unlikely to hire (and pay for) an external management-potential employee.
> ...e.g. could be $130-160k. We don’t just come out and say that, otherwise everyone will want the top end of the range, even if (in our opinion) their experience matches closer to the bottom or middle of the range.
I hope you can see the hypocrisy in this statement: you want the candidate to take on the risk you're unwilling to, in a situation where you hold all the cards.
What if a candidate said $110k? Would you still offer them $160k if you felt they were worth that? Or would you take advantage of this newfound information and offer them less than what you thought the job was worth to you?
Because of this - as a candidate - when someone asks me "what salary are you looking for?" it's an immediate turn-off for me. I pretty much refuse to answer the question or ask what the salary range is for the company.
My favorite thing that a company can do regarding comp is to publicly state what their roles, titles, and salary ranges for those are. Then specify in the job description what title they are hiring for and link to that information.
This absolutely is great for the already-working employees as well as candidates. Knowing what title I am, how much I can expect my compensation to be upon promotion, etc. is beneficial for everyone. You can also publicly state the trade-offs your company has chosen to make regarding compensation and attract candidates who appreciate those things.
Perhaps your base salary is lower than the norm, but you offer other things that make up for it. Examples of things worth more to me than base salary:
* More vacation time
* 100% remote
* 100% medical coverage
* 9+% 401K match
* ESPP, RSUs, ...
* Very short vesting times
* Paid child care (possibly on-site)
The list goes on. I guarantee - unless you are grossly underpaying your employees - that if you just publicly list title : salary, heavily promote your other benefits, and have recruiters link to that, you'll end up being much better off.
> What if a candidate said $110k? Would you still offer them $160k if you felt they were worth that? Or would you take advantage of this newfound information and offer them less than what you thought the job was worth to you?
I will answer from the things that I control, but yes I would offer what I believe their value is to me. The number given to me by a candidate is just the conversation we have to ensure we are in each other's ballpark. If my budget is in range and your performance in the interview is good to excellent you will be getting good to excellent pay in my organization from my say on the matter.
But there are absolutely things I don't control. E.g. my company participates in regional pay adjustments on salary.
Negotiations provided other competing offers are things HR have effectively full control over, at best I can recommend an uplevel for exceptional talent here to keep in budget for a particular role, but this is determined sooner at the evaluations stage.
The process to uplevel may require input from other managers in my org, my manager, and my skip (maybe even my skip's skip which is pretty much C-suite) to approve depending on experience so its an uphill battle even for me to do this.
Lowest friction is to bring you in at the level I have approved and then get you promoted within the year, but this would likely not be ideal for the candidate as on-hire package items would not be adjusted. OTOH, given a certain level of visibility and impact, you would be eligible for special awards and extra bonus pay which would likely exceed the amortized scheduled of an uplevel on its own for a single year.
I’m currently job seeking. Some companies apply to the letter of this but still share almost no information. I’ve seen salary ranges like 140-280k. In essence that tells me the company still wants to not overpay like the parent comment said.
Market rate is based on the responsibilities of the job, not on what a single candidate might want. My advice is to not try to negotiate down on what you're going to offer a candidate, just state the responsibilities of the job, the expected compensation, and let the best match fill that. This isn't a menial job where you can swap in a new employee quickly, but is a major investment where an extra 5-10% could save you a large amount of wasted effort when this person moves on to the next company using his time at your company to close that wage gap you created. It always amazed me that companies would fight over a relatively small amount, lowering retention rates, while paying massive amounts towards recruiting and training of new employees.
Market rate is based on probability of finding candidate to accept the lowest possible rate. It does not really depends on responsibilities.
A person can double the salary for the same responsibilities simply moving to the other company/location.
And yes, company will easily accept higher attrition than increase salary by 10%. Now even more so, and will hire for lower salary because there are so many desperate unemployed people who have no choice but to accept huge pay cut.
Newsflash my friend, candidates always have a number in mind, even if they're not sharing it. By disclosing only your lower bound rather than the full range of your compensation, I'm pretty sure you're doing yourself a disservice. When people apply for a position at one company, they're probably also interviewing at 10 others. A good engineer that seemed (to you) unsure about comp will eventually pass the first round at places that are more transparent with a number that hits your undisclosed upper range (just the fact that such places exist should hint at something wrong about your beliefs). That'll then solidify a ballpark figure for that candidate. Guess what happens then. At best, your lower bid puts you in a low priority pile. At worst, if you're then willing to revise that number when the candidate later tells you it's too low, you look like a company with a culture of trying to lowball engineers.
Instead of being cagey about comp, do your own homework. Determine how much filling the role is worth (which should also include cost of keeping it vacant). Disclose a range to candidates. Evaluate them for your needs and determine what you're willing to compensate them based on your own estimation of their competence. If there's a mismatch between their expectations and yours, that's where negotiations should begin.
Not overpaying for a role if you don't have to? How much is "overpaying"? You're a business, so shop like one. Don't play games with nickel and dime accounting. Put a number on resources. Acquire them and move it to expenses. Then go back to getting things done.
throwaway6977 made a perfectly logical point and you come back with the most BS comment I've seen on HN in a long time.
> We don’t just come out and say that, otherwise everyone will want the top end of the range, even if (in our opinion) their experience matches closer to the bottom or middle of the range.
Of course candidates would want the top range. You don't have to give it to them if you feel that don't deserve it.
Again, you claim don't want to waste people's time including your own, so just post range and then if people don't like it, they won't apply. What's so hard about that?
> That’s just how things work.
No it's not. Plenty of companies post their salary ranges. It's perfectly within your right to choose not too. I have no problem with that. The part I'm criticizing is your hypocritical self-justification for it.
Hey I just wanna say that I'm really glad that you personally haven't had to go through the hell of cardiovascular/heart damage from this, but you also shouldn't use your anecdote to undermine others' extreme sickness. You are ignorant to experiences not your own.
I was quadruple-vaccinated due to being on immunosuppressants, and yet when I finally caught the virus (ironically at a medical science conference) it resulted in a stay at hospital, and now 18 months later I still have rapid heartbeat and heavy breathing after walking up a single flight of stairs, and real trouble concentrating on my work.
For the vast majority of people, yes Covid is on the level of a cold. However for some of us, it's f*** scary. I knew in advance that if I caught it, then it would likely be bad. It's a scary proposition watching the political decisions and individual decisions being made and seeing that the country has basically decided that my life should be written off in favour of a little bit of crowd-pleasing and avoiding mild inconvenience. I have now had 7 vaccines, yet I still have no confidence that I would survive a second infection. That's a level of dread that is unhealthy having hanging over you all the time.
I was teaching at a course a while back, and I saw that the professor in charge of the department running it (who wasn't actually providing any of the teaching and didn't really need to be there) was sniffling all the way through the whole thing, and then a couple of days later I was contacted by an organiser saying that a whole load of people who attended had caught Covid. I could not believe the stupidity from someone who is actually very intelligent. It's an example of very mild inconvenience to just stay at home if you're unwell, because you have no idea if there's someone vulnerable that you're going to infect and potentially kill. I have seen multiple people in the last couple of months visibly unwell, admitting that their other half tested positive for Covid a few days ago, but not believing that they had it themselves and still going out and meeting up with people. That level of wilful ignorance is (in my mind) atrocious in this day and age.
I'm extremely lucky to have a job where I can work from home almost 100% of the time. I can't see this changing in the next couple of years at least. Partly because people believe that "In 2023, COVID is a bad cold/flu".
I'm sorry that you had such a terrible reaction to COVID. Were you wearing a mask at the time you were infected?
I think you need to understand that COVID is never going away. It will always be around and it will always mutate. "In 2023, COVID is a bad cold/flu" is completely true for 99.9% of the entire world, and people like you will need to figure out how to protect yourself, and it's obvious we need to do more research to figure out how to protect people like you.
It's obvious vaccines and masks did nothing to protect you which is really unfortunate because that has been the only strategy they have taken over the last 3 years. This is why I think studying what makes you different from others will help doctors and scientists figure out how to treat it.
But for the vast majority of us, we don't need to keep thinking it's more than a flu and we should figure out how to free ourselves from things like over-quarantining.
> Famously, Covid is different in that it can be spread asymptomatically.
This is another fallacy. All they did was test for the presence of the virus through PCR tests. But that doesn't show anything about infectivity. Every study I could find showed decreasing confidence over the years since 2020 that asymptomatic patients are actually infectious/contagious. Just because they can find the virus on you doesn't mean that you're infectious, those are two different things, and something that actually hasn't been measured properly.
You get down voted because there are thousands of people suffering from real physical symptoms of this - like clots and tachycardia - and you are waving away the symptoms as a mental illness.
You aren't wrong, but "the science" figured out that Epstein-Barr was connected to multiple sclerosis _last year_. Maybe some skepticism that things aren't settled is warranted - especially with something so new.
This sentiment (which is unfortunately rampant) is incredibly ignorant of the actual disease and infantilizes it's victims. I'd LOVE to see people who espouse this idea- go and do some more research about the disease they clearly don't have, and have not experienced first-hand.
Finally getting this setup also allowed me to very quickly troubleshoot what was breaking my build in the codex cloud hosted container which obviously has even less risk attached.
Now I'm juggling and strategizing branches like coding is an RTS game... and it feels like a super power. It's almost like unlocking an undiscovered tech tree.
reply