Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:it's about defensive analytics (Score 1) 56

by tjb (#46670699) Attached to: Mystery MLB Team Moves To Supercomputing For Their Moneyball Analysis

Yup, defense is where it is at. The SF Giants won two WS in 3 years by (accidentally, I think) putting together a team that was focused on pitching and defense while everyone else was focused on offense.

While offense is WAY more important, it is too well understood now to gain any advantage over other teams. In 2002, Billy Beane could flip a guy with a great swing or subjectively good defense for someone with better OPS+ and generate wins because everyone else valued the scout's opinions and not the numbers. In 2014, everyone values OPS+/PECOTA/Cairo over subjective opinion so the market has become almost completely efficient in that regard.

The 2010 and 2012 SF Giants had above average (but not spectacular, particularly in 2012) pitching and absolutely awful hitting but managed to win 2 championships when the current state of research says that they shouldn't. One, you could explain it away as a fluke. Two? Maybe there's something there and defense would seem to be where the current blindspot is and if someone can get ahead of the crowd in understanding it, they can get ahead of the crowd and intentionally put together a championship team in that way.

Comment: Re: I'm calling bullshit. (Score 1) 137

by tjb (#46559559) Attached to: Silicon Valley Anti-Poaching Cartel Went Beyond a Few Tech Firms

From TFA:

"“For each of these ‘Restricted Hiring’ companies, Google has agreed to the following protocol.

1. Not to pursue manager level and above candidates for Product, Sales, or G&A roles — even if they have applied to Google;

2. However, there are no restrictions to our recruiting from these companies at individual contributor levels for PSG

3. Additionally, there are no restrictions at any level for engineering candidates."

Point 1 will probably get them in trouble, but point 3 makes it pretty clear that this did not apply to engineers.

Comment: Re:I'm calling bullshit. (Score 1) 137

by tjb (#46559463) Attached to: Silicon Valley Anti-Poaching Cartel Went Beyond a Few Tech Firms

Yup, same here (well, not Apple but a different company that was mentioned and have totally gotten cold-called by Google). Based on the documents in TFA, it appears that the agreements were mostly about cold-calling and didn't apply to engineering staff. This seems mostly to be about executive staff and salesforce.

Now, excuse me while I play the world's tiniest violin for those executives at major tech companies that had their salaries suppressed.

Comment: Re:Basci inerview tips (Score 1) 218

by tjb (#46552867) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Re-Learning How To Interview As a Developer?

Yikes! No!

Well, ok, that may fly in other places, I guess, but in Silicon Valley anything fancier than business casual is not going to work in your favor during an interview. Hell, when you interview at Apple they explicitly tell you not to wear a suit.

Look nice and all, but dress appropriately for where you are interviewing. Maybe "dress like the company's CEO" is better advice, so put that hoodie on when you interview at Facebook.

Comment: Re:Work where you grew up (Score 3, Insightful) 285

making $100,000/year and having $60,000 or $70,000 of that amount after taxes going to rent

That's way too high of a rent estimate. Even in San Francisco, you can get a decent place for 1 person for $3000/month.

Generally speaking, if you put a premium on having a big house and lots of land, Silicon Valley is probably not for you as the difference in pay will not make up for the absurd cost of housing. If you're willing to compromise on housing, the higher pay is more than worth it in terms of the stuff and experiences you can afford. Compared to most places, housing is a lot more expensive, and restaurants/bars are moderately more expensive but groceries are cheaper (high-quality produce, in particular) and most non-perishable goods (cars, anything you can buy on Amazon) are the same price as everywhere else.

Comment: Re:Working men top out around $120k (Score 3, Informative) 173

by tjb (#45962069) Attached to: The Mystery/Myth of the $3 Million Google Engineer

That's a really low number. $120K (base) is in the neighborhood of what most tier 1 tech companies pay good engineers with about 5-8 years experience. Add in stock/bonus/fringe, and total compensation is usually somewhat higher than that.

The eventual top-out for most folks is likely much closer to $220K (total compensation) than it is to $120K. Outside of silicon valley, YMMV, though.

"Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." -- Bernard Berenson

Working...