Conversation

1) A telling conversation that just happened in the office: BD: "can we see if there are recent changes in number of FTX deposits?" DEV: "Sure!" ... DEV: "eh this looks like noise, totally dominated by a few large users." BD: "ah right, how about number of users depositing?"

9

5

57

2) DEV: "ok cool, I'll get that." It was pretty mundane, and no large conclusions in the end. But there were so many pitfalls avoided there: a) at most places, there wouldn't have been any sanity checking. Dev says "up 30%!" and BD then triples down on a campaign.

1

19

3) b) the quick back and forth is crucial: this took ~4 rounds before getting to the right query, but only took ~10 minutes. If communication isn't great, it takes a week. c) Totally no pressure to draw a strong conclusion if there isn't one; at a lot of places "meh" isn't ok

2

31

4) These things seem small but they add up quickly. Often, from the outside, you wonder why companies make bizarre decisions. But the more I dive in to how companies work, the more I'm surprised they ever get things right. A bit of internal dysfunction makes everything break.

7

4

69

fiskantes in his true form

Replying to

and

This is the biggest struggle for remote only projects. At one point, they start to compete with "all hands in office" projects and find themselves outcompeted in these cases. However other benefits might prevail (better access to talent, less office/commute overhead...)

1

3

Replying to

oh yeah fuck remote work (that's a little strong -- we have a few great remote workers -- but the norm is a 66% hit to productivity for being remote)

5:39 PM · Oct 24, 2020Twitter Web App

Replying to

and

Curious how you measured this.

Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content

Show