Использование ChatGPT для улучшения резюме, путь к финансовой независимости разработчика, про продуктивность от CEO OpenAI

Так как уже довольно давно сам не выкладывал сюда ничего, решил хотя бы поделиться полезными (на мой взгляд) ссылками, чтобы почитать/посмотреть на досуге)

—
Тут Дима написал про то, как работать с ключевыми словами в резюме и как тюнить их с ChatGPT
https://t.me/dimaOGOgia/379

—
А тут Олег поделился крутым видео, где чувак улучшает качество буллет-поинтов с помощью ChatGPT
https://t.me/tech_resumes/36

Даже если вам это не нужно сейчас, гляньте на досуге — Prompt Engineering — тема!

—
Еще у @anastasconclude недавно увидел статью про финансовую независимость, тоже было интересно почитать:
https://software.rajivprab.com/2021/12/26/my-path-to-financial-independence-as-a-software-engineer/

Человек накопил/заработал состояние в $2.4M при текущих ежегодных затратах в $78k. Простая математика без учета инфляции и увеличения расходов показывает, что этих денег ему хватит на 30+ лет)

—
Интересная статья про процесс хайринга в FAANG (интересно было прочитать про chaos score, например):
https://interviewing.io/guides/hiring-process

И вот анекдот оттуда же:
“My friend interviewed at Google and Facebook, and he passed both loops. At Google, he was offered L6. At Facebook, he was offered L4. Speaking about luck: this is the same person with the same experience. And the level of difference– at two of the most trusted names in tech–was two levels of seniority.”

—
Относительно недавно мой друг Боря советовал мне прочитать статью Сэма Альтмана (CEO OpenAI, ex-President at Y Combinator) про продуктивность, свой конспект выложил на свой второй канал:
https://t.me/ycguy/86

(кстати, подписывайтесь, если вам интересна тематика стартапов, YC и саморазвития!)

—
На этом эту подборку закончим — ставьте лайки, если вам зашел такой формат и если стоит делать такие подборки чаще. Спасибо ❤️

The repository with IT internship opportunities in Russia: https://github.com/mrhakimov/russian-internships

В комментариях к посту про телеграм-каналы вы оставили много интересного, я посмотрел все и выбрал три лучших по моему субъективному мнению!

Предлагаю подписаться на топ-3:

? Безоговорочно лучший - @wanderingkorean (коммент), Сергей Ким пишет милые истории из жизни. Отличное владение словом, но самое главное, по постам очевидно, что Сергей - просто хороший человек! А больше мне ничего и не нужно ?

?@foogler (коммент), Мухаммаджон делится хорошо структурированными полезностями для получения оффера от глобальных компаний. Небанальное, в отличие от большинства! Перекликается с моими постами рубрики Go Global. И мне нравится тяга автора собирать списки в github репозитории. Считаю, что git-подход должен быть внедрен во множестве сфер, не только айтишных. Мир точно станет лучше!

?Два канала смежной тематики: Валентин Новиков интеллигентно и научно про еду - “Квант Еды” @foodquant (коммент) и Светлана Шестакова - “Как я к доктору ходил” @hiwttd (коммент) - практически терапия для ипохондриков!

Вне конкурса, предлагаю подписаться на каналы участников kyrillic is doing:

Николая Шевчика @vdirekt, с разными полезностями.

Михаила Валова @valovm_working, про ИТ и иммиграцию.

Георгия Сазонова @geosazonov, про бизнес и компании, технологии и эмоции.

Никиты Павлова @nikpavlovai, про ИИ.

Классно, что так много людей ведут каналы! Я настаиваю на том, что это одна из самых лучших активностей для многих по соотношению “сложность-польза”. Можно научиться нормально доносить свои мысли до других людей и держать руку на пульсе по вопросам собственной компетенции и интереса людей к тому, что делаешь. Это дорогого стоит!

Я думаю, что нужно сделать пиар хороших каналов более системным, потому что есть много годноты! Прошу продолжать присылать в комменты поста свои каналы в том же формате (описание + несколько типовых постов). Суперклассные буду периодически пиарить в kyrillic!

@kyrillic

What startups vs big companies like Google look for in resumes, pt.1 Some hiring managers prefer looking at LinkedIn because they find it faster to find the info they need (e.g. company logos, time spent at each company). Personal websites may also work as…

What startups vs big companies like Google look for in resumes, pt.1

Some hiring managers prefer looking at LinkedIn because they find it faster to find the info they need (e.g. company logos, time spent at each company). Personal websites may also work as resumes. Fill out your profile at LinkedIn.

Startups and big companies, say Google, hire very differently. Therefore, it makes sense that a candidate should apply to a startup differently from how they’d apply to a big company.

Startups don’t usually use an automated system to screen resumes. Big companies receive a large volume of resumes, so they need a way to quickly filter out resumes, aka quick ways to say no. Startups, on the contrary, look for reasons to say yes.

Startups look for demonstrated expertise, not keywords. So using a long list of skills may be a bad idea when applying to a startup:
— It’s unconvincing. There’s a big gap between “saying that you know something” and “being good at it.”
— It can weaken your resume. Listing skills like Jupyter Notebook or Git as your competitive advantage (the only reason to include them in your resume), can only mean that you have no other competitive advantage.
— Expertise takes time to acquire, so do not list too many things.

Do not use long lists of keywords, demonstrate your expertise instead:
— Show how you acquired and use that skill in your job. If during interview, you can tell, for example, why did you chose Flink over other stream processing engines, what issues you’ve encountered, and what changes you wish to see in Flink, recruiter would be sold!
— Share your expertise on public channels, such as StackOverflow answers, open source contributions, papers, blog posts.

There are two traits startups look for to evaluate whether a candidate can get things done: initiatives and persistence.

Initiatives
To get anything done, you need to start it. There are a lot of people who can see a problem, but few who would do something about it. Startups want people who, when seeing a problem, proactively do something about it without waiting to be told. They look for initiatives a candidate has started before:
— A student club, an event, a team, a project at work. A project that you initiate doesn’t have to be about something new. Projects like writing documents or improving existing CI/CD are also extremely valuable.
— A startup. The best hires are people who have previously founded a company, even if that company didn’t work out. They know the drill.

Persistence
Persistence drives things to completion. Some signals of persistence:
— Daily contribution to GitHub for one whole year.
— Being good at anything that requires consistent effort, e.g. a Kaggle master, a chess master, a professional athlete, etc.
— Having previously joined another early startup before and stuck around.

Consistent job jumping can imply that you get bored or give up easily. A year at a job is hardly enough to get deep into a problem space and make significant contributions.

https://huyenchip.com/2023/01/24/what-we-look-for-in-a-candidate.html

On promotions at Google

Most likely you will be surrounded by the best engineers in the world, using the most advanced development tools in the world.

Managers at Google can’t promote their direct reports. They don’t even get a vote.

Promotion decisions come from small committees of upper-level software engineers and managers who have never heard of you until the day they decide on your promotion.
You apply for promotion by assembling a “promo packet”: a collection of written recommendations from your teammates, design documents you’ve created, and mini-essays you write to explain why your work merits a promotion.

If you spent each day choosing the right problems to solve, making the codebase better, and helping your team execute efficiently, the promotion committee would magically know this and reward you for it.
Unsurprisingly, it doesn’t work like that.

Your job should be quantifiable. You should prove that anything you did had a positive impact on Google.

"For example, my team was receiving tons of distracting email alerts due to false alarms. Old me would have just fixed these alerts. But now I knew that for this work to appear in my promo packet, I should first set up metrics so that we’d have historical records of alert frequency. At promotion time, I’d have an impressive\-looking graph of the alerts trending downward."
Some projects could be "destined" for promotion. For example, projects depended heavily on machine learning, which was and still is the hot thing at Google (2018).

Project that is supposed to automate a task that hundreds of human operators are doing manually, has a clear, objective impact on Google => more points at performance review.

Leading a junior developer throughout the project, generally wins points with promotion committees as well.

You’re in a business relationship with Google. Even though, Google does a good job of building a sense of community within the organization. To make you feel that you're not just employees, but that you are Google.

You're not Google. You provide a service to Google in exchange for money.

"So if Google and I have a business relationship that exists to serve each side’s interests, why was I spending time on all these tasks that served Google’s interests instead of my own? If the promotion committee doesn’t reward bugfixing or team support work, why was I doing that?"

Figure out what the promotion committee wants, and do that work exclusively.

"Before starting any task, I asked myself whether it would help my case for promotion. If the answer was no, I didn’t do it."
Each promotion is exponentially harder than the last.

https://mtlynch.io/why-i-quit-google/