[majormajor]

> This attitude is what I've usually seen from management, and junior engineers are often the ones who fight against this attitude, before they get too jaded and leave. Management will dishonestly claim successful delivery with zero regard for the actual product, and then force the engineers into 24/7 oncall.

Or do junior engineers build a broken system because they don't know better which results in them having to constantly fix shit and burn out?

And then a senior engineer is hired from outside with a lovely mess to clean up while getting paid more than the junior engineer was. And at that point in the company's life, the pressure is usually lower. So it's a nice gig. ;)

[amznthrowaway5]

That’s possible but not what I’ve seen. I’m on ML teams, the junior engineers often come in with a good CS background and sometimes good software engineering practices, while the highly credentialed senior scientists often refuse to even write unit tests.

[HomeDeLaPot]

That's ML. Senior scientist != senior engineer, right?

[amznthrowaway5]

Well it's Senior "Applied Scientist". They get to make all the rules and get a much higher salary than sr engineers. ML teams seem to consistently reward the wrong people who can't actually deliver real value.

[smallcharleston]

They might or might not deliver real value, but I’m sure most research scientists view a lot of software as simple implementation rather than real value. I think everyone needs to work together for these complex systems.