> The fact that snap's web3 team being cut is one of the listed examples is pretty comical IMHO.
We're seeing a huge influx of applicants who are coming from failed web3/blockchain projects. It was very much a gold rush that attracted a lot of people looking to strike it rich. Now that the momentum has disappeared, the employees of those projects are all running for safety.
The interesting question to be answered now is if "web3" skills are an effective substitute good (in the pure economic sense) for employers looking for developers.
I suspect a lot of pure web3 devs won't actually make a more competitive market beyond incentivizing yet another fizzbuzz-like hoop in the interviewing process to weed out people who learned about blockchain tech and otherwise can't code themselves out of a wet paper bag.
On second thought... I should acknowledge my elitism in that last sentence and maybe be more cautious. Good grief, I got my last 4 years of professional experience working on IoT, which I bet was looked down upon in a similar manner by others when it started.
Maybe the takeaway is that we should all to the best of our abilities keep at least a casual hand in the water of tech so we have a general idea of the current.
Founder here. This piece took my team and I months to research and tag and write. We spent hours counting individual layoffs in spreadsheets and on LinkedIn and running and rerunning the numbers. And the conclusion wasn't even what I wanted. When I started writing, I really thought that the layoffs were overblown and weren't affecting engineers. That's not what's happening at all.
Now, you're right, why do we put effort into pieces like this? It's to get some eyeballs on interviewing.io.
But this piece is not flimsy, and I think it's not correct or fair to assume that just because something serves our business that it's of poor quality.
Normally I wouldn't say anything, but the "flimsy" thing really got me.
Right on. The comment you replied to is a perfect example of the zero-effort, knee-jerk, dismissive comments that are such a tired trope of this site.
PS: Had a great time giving my second peer practice interview on your platform this morning. Love the product and the insights you provide in articles like this one!
Just because you can surmise as to the obvious ways in which writing this post might generally serve the interests of the author or the company behind does not, in itself, establish that the piece is flimsy. Your comment, on the other hand, with its baseless assertion and borderline ad hominem IS flimsy. Be better.