[bee_rider]

Although, FAANG is kind of an old acronym. Those companies (other than maybe Apple because they’ve always been weird) are more like Microsoft was, when the phrase was coined. In the sense that they are matured companies that aren’t striking out and building new things in new markets.

It wouldn’t surprise me if they’ve lost the “look at interesting portfolios” muscle and gained the “look at metrics” one.

Most people didn’t work at FAANG back then, right? You worked at FAANG because you were better than people who took the conventional approach, and the really competent growing companies could figure that out.

Not sure who the up-and-comers are now, though.

[lesser23]

What I find interesting is that despite, as you said, FAANG doesn't really have the "genius appeal" it used to have they still demand it. You would sort of expect a company that is in the glacial stages of movement to have more capital and more leeway. If anything, the competition for these positions has gotten even worse despite the work not being anything close to revolutionary or novel at all.

[bee_rider]

I think they aren’t quite totally glacial yet. They are just well along the path. It is a continuous thing. I mean they hired a bunch of competent people over the last decade+. Probably those competent people just don’t the incentive structure to look at portfolios.

The competition should get harder; resumes-optimizers are much harder to compete with than thing-builders, in the game of getting hired, right?