[HN Gopher] What makes you senior
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       What makes you senior
        
       Author : mooreds
       Score  : 174 points
       Date   : 2025-12-19 16:34 UTC (4 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (terriblesoftware.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (terriblesoftware.org)
        
       | moralestapia wrote:
       | This sounds cool but reality is much more boring than that. If
       | your work title says "Senior" then you're Senior.
        
         | raw_anon_1111 wrote:
         | Until you get to a behavioral interview at your n+1 job...
        
           | moralestapia wrote:
           | What's that supposed to mean?
        
             | raw_anon_1111 wrote:
             | These are typical questions I ask when I'm interviewing a
             | senior developer:
             | 
             | "Tell me about a project you're most proud of?" Then I'm
             | going to start asking questions about your decision making
             | process, how you dealt with complexity and ambiguity, etc.
             | 
             | If all you did was pull well defined tickets off the Jira
             | board, you're not going to be able to answer that question
             | well and you aren't the type of person I'm going to
             | delegate a very ambiguous assignment where you have to make
             | good architectural and organizational decisions and have to
             | deal with "the business" to disambiguate.
             | 
             | The next question would be "Looking at your resume, I see
             | you have $x years of experience, if you could go back to
             | one of your earlier projects, what choices would you have
             | made differently knowing what you know now?"
             | 
             | If you haven't led any major initiative, what are you going
             | to say? "I would have pulled more tickets off the board?"
             | 
             | I interviewed someone from AWS at my last job, he thought
             | he was a shoo in especially after he looked on LinkedIn and
             | saw that I was from AWS. I guess he thought he was going to
             | be reversing a binary tree.
             | 
             | No matter what I asked, he couldn't describe anything he
             | had done of note except be on a team who did stuff. I asked
             | him had he led any features, presented any "six pagers"
             | internally, blog posts on the AWS site, presentations - he
             | had done nothing.
             | 
             | I passed over him for a guy at an unknown company who could
             | talk about where he "took ownership". That's one of the
             | Amazon BS Leadership Principals.
             | 
             | Hell I had a public footprint at AWS after only 3.5 years I
             | had been there as a mid level L5 employee.
        
               | necovek wrote:
               | I do all my interviewing in a very similar way, but I
               | don't use that to "level" an employee: I want most of the
               | engineers in my team to have this mindset, and the only
               | difference between seniority levels should be in the
               | size/scope of the initiative they led and took ownership
               | of, and obviously, the level of exposure to wrong things
               | they had a chance to do and learn from. I will sometimes
               | take someone where I believe they were not put in a
               | position to do this, and who I believe I can support to
               | develop this mindset.
               | 
               | I know I've done all of this since day 1 of my
               | professional software engineer career (and well, before
               | that too). I've also been "side-moted" to a Tech Lead
               | after 2 years of starting my career in a strong tech
               | company too.
        
         | onion2k wrote:
         | Based on a number of people I've worked with whose job title
         | was Senior Engineer, it isn't that.
        
           | wiseowise wrote:
           | It is. You might pat yourself on a back that you're "not like
           | them", and in fact might be better than them, but if they
           | hold the same title and earn the same amount of money -
           | they're senior just like you.
        
         | ursAxZA wrote:
         | Sometimes that's true. Sometimes it isn't. This seems to be a
         | discussion about the latter.
        
       | terrillw wrote:
       | Great article. The key things often missing in meetings
       | discussing a vague problem is do we really understand the problem
       | and how do we make concrete progress. Its a hard skill and often
       | just comes through experience - being able to put yourself in the
       | user's shoes to understand their problem, and knowing based on
       | past experience, how to execute. That is the value of seniority.
        
       | andsbf wrote:
       | Oh, so it isn't about know to solve any leetcode?
       | 
       | Good to hear it
        
       | onion2k wrote:
       | A very important skill for Senior engineers not mentioned in the
       | article is an ability to take the initiative on something. For
       | example, when a dev sees a bug in an area of code they aren't
       | responsible for and thinks "I'll raise an issue for that and
       | mention it to the product manager so we can get it fixed" instead
       | of "Oh, a bug", then they're starting to show that senior
       | mindset. It's a desire to make the whole of the software good
       | rather than just the little bit they work on good.
        
         | bdangubic wrote:
         | I have literally _never_ seen or thought of this as "senior"
         | thing. if anyone on the team regardless of their seniority does
         | not operate this way they will see a quick exit to some other
         | place
        
         | agumonkey wrote:
         | beware, some cultures are territorial in nature and this kind
         | of hard ownership will make people slap you if you ever try to
         | improve things as they come.
         | 
         | i'm in the camp of improving things regularly without
         | hesitation but again this can devolve. another way it can turn
         | sour is when the team is made of people too different from each
         | other. one improvement from someone pov is a waste or even a
         | regression for others .. then it's a 'who decides here'
         | conversation.
         | 
         | that said when you have a cohesive group all focusing on
         | pushing in the same direction then it's bliss
        
           | juancn wrote:
           | If you're skilled enough, sometimes you can even force the
           | culture to change. It can be painful and not all battles are
           | worth it, but it's doable.
        
             | agumonkey wrote:
             | probably, that said i would love to hear stories on this
             | 
             | ps: even beyond work, that kind of knowledge is very
             | important, culture is a form of abstract layer over a
             | group, and it can make or break your future
        
             | adhamsalama wrote:
             | I did this by constantly complaining about JavaScript and
             | how TypeScript is so much better until some of my
             | colleagues started writing new projects in TypeScript.
        
         | zwnow wrote:
         | I am literally not allowed to fix bugs at work. Nothing senior
         | about going rogue and showing initiative.
        
           | antonymoose wrote:
           | In that case I would ticket the specific bug with as much
           | detail as possible for scheduling. Is that also not possible?
           | That would sound like hell...
        
         | wiseowise wrote:
         | This has nothing to do with seniority. This is a question of
         | priorities.
        
       | hoss1474489 wrote:
       | I like this. I more generally look for _reduces chaos_.
       | 
       | I've seen the pursuit of disambiguation employed to deadlock a
       | project. Sometimes that's the right thing to do--the project
       | sponsor doesn't know what they want. But many times the senior
       | needs to document some assumptions and _ship something_ rather
       | than frustrating the calendars of 15 people trying to nail down
       | some exact spec. Knowing whether to step on the brake or the gas
       | for the benefit of the team and company is a key senior trait.
       | 
       | This is a _yes, and_ to the article; building without
       | understanding the problem usually will increase chaos--though
       | sometimes the least effort way through it is to build a
       | prototype, and a senior would know when to do that and how to
       | scope it.
        
       | oh_my_goodness wrote:
       | It's just a pay grade. Please folks stop trying to analyze
       | "junior," "senior," and so forth. It's just something management
       | told HR to write down.
        
         | WhyOhWhyQ wrote:
         | When did this "junior/senior" lingo get cool? I don't remember
         | it being used when I was young. Maybe the leet code trend
         | brought on a sort of gamification of the profession, with ranks
         | etc..?
        
           | raw_anon_1111 wrote:
           | As a 51 year old, I hate when other old people think that
           | "back in my day things were different"
           | 
           | > Evans has held his present position with IBM since 1965.
           | Previously, he had been a vice president of the Fed- eral
           | Systems Division with the man- agement responsibility for
           | developing large computing systems; the culmina- tion of this
           | work was the IBM/System 360. He joined IBM in 1951 as a
           | _junior engineer_ and has held a variety of engineering and
           | management posi- tions within the corporation
           | 
           | Dated 1969
           | 
           | https://bitsavers.org/magazines/Computer_Design/Computer_Des.
           | ..
           | 
           | Next meme that needs to die: "back in my day, developers did
           | it for the love and not the money"
        
             | WhyOhWhyQ wrote:
             | The title has always existed. I meant the obsession about
             | being a "a junior" or "a senior", like gaining an
             | achievement in a video game or something. I just thought
             | every young person was a junior engineer and every old
             | person was as senior engineer.
        
               | raw_anon_1111 wrote:
               | You don't get to be a senior engineer just because of
               | tenure. It's not gaming the system to expect a level to
               | be based on the amount of responsibility and not just
               | from getting 1 year of experience 10x.
               | 
               | You want a promotion because you want more money. Even
               | though I have found the difference to not be that great
               | on the enterprise dev side. But in BigTech and adjacent,
               | we are talking about multiple six figures differences as
               | you move up.
               | 
               | I work in consulting and our bill rate is based on our
               | title/level of responsibility. It kills me that some non
               | customer facing consultants want to have a "career track"
               | that doesn't involve leading projects and strategy and
               | want to stay completely "hands on".
               | 
               | We can hire people cheaply from outside the country that
               | can do that. There is an IC career track that is equal to
               | a director (manager of managers). But you won't get there
               | hands on keyboard.
        
               | WhyOhWhyQ wrote:
               | I'm deleting my hn account. Have a good day.
        
               | moondev wrote:
               | The bigger the company the less impressive "senior" is.
               | There are probably three levels of staff above it and
               | then distinguished super fellow territory.
        
               | raw_anon_1111 wrote:
               | A senior software engineer can easily make $300-400K+ at
               | BigTech that's "impressive" enough to me.
               | 
               | On the other hand, a "senior" working at a bank or other
               | large non tech company will probably be making less than
               | $175K if you aren't working on the west coast.
               | 
               | For instance Delta
               | 
               | https://www.levels.fyi/companies/delta-air-lines/salaries
        
               | nineteen999 wrote:
               | It really only matters on an individual level once you
               | become a manager, and have both juniors and seniors to
               | manage.
        
               | raw_anon_1111 wrote:
               | It matters to me as a senior+.
               | 
               | When I talk to a senior: "hey we got this initiative, I
               | know only little about it. Can you talk to $stake_holder
               | figure out what they need and come back to me and let me
               | know your design ideas, how long you think it will take,
               | etc".
               | 
               | I can do that with a few seniors and put Epics together
               | and they can take ownership of it.
               | 
               | For a junior I have to do a lot more handholding and make
               | sure the requirements are well spelled out
        
               | necovek wrote:
               | When I was a junior engineer, I did not need almost any
               | hand-holding, and could take ill-defined initiatives,
               | figure out the desired goals and outcomes, and ship them.
               | 
               | It's just that my code would be shit (hard to understand,
               | hard to test...), but I learned quickly to improve that
               | through code reviews (both getting them, but also doing
               | them) and architecture discussions. I can't thank the
               | team enough that put up with me in my first 6-12 months
               | :)
               | 
               | When I find a junior engineer like that, I give them as
               | little as I can, and remain available to pair, review or
               | discuss when they get stuck. And they... fly... But I
               | also try to develop these qualities in everyone, but it's
               | sometimes really hard to get people to recognize what is
               | really important to get over the finish line.
               | 
               | And I've seen plenty of "senior+" engineers who can't do
               | it and go on to harp about a field in a data model here
               | or a field in a data model there, adding weeks to
               | shipping something. So really, it is only a paygrade.
               | 
               | Any of those "competency matrices" are really just a way
               | to reject anyone from that promotion they are hoping for:
               | it won't be a blocker if that someone has this innate
               | ability to help the team get things done.
        
         | tayo42 wrote:
         | How I became a staff engineer with 3 yoe making 140k/year
        
           | oh_my_goodness wrote:
           | By 1 weird trick?
        
           | raw_anon_1111 wrote:
           | And making $25K less than a new grad at BigTech...
        
         | raw_anon_1111 wrote:
         | It's way more than a "pay grade" for any company with real
         | leveling guidelines.
         | 
         | This jibes with both my personal experience at BigTech, knowing
         | the industry and various publicly available leveling
         | guidelines. Sone are more granular
         | 
         | https://www.levels.fyi/blog/swe-level-framework.html
         | 
         | https://dropbox.github.io/dbx-career-framework/
         | 
         | The company I work for now has similar leveling guidelines,
         | it's also more granular.
         | 
         | But levels are defined by scope, impact, and dealing with
         | ambiguity
        
           | oh_my_goodness wrote:
           | Is pay grade. You can look this up.
        
             | raw_anon_1111 wrote:
             | So are you really arguing that tech companies that pay top
             | of the industry don't require that you demonstrate that you
             | can handle responsibility that requires you to be able to
             | work at a larger scope, impact and dealing with ambiguity
             | and go through a promotion process with a promo doc?
             | 
             | Are you saying that when you interview for one of those
             | tech companies that they don't level you according to your
             | past experience?
             | 
             | Yes I know the answers to all of these questions from both
             | personal experience of interviewing and hiring at one
             | BigTech company and ignoring outreach from another's hiring
             | manager who I had worked with in the past.
             | 
             | (At 51, I would rather get a daily anal probe with a cactus
             | than ever work at a large company again and I am damn sure
             | not going back into an office)
        
               | oh_my_goodness wrote:
               | If I'm being honest, I sense some ambivalence about how
               | perfect and rational big companies really are.
        
               | raw_anon_1111 wrote:
               | What do you suggest? They just promote people based on
               | tenure?
        
               | oh_my_goodness wrote:
               | You've put a lot of words in my mouth, and I don't know
               | why.
               | 
               | What do I suggest? I suggest that big organizations have
               | pockets of careful, competent folks. But in general a
               | large company tends to be all fouled up. They do a lot of
               | things pretty much randomly. _Some_ stuff happens the way
               | a new graduate has a right to expect, and the way many HN
               | commenters insist it has to go.
               | 
               | But a lot of other shit just ... _happens._ People get
               | promoted because they have another offer from another
               | fouled-up company, or because the boss thinks they 're
               | awesome (but sometimes the boss is dumb), or because they
               | talk the talk exceptionally well, or because they happen
               | to get the attention of someone 2 or 3 levels up, or
               | whatever.
               | 
               | Is any of that controversial? What am I missing here?
               | 
               | Do people not still read Catch-22? Or has it been proved
               | wrong or something? Or take that mysterious cactus that
               | you mentioned in connection with large companies. What's
               | that about? Because the cactus sounds bad.
        
               | raw_anon_1111 wrote:
               | I have only worked for two large companies in my career -
               | both Fortune 10 companies when I worked their - General
               | Electric and Amazon.
               | 
               | At GE? Sure things are random. But it was also just
               | another random enterprise company where it really didn't
               | make sense to work toward a promotion just to make
               | $10-$20K more. You would be better off just getting
               | another job (which I did after 2.5 years). There were no
               | published leveling guidelines or procedures.
               | 
               | But I can guarantee you that a random mid level developer
               | is not going to walk up to their manager with a competing
               | offer and be handed a promotion at any of the large
               | _tech_ companies. The manager by themselves can't
               | determine a promotion. There are promo docs, committees,
               | recommendation requirements. Etc
               | 
               | At 51, with just me and my wife, grown kids and already
               | had the big house built in the burbs that sold for twice
               | what we bought it for 8 years earlier and we downsized to
               | a condo one third the size in state tax free Florida, the
               | juice ain't worth the squeeze.
               | 
               | But if I were 22 and had a choice between wallowing in
               | enterprise dev making 90K doing CRUD apps or making $160K
               | out of college and over $200K at 25, I would play the
               | game with the best of them.
               | 
               | My own anecdote is that outside of BigTech now, I'm a
               | staff consultant working at a 3rd party AWS consulting
               | company making the same as a 25 year old SA that I
               | mentored when they were an intern at AWS and the first
               | year they came back
        
       | Razengan wrote:
       | When someone calls you senpai
        
       | paulcole wrote:
       | Bro thinks this is unique to engineers.
        
       | z3ratul163071 wrote:
       | age
        
         | ncr100 wrote:
         | Nah
        
       | random17 wrote:
       | I think a lot of people in the comments are getting hung up on
       | titles and missing the real point of the post. The headline
       | probably didn't help with that.
       | 
       | The post actually does a great job of highlighting a genuinely
       | valuable skill that the best engineers practice regardless of
       | their title. In particular, "reducing ambiguity" is something I
       | believe would be really beneficial for many early-career
       | engineers to intentionally develop.
        
       | rippeltippel wrote:
       | Junior deals with "if" statements.
       | 
       | Senior deals with "what-if" statements.
       | 
       | <EoF>
        
       | jamietanna wrote:
       | Related: Job Titles are Bullshit (2024)
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39511732
        
       | johndoh42 wrote:
       | Meanwhile the industry standard definition since the 80s:
       | 
       | - Junior - someone who can work under guidance.
       | 
       | - Regular - someone who can work alone.
       | 
       | - Senior - someone who can guide others.
        
         | agumonkey wrote:
         | I do wonder how seniors manage cultural / technical
         | differences. If the junior is not responsive to guidance,
         | advices, hints .. what else do you do
        
           | dijit wrote:
           | If juniors ignore guidance and advice, they stay in junior
           | roles, handling simpler, less impactful tasks.
           | 
           | Everyone seeks career growth, but pushing for it too quickly
           | often just leads to inflated titles without real substance.
           | 
           | It's perfectly fine to remain a mid-level engineer for your
           | entire career if it makes you happy; it's solid, honest work
           | that contributes meaningfully. Plenty of people in their 60s
           | have held the same job for decades, and that's okay; it can
           | be a path to genuine satisfaction.
        
             | HPsquared wrote:
             | I don't want career growth, rather homeostasis. That is,
             | growth that matches the rate of decay.
             | 
             | At most, maybe something like "tissue remodelling" to be
             | lean, clean and flexible, so to speak, but not "big".
        
             | luckylion wrote:
             | > Everyone seeks career growth, but pushing for it too
             | quickly often just leads to inflated titles without real
             | substance.
             | 
             | That's why I'm not a big fan of recommending people to
             | often and quickly change jobs to increase titles and pay.
             | Their skills don't level up the same way, and they end up
             | with a title of senior/lead developer and can't actually
             | build maintainable systems or solve problems that nobody
             | tells them the solution to.
        
             | ip26 wrote:
             | And what if no junior under a certain senior ever makes it
             | past junior?
             | 
             | Any mentor type figure is going to be at least partially
             | evaluated by progress of the mentees against some
             | benchmark.
        
               | dijit wrote:
               | Hinging senior evaluations on junior promotions directly
               | fuels the title inflation I'm decrying. Desperate to show
               | "impact through development," seniors (or managers) push
               | for premature title bumps; turning fresh juniors into
               | "mids" or "seniors" without the skills to match, just to
               | hit metrics.
               | 
               | This is rampant in tech, where inflated titles compensate
               | for everything from low pay to talent wars, eroding
               | expertise and making hiring a nightmare.
               | 
               | We end up with a system that prioritises optics over
               | substance, where growth takes a backseat to checkbox
               | promotions. It's frustrating and counterproductive.
               | 
               | Mentorship should inspire organic development, not force-
               | fed ladders that collapse under their own weight!
               | 
               | Instead, let's measure seniors holistically, decoupling
               | from junior title escalations to allow people to excel at
               | their level indefinitely. Alternatives include:
               | 
               | * Technical Proficiency and Individual Contributions: Use
               | code reviews, technical assessments, or metrics like
               | deployment frequency and bug resolution rates to gauge a
               | senior's direct impact, without needing to "graduate"
               | juniors.
               | 
               | This focuses on their own output and problem-solving
               | prowess.
               | 
               | * Knowledge Sharing and Enablement: Track things like
               | workshops led, documentation created, or peer feedback on
               | guidance quality via 360 reviews--emphasising team uplift
               | without mandatory promotions. * Project Outcomes and
               | Efficiency: Evaluate based on team velocity improvements,
               | innovation (e.g., patents or architectural wins), or
               | overall delivery success, rewarding systemic
               | contributions over individual mentee milestones. These
               | methods honour diverse career paths, letting juniors stay
               | put if it suits them while still valuing (and evaluating)
               | senior leadership.
        
           | nh23423fefe wrote:
           | let them fail and see if they change affect
        
         | HPsquared wrote:
         | That's a good functional definition. Verbs beat nouns for this
         | kind of thing.
        
         | everfrustrated wrote:
         | Yes but there is also a temporal component as well. A Senior
         | should be able to do all their tasks and whatever else comes
         | their way without needing guidance. To be able to do that
         | requires a certain level of time in position.
        
           | butlike wrote:
           | nah, the tasks evolve as you get older. having a senior do
           | all their tasks and whatever else without guidance sounds
           | like free work. even the old people in the old folk's home
           | get an assistant to help them take their pills!
        
       | alexgotoi wrote:
       | > this isn't talent, but practice
       | 
       | This. Totally agree. Seniority level it's based on the volume of
       | practice someone has. Period.
        
         | Insanity wrote:
         | Disagree, it's not _just_ practice. You can do something for
         | 10,000 hours but never actively try to improve. Does that mean
         | you're now more senior because you had more volume of practice?
         | 
         | e.g, let's say someone spends 10k hours doing just 'addition
         | and subtraction' problems on 2 digit numbers. Are they now
         | better at maths than someone who spent 0.1k hours but doing a
         | variety of problems?
         | 
         | To grow as a software engineer, you need to have volume + have
         | this be outside of your comfort zone + actively try to
         | improve/challenge yourself.
         | 
         | Apart from this, I do agree it's not 'innate talent' that
         | drives someone to become a senior engineer, and I think anyone
         | with the right attitude / mindset can do so.
        
           | bryanlarsen wrote:
           | "Some people say they have 20 years experience, when in
           | reality, they have 1 year's experience repeated 20 times."
           | 
           | - Steven Covey
        
         | necovek wrote:
         | There is no denying practice is needed, but... I've been doing
         | this (getting to reduce ambiguity and simplify complex
         | problems) since before my first job in free software
         | communities, yet really, I wasn't anywhere close to "senior"
         | when I joined my first job at a demanding SW organization at 22
         | years old.
         | 
         | There was simply a lot I did not know, but I had the _talent_
         | to do this part well (sure, one can argue that I had
         | "practice" doing this with any problem since I was ~10 years
         | old, but calling that "senior" would be... over the top: I
         | think it rather qualifies as "talent").
         | 
         | It took me a couple of years of learning good software
         | engineering from my wonderful and smart senior colleagues and
         | through my own failures and successes for me to become a Tech
         | Lead too.
        
         | anthonypasq wrote:
         | being senior is clearly about having certain abilities or
         | skills and absolutely nothing to do with how long it took you
         | to acquire those skills
        
       | bpev wrote:
       | idk about titles, but my basic thought is that when you are less
       | experienced, you're paid to do things, and when you are more
       | experienced, you're paid to know things.
        
       | cod1r wrote:
       | I suffered with this problem quite often with my previous job.
       | There would be something vague assigned to me and I didn't quite
       | get what to do but I also felt like if I asked questions, it'd
       | give off a vibe like I didn't know what I was doing so I would
       | just start programming and making a bunch of assumptions.
       | 
       | That wasted a lot of time which is a lesson to be learned from.
       | 
       | I also struggled with self management.
        
         | agumonkey wrote:
         | usually what i did is to take an abstract spec, derive thick
         | layers / modules to decompose the problem, and then look at the
         | deadline to see what MVP i can draw in that space.
         | 
         | whenever that mvp is not what was expected, if i'm lucky
         | enough, the decomposition allows for easy adjustements to match
         | the need
        
         | dcminter wrote:
         | My superpower as a staff engineer was having zero shame in
         | asking questions. Anything from "what does that abbreviation
         | stand for?" through to "what will the traffic look like when we
         | go live?" - mostly people are worried about looking ignorant,
         | so weirdly this makes you look both knowledgeable and
         | confident! I wish I'd known that when I was younger...
        
           | mooreds wrote:
           | Yes, this is so powerful.
           | 
           | One of my favorite moves is to ask a question that I feel has
           | an obvious answer and then say "what am I missing?" Sometimes
           | I am right, other times I am missing something.
           | 
           | Either way I'm modelling:
           | 
           | - that it's okay to ask questions to which the answer seems
           | obvious
           | 
           | - that it is totally fine not to know everything
        
           | tintor wrote:
           | Schools don't teach this to students.
        
       | rented_mule wrote:
       | It's subtle, but I think the use of "senior" rather than "Senior"
       | in the article is an attempt to distinguish the concept of being
       | a senior engineer from the title of Senior Engineer. The article
       | is focused on actually being senior, not playing title games. I'd
       | take it further and use the term "leader" instead of "senior
       | engineer".
       | 
       | Leaders reduce ambiguity, so others can operate with more
       | clarity. The ambiguity involved can be in many different domains.
       | It can be focused on product and tech, as in the article. Another
       | example is ambiguity around people and organizational structure,
       | which is more common in management roles, where some in
       | management are more effective leaders than others. It can be
       | around finding ways for people to understand why they might want
       | a product, which is more common in sales and marketing roles. And
       | so on.
        
       | ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
       | Eh. Whenever someone posts something like this, you get a bunch
       | of folks, stating how they meet that description, etc. Sometimes,
       | they do it humbly, sometimes, not.
       | 
       | In my case, I met that description on my first job, and I
       | guarantee, I was _not_ senior.
       | 
       | You see, my initial training was as an electronic technician
       | (RF/microwave stuff).
       | 
       | That thought process described, was _exactly_ what they trained
       | us to do. Debugging a wonky RF board is about as ambiguous as you
       | can get.
       | 
       | So maybe there's a different definition of "senior."
        
       | kittikitti wrote:
       | One thing that I would like senior colleagues to avoid is the
       | tendency to claim something can't be done or is impossible.
       | Sometimes, a colleague would claim something can't be
       | accomplished but when I do accomplish it, it can create tension
       | and give the impression that I'm undermining them. I would prefer
       | if senior leaders instead enumerate the reasons why it can't be
       | done and avoid dealing with absolutes. Often, it requires
       | research into unknowns that have real limitations such as costs
       | or processing time. Thank you for considering it if this is
       | useful to you.
        
       | farcitizen wrote:
       | When everyone in the room wants to go in a certain direction. And
       | you tell the team "9/10 times i did it that way it blew up in my
       | face.", and you don't fight them and let it play out as a lesson.
       | And there is still a 10% chance it could work!
        
         | butlike wrote:
         | why would you lose your army to something as stupid as 'i told
         | you so?' Don't let them do it.
        
           | wiseowise wrote:
           | Because it's not "your army" and there's no point in fighting
           | meaningless wars. Just make a good effort to convey your
           | point and if they still don't listen - let them learn their
           | lesson.
        
           | kcplate wrote:
           | Likely these are not "lose your army level" lessons. I've let
           | idiots touch a hot pan if they've insisted to do it. I would
           | not let someone pour gasoline on themselves and strike a
           | match
        
         | tracerbulletx wrote:
         | This is not a positive behavior, also you should ask yourself
         | why everyone wants to go against your position so often that
         | you have a strategy like this in the first place.
        
       | butlike wrote:
       | age
        
       | wiseowise wrote:
       | Can someone who worked in multiple industries clarify: is it only
       | software that has constant identity crisis with "what makes you
       | X" and "what is expected of Y"?
       | 
       | The only thing that makes a senior are years of experience,
       | that's all. You can be a shitty senior if you only do one thing
       | for 10 years, but you're a senior nonetheless.
        
         | Gagarin1917 wrote:
         | What if your company has you doing the job of a senior without
         | the pay (because all the actual seniors left)?
        
       | hamasho wrote:
       | > The moment you hand them something fuzzy, though, like ...
       | > "we should probably think about scaling",       > that's when
       | you see the difference.
       | 
       | Senior engineers should ask, "but do we need scaling? And if it
       | does, how much needed now and future?" But I've seen a lot of
       | seniors who jumped to implementing an unnecessarily complicated
       | solution without questions, because they don't think about it too
       | much, want to have fun, or just don't have energy to argue (I'm
       | guilty myself).
        
       | Aachen wrote:
       | Isn't that just called "being put in charge"? The causality seems
       | reversed to me here, as in, you're not senior because you're
       | reducing ambiguity, but you've either explicitly been made senior
       | or just have tenure and now others come to you with questions
       | about what you think makes sense. Consequence rather than cause
       | 
       | Or maybe that's just in egalitarian companies, like in tech where
       | I'd ask a second opinion or technical input of just about anyone,
       | whereas in other lines of business it's different? I imagine a
       | water treatment facility has a lot more niche constraints to work
       | with than we do and so expertise goes much deeper and you're not
       | immediately prompted for advice
        
       | ChicagoDave wrote:
       | I like the post but I'd add senior is also the instinct to take
       | risks. I was once at a client in NY with an ASP.NET code base
       | that used the compile at runtime capability (like Java used to).
       | The C# source was being pushed to the web server.
       | 
       | I ran a compile and the code was riddled with errors. So I went
       | to the PM and explained the code needed to compile and I needed a
       | day to clean it up.
       | 
       | I refactored the entire project to compile and deploy that way.
       | After that the development went very fast.
       | 
       | The hilarious part was the three devs who'd gone on vacation came
       | back and thought what I'd done was "wrong".
       | 
       | But the client said we (consultants) had done in two weeks what
       | they couldn't do in six months.
       | 
       | That's what a senior engineer does.
        
         | lunixbochs wrote:
         | I'm not familiar with C# compile at runtime. Are you saying
         | your change was to do an AOT compile locally?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-12-23 23:00 UTC)