Kevin Wang

Why does an E3 level SWE at Meta make only ~190k/year, while an E8 level engineer makes over ~$2M/year, even though both engineers are ICs and spend the same time at work? I have spent the last 5 years at Meta as an IC. I joined with a little over 15 years of experience, and I’ve worked with many solid engineers in this time. Here is how I think about that compensation jump. 1. Same hours, completely different “unit of work” An E3’s unit of work is usually a task or a ticket. An E8’s unit of work is a multi year problem for the company. E3: “Implement this service, fix this bug, write this feature.” E8: “How do we cut infra cost by 20 percent across this product” or “How do we make this platform safe to scale to 10x users.” One person is paid to execute. The other is paid to decide what is worth executing in the first place. 2. Radius of impact E3 usually impacts a file, a service, maybe a small team. E8 shapes whole orgs and product lines. If an E3 ships something great, the impact is great but local. If an E8 ships the right platform, hundreds of engineers become faster and the company saves or earns millions every year. Comp tracks the area of the circle you influence. 3. Risk and downside protection At junior levels, mistakes are usually contained and reversible. At senior staff levels, a bad call can burn tens of millions or damage the brand. E8s are paid for judgment under ambiguity. They decide which bets the company should not make, which migrations can wait, which “shiny idea” is going to kill reliability. You pay more to people whose good judgment protects you from very expensive failures.  4. They scale themselves This can happen in a few ways. 1. Delegation with ownership They define the shape of the problem, then hand large pieces to other senior and mid level engineers while keeping the bar and direction clear. 2. Knowledge that travels They write RFCs, public comments, FAQs, wikis, internal posts. One answer helps hundreds of people who will face the same issue next quarter. 3. Tools over heroics Instead of unblocking people manually all day, they build tools, libraries or guardrails so others can unblock themselves. One well designed tool can save thousands of engineering hours every year. This is what “scaling yourself” actually looks like. The company pays for that multiplier.  5. Ownership of the “uncomfortable problems” Junior engineers usually work inside a well defined box. E8s take ownership between the boxes. They pick up problems that:  Span many teams and no one really “owns”  Require aligning leaders who disagree  Have product, infra, legal and security angles at the same time Most people avoid those because they are messy, political and slow. Very senior ICs lean into them. That is where a lot of value sits. Continued ↓

201

15 Comments

After 19 years at Google, I experienced a layoff that initially felt shocking but has since brought a sense of relief upon reflection. I had reached a point of complacency, feeling neither energized nor hungry for new challenges. Over the years, I've witnessed a significant shift at Google, particularly in the wake of the pandemic. What was once a vibrant hub of innovation driven by engineers and visionaries has increasingly become focused on business decisions and safe bets. In my view, Susan Wojcicki represented the last empathetic stand against corporate greed and maintained integrity in leadership. Unfortunately, large corporations often become myopic, prioritizing numbers over their impact on users. Google's intense focus on AI could potentially undermine its ads business in search, jeopardizing its credibility and income stream. Meanwhile, YouTube appears uncertain about the role of AI on its platform, with executives seemingly unconcerned about the long-term implications. Ultimately, the relentless pursuit of quarterly profit margins is detrimental to our country, its citizens, and the competition posed by smaller companies. So far, no executive I've spoken with has articulated a financial plan addressing AI, unemployment, and its effects on our consumer-driven economy. The bubble is real.

3,274

130 Comments

🦺 🛟 Agent Safety > Model Safety LLMs didn't break your app. Agents can. As we wire LLMs to tools, browsers, payments & code the risk shifts from bad text to bad actions. Top failure modes (seen in the wild & in papers): 🚩 Prompt/Content Injection -> Tool Misuse. Malicious web pages or data instruct agents to steal secrets or make unintended API calls. This is now a primary risk for browsing and MCP - style tool agents. 🚩 Over permissioned tools & long-lived tokens. Agents get "god mode" scopes. A single injection becomes account takeover or irreversible ops. Security notes for MCP emphasise least privilege and short-lived auth. 🚩 Unsafe web autonomy. Benchmarks show web agents will attempt harmful tasks unless constrained (posting misinformation, illicit sales, etc.). You must measure misuse not just assume guardrails. 🚩 Supply-chain & retrieval poisoning. Agents trust plugins, third-party tools & indexed data that an attacker can taint. OWASP’s newest GenAI Top 10 calls this out explicitly. 🚩 Process safety gaps. NIST's GenAI Profile (AI 600-1) warns that organizations ship agents without role clarity, human-in-the-loop or incident playbooks. ✅ Model safety reduces bad text. Agent safety prevents bad state. Treat the agent like a junior SRE - with narrow permissions, audited actions and clear escalation paths. If you're building agents, what's the one control you won't ship without? Also drop a comment if you'd like me to share a follow-up post on how to tackle each of these risks. #AgenticAI #AISafety #AIAgents #GenAI #CyberSecurity #MCP #OWASP #NIST #AITrust #ResponsibleAI #AIForBusiness

5

If you're a Senior Engineer looking to move up, the next role will likely be a Staff Engineer. And in this guide, Shruti shares tips from her own experience of getting promoted to Staff Engineer at PayPal and Slack. She talks about what Staff Engineers do (and how it's different from Seniors), why you might not be getting promoted, and how to take that next step. https://lnkd.in/g58dnFEG

103

3 Comments

Signs and wonders If there was ever any doubt in the last month about the changing nature of our industry and the role of an engineer within it, those have been cast aside. The Seattle Times published this article today https://lnkd.in/gpSetTJ3. LeadDev asserts that interviewees might be penalized for not using AI https://lnkd.in/ggNsGqSx.  All of this points to such a drastically changed landscape from even 2 years ago that we all have to loop AI into our processes as we look for work and query those in a hiring position.  I don't necessarily see these positions as new, or very eye opening from opinions I have been forming over the past month. And certainly there are no lack of opinions surrounding AI. But they do buttress the idea that, as job seekers, we are hobbling ourselves if we don't know how to use these new tools. LeadDev even says we will have a hard time getting in the door.   One quote stuck out to me in that Times' article though. "Writing code is more fun than reading code". This points to the assertion that we still need that developer in the loop; we still need that head check to make sure what our AI is spitting out is still workable. As I have been working on new projects & side hustles this month, I spent some time vibe coding and put up https://lnkd.in/g7W3J4WJ. It's a fun remix studio that remixes your audio mp3s in the styles of several iconic producers: J.Dilla, Steve Albini, Scott Burns. It's an idea generator for your mixes if they sound flat or you are just trying to get them to sound different and don't know which way to go.  But and so anyway, AI mostly did that. And AI mostly messed it up. From not understanding memory management, to screwing up the integration from the front end to the backend. Were it not for the developer in the loop there would be just a bunch of UI that doesn't go anywhere and a bunch of backend code that errors out. It is hard to not get frustrated with a tool that gets you 70% of the way to a working solution, but chokes on the last 30%. Keeping in mind though that if I were to have done this from the ground up without AI, that solution would have taken more than a week of dilligently coding and researching. And whereas that seems like the way to get to a holistic solution where bugs are found early and workarounds are smoothed out to actual paths, the payoff; the proof of concept would have been a long way off. With AI it took 4 hours. What is missing here though is the high level thinking of the solution. For instance, as developers our coding always always always generates more ideas. What other ideas did I miss in letting AI take control?  

7

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗔𝗜 𝗰𝗼𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗿 $𝟲𝟬𝟬 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. Our VP of Engineering, Xiaofan(James) Luan, was supposed to buy his wife a Dior bag for their anniversary.  Instead, he bought three Claude Code subscriptions and spent the holiday trying to cross-compile 2 million lines of C++. Every fix on one platform broke two others.  $600 later, the only output was "git reset --hard" — and a very cold dinner table.😂 "Make it compile on Windows" is a trap. The real goal was "compile everywhere without hacks" — no AI is going to figure that out for you at 2 am. What worked: constraints before code, review tests not code, bottom-up, one layer at a time. Same task, two days. Then he ran six parallel Claude sessions across three machines with git worktree. The bottleneck stopped being intelligence and started being how fast one person can alt-tab. AI solves exactly the problem you give it. Engineering is in knowing which one to give. His wife is still waiting for that bag. Full story: https://lnkd.in/gtsW_Wvk ——— Follow Milvus, created by Zilliz, for everything related to unstructured data

9

The first SDE-2 absolutely nailed the system design round. The question was: Design a live streaming system. The second SDE-2 was asked to Design Google Drive. He did well, spoke about trade-offs, but missed one important detail: chunking the file, especially for large uploads. Yet, the second engineer got the job. These are from real interviews I took around 4 months ago. You might ask: Why? Only one reason, the second one nailed the behavioral questions like a boss. The question was about working on a project with tight timelines. The first SDE-2 (subtly) blamed the external team’s API for delays, which led to tight project deadlines. The second one, on the other hand, shared a story about how he helped his manager prioritize requirements to navigate the crunch. That’s how important behavioral interviews are. Yet, 90% of SDEs leave them to luck. If everything else is equal: - DSA (both solved the coding problems), - LLD (designed with solid object-oriented principles), - HLD (covered all the P0 functional and non-functional requirements) then your behavioral answers become the deciding factor. Yes, the second engineer missed the file chunking detail. But it wasn’t a critical red flag. He covered all other parts well and crushed the behavioral round. As long as you're working with humans (no matter how many), you’ll be judged on your behavioral skills. Call them soft skills, leadership skills, whatever you like, but you should prepare them well in advance. You can start preparing for behavioural interviews right away, with these 5 MUST read behavioural interview posts I wrote. (tip: save this post for later, as it may take some time to complete all of them) [1] How to answer any behavioural interview question https://lnkd.in/gH3N8b5q [2] 4 step guide for behavioural interview preparation in 3 hours https://lnkd.in/gccxG3MP [3] How to create 10+ stories for your past projects https://lnkd.in/g4nv_jqU [4] How to answer a failure story? https://lnkd.in/gtN-Dfuv [5] 10 behavioural interview mistakes to avoid at all cost https://lnkd.in/gpupvYVs If you’re preparing for mid-senior SDE or EM roles and need dedicated help with behavioral interview prep, DM me COACH.

134

23 Comments