Why do you want to go to a FAANG in the first place? Lots of smaller tech companies out there with a proven business model beyond throwing cheap money at diminishing opportunities for growth.
One example near me was one that uses ML to diagnose issues with dental patients for dentists. That's a cool solution but dentistry doesn't scale well so the likelihood of this product taking off and going into a decent amount of dental practices seems low. It also feels like the first expense you would cut to save money.
Do you only find out they are sustainable during interviews?
There are basic metrics about company health that would not be too hard for you to learn, and working at a smaller company would be an education in any of itself in this if you have transparent leadership that talks about the goals and obstacles openly.
Dentistry is actually a very dynamic sector of US health care. I have no idea whether ML diagnostics is solving any real problem, whether this company is doing it effectively, or what competitors exist, but I wouldn't write it off for the reasons you're implying.
I feel like the only way to know is to actually work there but sometimes that can be a big gamble. That's what I'm trying to figure out how to avoid and what to ask.
I suppose I'm basing my assumptions, for that explicit example, on dentistry isn't an assembly line process, it's very hard to increase the amount of patients you can see in a day. This product isn't helping that, so I personally see very little value being added. I could be completely wrong but I'm scared off enough to not even apply.
I suppose I'd like to see job ads talking about how they are a good business rather than just talking about culture and tech. I understand this info can be proprietary, but yeah that's my struggle.
....but tens of billions in cash and being massively profitable sure are.
They do have lots of cash though, so you can probably negotiate strong salaries.
If you did something you're proud of at a FAANG, or got exposure to a really interesting problem that changed your perspective, that'll shine in an interview, but I don't think it'll win you any points over having worked there over anywhere else.
Then there’s the issue of “if you can get into a FAANG you must be really good”. Maybe. But not sure it would outweigh other concerns.
This is an interesting one. If you're talking about software engineering, I hope you interview questions check for that.
Many people memorize by rote, "build x system, make it FAANG scale" and our industry rewards that. Many small and medium companies have delusions of grandeur that they need solutions Meta and Google do because obviously, they will be the next Google with enough time. Things get overengineered and pragmatic choices are discouraged.
Promotions become about building complex systems/services and the goalposts keep changing.
I hope your group is able to both hire for and promote the kind of culture you need for your domain.
This might sound unreasonable, but I have worked with too many of these types to believe otherwise. Bad apples have spoiled the entire lot.
I don't know enough about FAANGs to say whether they cause enough lasting damage to their employees such that they should considered a red flag on a resume--but I don't think that there's anything wrong with that kind of reasoning.
Personally, I feel that way about defense contractors. If you're content with moving at the speed of red tape, then you're going to be at a slight disadvantage when it comes to convincing me to hire you.
A good engineer should be able to recognize what process is good for what product!
It's important to check our biases because even filtering out based on industry makes your candidate pool less diverse (age, experience, gender, etc) and leads to the tech monoculture which at least I don't think is a positive thing.
Collectively, these people made the personal choice to work at these sorts of companies. No one forced them down that road. Given that these companies have been known to all act poorly for many years, their employment demonstrates a troubling deficiency in either their ethical or cognitive abilities, because they either didn’t care or didn’t see that their decision both endorses and embiggens these modern embodiments of corporate evil.
Like Guido van Rossum, John Carmack, Rob Pike and many others...
Thank you, I would rather work with people like them than like your kind of SJWs