Most active commenters
  • ZephyrBlu(4)
  • darawk(3)

←back to thread

1703 points danrocks | 12 comments | | HN request time: 0.009s | source | bottom

Recently I interviewed with Stripe for an engineering MoM (Manager of Managers) for one of their teams. I interview regularly, so I am used to many types of processes, feedback mechanisms, and so on. I won't go into details about the questions because there's nothing special about them, but I wanted to share some details of my experience for people thinking of interviewing there.

1) About 35-40% of the interviewers started their questioning by saying "I will only need 20 minutes for this", while emphasizing it is an important leadership position that they are hiring for. So 20 minutes is all needed to identify "important, critical leaders"? What a strange thing to say - also a GREAT way to make candidates feel important and wanted!

2) There is significant shuffling of interviewers and schedules. One almost has to be on-call to be able to react quickly.

3) For an engineering manager position, I only interviewed with only technical person. To me it hints that Engineering MoM is not a very technical position.

4) Of all the people I spoke to, the hiring manager was the one I spoke the least with. The phone screen was one of the "I only need 20 minutes for this" calls. The other one was quite amusing, and is described below.

5) After the loop was done, the recruiter called me to congratulate me on passing, and started discussing details of the offer, including sending me a document described the equity program. Recruiter mentioned that the hiring manager would be calling me to discuss the position next.

6) SURPRISE INTERVIEW! I get a call from the hiring manager, he congratulates me on passing the loop, then as I prepare to ask questions about the role, he again says "I need to ask you two questions and need 20 minutes for this". Then proceeds to ask two random questions about platforms and process enforcement, then hangs up the call after I answer. Tells me he'd be calling in a week to discuss the position.

7) I get asked for references.

8) After passing the loop, have the recruiter discuss some details of the offer, have the hiring manager tell me they'd be calling me after a week, I get ghosted for about 3.5 weeks. References are contacted and feedback is confirmed positive.

9) I ping the recruiter to see when the offer is coming - it's not coming. They chose another candidate. I am fine with it, even after being offered verbally, but the ghosting part after wasting so much of my time seems almost intentional.

10) I call up a senior leader in the office I applied to, an acquaintance of mine. His answer: "don't come. It's a mess and a revolving door of people". I was shocked with the response.

11) I get called by the recruiter saying that another director saw my feedback and is very interested in talking to me and do an interview loop.

Guess I'm not joining, then.

I am ok with passing loops, being rejected, I've seen it all. But being ghosted after acceptance is a first. What a bizarre place this is.

Show context
temp7536 ◴[] No.29388310[source]
For those who have worked around and at Stripe for the past decade, this is not a surprise. Stripe, and especially the founders, have a quite a poor reputation for screwing over people in and around their orbit.

Almost every fintech startup has the story of Patrick reaching out about an acquisition, mining them for information playing along and then ghosting - same thing for candidates. They leadership team, specifically Patrick and Will Gaybrick are extremely smart but have screwed over a ton of people - be very careful about trusting.

You don't hear anything about this online, they're incredibly effective at squashing hit pieces and have a huge amount of reporters and power brokers under their control. On HN and silicon valley Stripe and Patrick are a PR machine. Patrick has almost direct control over YC and HN, you'll notice that every single Stripe post automatically has pc as the first comment, regardless of anything else. Everything negative gets buried.

With Patrick now living in Woodside, Will on permanent vacation in Malibu and John permanently in Ireland the company is definitely a bit in chaos mode internally. Their entire people team has turned over and they're having major retention issues - so I'm not super surprised that stuff like this is starting to leak out.

I run a $XB fintech, and am afraid to use my name given the backlash.

replies(22): >>29388384 #>>29388419 #>>29388425 #>>29388625 #>>29388690 #>>29388744 #>>29388854 #>>29388863 #>>29388977 #>>29389083 #>>29389191 #>>29389254 #>>29389350 #>>29389354 #>>29389501 #>>29389713 #>>29389791 #>>29390203 #>>29390870 #>>29391382 #>>29393469 #>>29414225 #
temp3728 ◴[] No.29388384[source]
+1. Also a founder of an $XB fintech. Exact same story. Patrick + John dangled an acquisition to get a look inside, and ended up re-trading on the terms. Then proceeded to target 2 of our team members to recruit. Fast forward a few years, and now they have deployed a team to directly copy one of our products.

Amongst their L2 team, Patrick and Will are described as the "killers". I guess maybe a bit of duplicity is required to build a company of that size...

replies(6): >>29388569 #>>29388572 #>>29388844 #>>29389134 #>>29389695 #>>29391309 #
wbharding ◴[] No.29389134[source]
As much as the parent comment strained credibility, this double-down (posted exactly 10 minutes after the original) breaks it. Seriously, how many $XB fintech founders are out there, waiting to tell their salacious tales about one of the most transparent and accountable individuals on HN?

It's OK, come out $XB fintech founders, it's safe for your temp accounts here...at least until the moderators get here and start checking the IP addresses.

replies(8): >>29389170 #>>29389408 #>>29389646 #>>29389688 #>>29389717 #>>29389840 #>>29392015 #>>29393412 #
ZephyrBlu ◴[] No.29389840[source]
It's not that surprising there are many founders lurking on HN. Many people who are famous in the tech world comment here once in a while. It's not a stretch to imagine that a lot of people from that demographic are active but silent users/consumers.
replies(1): >>29390566 #
1. darawk ◴[] No.29390566{3}[source]
Two unrelated co-founders of multi-billion dollar fintech making anonymous accounts to comment here within 10 minutes of each other seems extremely unlikely to happen organically. Consider that the second one is a reply comment to the first. What would have to be true for this to be organic is:

1. The first person arrives organically, which is plausible.

2. The second person sees their comment within 10 minutes of it being posted.

3. Decides that they are going to respond, and respond anonymously.

4. Makes an anonymous account.

5. Writes the comment

All within 10 minutes. Consider further that if this were legit, and you were the founder of a multi billion dollar tech company, would you write any comment like this that quickly? Wouldn't you spend a while reading exactly what it was you were saying to make sure you couldn't be identified, or didn't say the wrong thing? I certainly would.

It's not necessarily implausible that Patrick is secretly an asshole. But it is pretty implausible that these two comments were organic and independent.

replies(5): >>29390682 #>>29391906 #>>29392047 #>>29393102 #>>29393609 #
2. ZephyrBlu ◴[] No.29390682[source]
I find it unlikely, but not extremely so given the environment (HN). It's very plausible to me that these comments are organic and independent.

We have already had Patrick Collison and Brian Armstrong comment on this post (That I know of). I'm sure that many other high profile people in tech have since seen it as well.

The timeframe is somewhat suss, but I don't find it unbelievable.

E: other people also corroborate somewhat similar stories

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29389177

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29389191

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29389509

replies(1): >>29390962 #
3. Macha ◴[] No.29390962[source]
To be fair the others are also very low activity anonymous accounts created within the last 12 months.
replies(1): >>29391002 #
4. ZephyrBlu ◴[] No.29391002{3}[source]
This is not at all surprising given the dynamics of the internet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture).

Longstanding, commenting users are incredibly rare in the scheme of things.

E: active <-> commenting

replies(1): >>29391178 #
5. Macha ◴[] No.29391178{4}[source]
Active users are disportionately represented amongst people actively commenting, however
replies(1): >>29391272 #
6. ZephyrBlu ◴[] No.29391272{5}[source]
I don't understand your point here... Active users being disproportionately represented by people commenting is probably correct, but it doesn't provide any useful information about the minority of users who don't comment often.

I'm saying that an account being mostly inactive (In terms of commenting) is not at all surprising.

Someone could have been actively browsing HN for months/years without commenting, so I don't think comment activity is a good indicator of credibility when lurking is the default behaviour for almost all users.

I wouldn't be surprised if the number of comments per user followed a power law distribution.

replies(1): >>29396554 #
7. dd36 ◴[] No.29391906[source]
They may know each other? And have asked for support. If you run a large company, you know others.
8. datavirtue ◴[] No.29392047[source]
If I get even remotely busy I forget all about HN. I can't imagine anyone trying to run a company wasting time here.
9. ◴[] No.29393102[source]
10. fossuser ◴[] No.29393609[source]
It's not that unlikely - a lot of us in SV are on HN all of the time. It's the default 'waiting for something' site to check (along with Twitter). If you saw a negative story about a friend you'd be more likely to comment.
replies(1): >>29400817 #
11. darawk ◴[] No.29396554{6}[source]
He's not saying its an indicator of credibility. He's speaking to the probability of two infrequent commenters commenting. The density of frequent commenters in all comments is very high.
12. darawk ◴[] No.29400817[source]
Ya I don't find it to be at all implausible that two such people could be browsing HN. I just find it to be implausible that they commented within 10 minutes of each other just by chance.