I agree, and he's slyly discouraging serious debate of his points since Facebook is so "cool". Software actually does need to be discussed. Leadership is critical in any structure of any size. The thought that every brogrammer is making decisions makes me think that he's either overstating this fact (every programmer in the world makes some decisions everyday), or that Facebook is chaotic. The rate of source code commits is fairly meaningless: with 1 shitty rushed commit, you might have to check in another 4 to fix it up. So, with 5 commits in, are you 5x more productive? Hackathons are a great way of interfering with life outside the office. There are other (possibly better) ways to give people a chance to crank out good work on side projects. Like a sabbatical where you spend a few weeks working on something you think is important. The hot tub thing makes me think Facebook is a testosterone-heavy environment.

Maybe I'm just uncool and took his flame-bait. Facebook does sound like a great place to work. But these kinds of puff pieces have a naivete that makes Facebook look like a frat house with a dark side that is not actually discussed.

Satire is useful to detect people who have decided to agree or disagree before they've read what you've written.

wow, that is actually a pretty slick move

Wait, what? You lost me at "Satire is useful to detect people".

To me it seems like a passive-aggressive jab at those who complained about working at facebook, and left.

"It's just a joke" is just a lame way of saying something, without anyone being able to actually call them on it.

And to call this stuff satire is kind of extreme, too? Let's ignore the lameness for a sec: what, exactly, does it make fun of and shed light on?

I was making a broader point, not one about this piece in particular.

I still don't see how satire is supposed to detect anything other than who gets that it's satire, and who takes it at face value -- which is not even possible until you, uhhh, read or saw the satire. So that point of yours, it's lost on me unless you elaborate.

My premise is that people who fail to detect satire do so because their existing bias makes them see what they want to see. People apparently disable their critical thinking apparatus when presented with an argument that even superficially resembles their own viewpoint.

Ah, that is much clearer, thanks.

I completely agree. The article didn't say much new, but it came off as very smug. If the engineers at Facebook are that smug, I'm pretty sure I don't want to work there.

That said, it's good to here Zuck is still focused on building the company and not appeasing the critics. Long term value is what matters.