I'm JD, a Software Engineer with experience touching many parts of the stack (frontend, backend, databases, data & ETL pipelines, you name it). Most recently, I spent several years at Google working full-stack on applications that supported our customer service teams. I then switched to working on facilitating our teams through building frameworks, teaching, and overall enabling them to quickly launch applications.
Prior to that, I spent a couple years at First Orion - a smaller data company - helping found & build out a data engineering team as one of the first engineers. We were focused on building data pipelines and models to protect our users from malicious phonecalls. If you know the phrase "Scam Likely", we were a pioneer :)
There is a noticeable gap in my resume where I was dealing with health issues from 2022 - 2024, but am looking to rejoin the software industry. I'm passionate about helping others through my work, teaching, and building tools to improve the experience for end users - including other developers.
This idea has spread outside of the FGC at this point. I see other places mentioning it as well. I also think you were able to mod SFV to be able to use the paid costumes (or whatever you want as evidenced by the Chun-Li scandal in 6) without actually buying them. Different engines, but I'm sure Capcom didn't like it.
Another point people bring up is that Capcom has been adding micro-transactions post-launch to some of the new Resident Evil remake titles, that effectively power you up to some degree... In the same way that a mod (or cheat engine or whatever you want to call it) could do for free.
The only time period I can even think of that _might, maybe_ qualify would be the Source mod era, but that came and went over a decade ago. And of course they were free mods, not standalone games with purchases or licenses.
Some of these mods turned into games later (Chivalry, Black Mesa, Insurgency come to mind) but without investigating I'm not sure they even use Source anymore.
The point of pair programming isn't really to be talking to someone while they are coding a known solution. It's to work through and discover a solution together to an unknown. In this sense, you're kind of both in the same headspace together, and can have a conversation without necessarily breaking focus. And I would venture that almost any question that comes up in pair programming would either come up later in code review, or could be hand-waved with "yeah, I plan to fix that with X" and move on.
The important part of pair programming isn't really the programming per se, it's the discussion.
It also requires some amount of conversational art. As for being self conscious about things, you would have poor coworkers who make you think that or some unfounded worry. A good pair programmer can have a discussion without making you feel like an idiot - much the same as a good code review.
Thank you for this suggestion. I think it's infinitely more interesting than the meme-y, parroted 'grind leetcode' response to improve job prospects. And it can give you more direction than trying to think of hobby projects to put on github.
I was able to succeed in this, but I had basically a perfect storm of conditions. It was a smaller local company, I had good internship experience, and the head recruiter had previously worked at (and recruited me for) the company I interned at.
If you are a new-grad and you're targeting a 'glorious' FAANG position, I would imagine the percentage is quite low.
Been looking since about February. I've probably sent out at least a hundred apps for positions I was interested in and met qualifications for.
I think I've made it to a recruiter screen around ~10 times, and I've had less than 5 actual interviews follow.
I have 6+ years in industry, 4 and some change of which were FAANG (which everyone believes is a golden ticket into any company). And I can't even get an interview.
I'm with OP. The grind is straight up depressing, demoralizing, soul crushing. I'm close to moving in with family just to preserve my money at this point.
>which were FAANG (which everyone believes is a golden ticket into any company).
In a past job, I saw a LOT of former FAANG candidates as a hiring manager (SRE @ hedge fund) at a past job.
In my experience, FAANG folks have a somewhat barbell distribution where it's either:
A. "This person is incredibly talented, well spoken and will probably find a job anywhere"
B. "This person spent 5 years at a FAANG and worked on basically two projects that would have taken <6 months at a hedge fund"
There doesn't really seem to be an in between.
I also distinctly remember learning that Google had 100K+ employees. To me, that is moving into "big bank" size territory and it's clearly impossible for EVERYONE who is former Google to be amazing.
My experience with FAANG candidates, especially those with only FAANG experience, while at a startup is they often have isolated skills and experience with bespoke, idiosyncratic ecosystems.
At conferences and the like I've always been super-impressed by the Google folks I've spoke with and listened to. But it's also my understanding that Google doesn't let just anyone "out in the wild" so I assume I'm pretty much seeing one end of the barbell (or probably a smallish slice of it).
Let’s be clear here: the certification steps are required to give a talk as an Amazon staff member. You can go to conferences as an attendee, you can mention where you work. You just can’t get up on stage and give a talk about what you work on without going through some steps to make sure you’re not inadvertently giving away secret sauce or putting the share price into a tailspin.
> I also distinctly remember learning that Google had 100K+ employees. To me, that is moving into "big bank" size territory and it's clearly impossible for EVERYONE who is former Google to be amazing.
Ive worked at 3 places, sizes: <10, ~10k, and ~20k.
I cant even imagine 100k. 100k for Toyota or Walmart, sure, that makes sense. But at tens of thousands of engineers you must have a lot of people not doing anything. Even at 20k, so maybe 5k engineers you only have so many people pushing on new stuff. Most are doing maintenance on crud and batch apps and keeping up with whatever "initiatives" are being pushed while attending meetings.
Most impressive to me imo are the instagram type companies that have 20 employees when they are sold/ipo or whatever.
When I was an industry analyst and had more exposure to large companies at fairly high levels, the thing that impressed me was that they were able to function at all. So many layers of management, so many moving parts, so much coordination needed.
It also wan't unusual for me to be consulting with some group and some topic would come up and we'd be--you do know that so and so at your company is working on this, right? And they usually wouldn't.
I worked for a company with over 200,000 employees and honestly it feels like working at a small company that is at war with 1000 other small companies and four times a year we get together to re-sign cease fire agreements. Except for the endless amount of corporate bullshit it feels like a much smaller company than you'd think.
I did places with 300k, 8k, 1k and 150 (industrial companies).
Believe it or not, but the places I slacked the least was (obviously) the 150 employee company and the 300k! It was really well organised, you had no time to spare.
I'm now in the 8k place, and it's crazy the amount of people doing nothing.
100K+ employees doesn't necessarily mean they're all engineers, even at Google. Many of them are probably either engineer-adjacent (meaning they work with engineers but don't code themselves) or are scientists of another sort (not coders).
> at tens of thousands of engineers you must have a lot of people not doing anything
Although the org sizes may be large, the smaller subgroups within run like smaller semi-independent companies. They have their own business targets, roadmaps and backlogs just like any start up or mid-sized company. Some of the most productive times I have had have been at >100k companies.
Walmart has like 2 million+ employees, which is insane to think about. I have worked at a few ultra huge corps, one which had about 140k people, and like 240k devices in their org.
When I changed jobs there in 2007, I had just come from a hosting provider where we had engineers that managed 500-1000 servers per person, depending on their role or the amount of automation. It was like I stepped back in time to 1999 and everything was manually managed/maintained.
ROFL (we had well over 100K other engineers at DEC when I worked there and connected via a pre-Internet system called EasyNet and were managed in a matrix)
We plumped up to over 350,000 after the Compaq, HP, EDS mergers. When the HP and the DEC engineers got together it was like a 1960's love in and then...Czarly.
At this point I’m more hesitant to hire FAANG employees who are used to really strict guardrails both culturally and technically to keep them “on track”. Most startups don’t have the guardrails and need people who make good choices without the bumpers. Hiring a bunch of FB and Google people did not improve Airbnb’s average engineering skill, rather it sank because a substantial part of our population only cared about promo and promo projects.
Interesting from a couple perspectives (taking the above as honest about AirBNB). Confirms a bit about what's been weird with the economy and hiring.
From the man on the street's perspective (and apparently teirc's view above), FAANG work is where you want to go, and what you want to have on your resume. Per the quote, "a golden ticket". Pretty much all the news talks about.
However, if you talk to the rest of the tech community, they're like: "We tried poaching a few of them. We didn't really like the results. You work at one of those places and you get infected with something that's 'not startup'".
This seems a lot like Stanley and Neck's recent work [1]. The people you've historically been most likely to get as hires are the people most likely to ditch FAANG's for anything shinier. The people who don't "only care about promo", don't actually leave.
Other note, also similar to other recent posts [2] and comments about the change in Google. Like people finally realized: "wait...they're just like MS. All that 'Don't be evil' stuff was just corp-speak. Two decades later, and its strategy deja-vu with Android / Search / Ads. With MS now being the caring innovator who values your freedom of choice."
I've heard of people who had terrible experiences with ex Amazon engineers. I've met a few of them, and not the greatest group of people to work with. Of course I'm stereotyping a very large company so take it with a grain of salt.
Yet, its not whether they 'actually' care. Just the noises they're making.
Google looks inept and malicious. MS wants health care money, cause its the next big market as everybody dies. "We care, cloud health innovation. All MS innovation is powered with empathy.[1] Nano, cyber, quantum, big data ... technobabble Tourette's, How the F** do we get defense contracts?"
I agree with that assessment, but with the caveat that I think this mostly applies to new-grad hires. In my experience, people who brought outside experience into FAANG weren't nearly as affected by these guard-rails outside of things I think most firms would approve of (mandatory code reviews, unit/integration tests, don't write inscrutable wizard code golf changes, don't be an ass).
I've spoken with recruiting firms before that literally told me companies asked them to stop sending people who were hired as a newgrad to FAANG.
That's a great explanation for why Airbnb was pushing out open source torture software like their eslint preset (I still have nightmares about it) while having the slowest and clunkiest frontend ever.
I started using booking.com first because of how bad that website was working and I had the latest MacBook.
We hired a former Googler recently, great hire. Your resume couldn’t be more different from his: yours is so generic that my only takeaway is “oh he worked at Google”. I fear you’ve taken resume advice along the lines of “…explain the value of what you did…” (which is great advice) but should be used to augment technology experience, not replace it. I have no idea what you’re good at.
Find some former Google colleagues who have managed to get new jobs and ask to review their resumes. Google is noteworthy on a resume: it won’t guarantee you a job but it’ll mean someone reviews your resume. If you’re struggling so much with a 4 year Google stint under your belt, there’s something wrong with your resume.
> but should be used to augment technology experience, not replace it.
Do you have some specific feedback or bullets that stand out to you? Most of Google tech is all in-house stuff that nobody would recognize, outside of a few open-source counterparts (Blaze -> Bazel). I'm confused how my resume could better convey what I'm good at. I can say I worked with Java, Angular, Typescript, etc. But that's all exceedingly generic.
If I say something like "automated X thing in WombatLand using BlogSplort tool, saving 20% of engineering time" I don't see how that is more useful than saying "Automated the creation of full stack internal web-apps to launch in a production environment [...] saved hundreds of ENG-hours for teams launching internal applications"
You’re describing work that has no relevance outside of a megacorp like Google which even amongst megacorps is quite unique because it invents technology and can afford to do so.
If you look at the type of work being done at “normal” companies you’re applying for, you’ll likely see work that is much more at the coal face and so experience at the coal face is worth much more than work that most people can’t even conceptualise — even if it happened at Google.
In a competitive hiring environment, you need your resume to tell the person reviewing it why you’re a safe bet. Your resume tells me that if I need someone to build internal full stack web-app automation then you’ve got experience of doing that at Google… which is great except Google is pretty much the only place where that work is required.
Don’t think of your experience as a list of things you’ve done, think of it as evidence for why you’re the right candidate to fill a role. If you’re applying for a company that has an internal customer support system then absolutely shout about how you did exactly that at Google, it’ll get you an interview… if you’re applying for a company that builds AR furniture previewing for e-commerce, it’s probably not worth even mentioning.
The perfect resume is a copy-and-paste of the job spec, you need to get as close to that as is possible. If you did a random weekend project at Google that can be framed as relevant to the job you’re applying for, that will do more for you than the hundreds of engineering hours you saved by automating the deployment of full stack apps.
Google is valuable to have on your resume because it lends credibility to the work you did, but that work has to be relevant to the job you’re applying for.
> I can say I worked with Java, Angular, Typescript, etc. But that's all exceedingly generic
For example, if you’re applying for a company that uses Angular, the focus of your experience section should be having used Angular at Google. A single paragraph that says “Google created Angular, I worked every day with Angular at Google. I built web apps that help support millions of Google customers via a customer service team processing thousands of calls per day. I used angular features x y and z and contributed code to Angular itself.” would be an order of magnitude more effective than what you have now.
> In a competitive hiring environment, you need your resume to tell the person reviewing it why you’re a safe bet. Your resume tells me that if I need someone to build internal full stack web-app automation then you’ve got experience of doing that at Google… which is great except Google is pretty much the only place where that work is required
This is so incredibly dismissive and naive about the work being done. I can't believe you actually think this way. Its almost insulting
These kinds of projects require everything any other project needs. He learned a new tech, was able to identify a real problem then solve the issue with real measureable results. All of this within an organziation where you need to design and plan correctly
all of this is generalizable to almost any software work being done. and important skills for experienced engineers
I absolutely do not mean to suggest his work was not valuable or that he is a bad software engineer. I am sure he is very talented. My point is that his resume is the problem, not his skill. A resume is a sales tool, and sales is about knowing your audience. His resume would be great if he was applying for a job at Google… but he isn’t and so he needs a resume that sells his skills to companies that aren’t Google.
I am sorry that my comments came across as anything other than encouraging and positive: I think he has great potential and that his time at Google will be a differentiator for him and will help him get interviews… as long as the resume is good.
I'd also note that just like a cover letter, a resume can be customized to the job you're applying for. I keep a base resume with all my experience, and then selectively delete irrelevant portions for each job application.
I didn't even notice you worked at Google until i spent like a minute reading your resume. You really need to remove that gigantic wall of text and briefly summarize things better and add some visual hierarchy.
When i look at this resume i get the impression you wouldn't be able to communicate very well.
Thank you for the fresh set of eyes and the feedback. I think I have spent so much time staring at, reading, and revising this thing that I’ve become blind to issues like these.
I did exactly this. Moved back in with my folks and I'm almost middle aged. There has been zero job security for the past year and a half at least. Also periodically over the years put especially the past year and a half. Otherwise, I'm burning through money for rent, paying bay area prices and health insurance and everything else. People in tech usually scoff at the idea of unionizing, but I feel like we will have to at some point. At least for some amount of sanity and security.
There's definitely a bias in the interviewing process when someone is ex fang, everybody wants to have a FANG in team to brag about it. At the same time we try to keep the interview objective: we want someone who is nice to work with.
A quick tip:
When interviewing engineers I noticed that ex FANGs tend to fail the soft sides of the interview.
The type of interviews we do are relatively easy coding exercise (implement a frontend in react to do X, implement an API, fix an existing codebase). It's way easier than any fang exercise.
The core is not really getting the exercise 100% right (bugs may creep in, especially in a stressful situation), as long as you can prove you know how to work with some (=any) frontend or backend technology and reason about your code.
Something else we evaluate is how well they work with the interviewer to solve the problem.
From my experience FANGs people tend to be great problem solvers, but poor coworkers. Try to fine-tune that in your next interview!
You could always try leaving the FAANG name off or adapting it to the project name, and see how things go, given the associations people have with FAANG outside of SV/HN nowadays. Helped my friend a lot.
How is this possible? Surely at this point you would have a network to lean on that wouldn’t leave you applying for jobs online? I’m hesitant to believe you don’t have a network and more willing to believe you don’t realize you have that network and maybe even not sure how to use it. I truly don’t mean this to be critical and instead curious: Why would you spend that much time applying for jobs with that type of success rate?
> How is this possible? Surely at this point you would have a network to lean on that wouldn’t leave you applying for jobs online? I’m hesitant to believe you don’t have a network and more willing to believe you don’t realize you have that network and maybe even not sure how to use it.
It's possible because of a couple reasons. The market is cold right now, and most of my network is _still at google_. There are a few folks I've worked with that have left for other places - but those places are either in hiring freezes or actively laying people off for the last few months.
You're partially right, though. Maybe I don't know how to utilize this network efficiently. Friend of friend etc, is probably something I need to work on more.
> Why would you spend that much time applying for jobs with that type of success rate?
I'm sorry but this comment shows an immense amount of social privilege. Most of us don't have networks that can get us jobs. Those are exclusive cliques and it's foolish to assume everyone can lean on nepotism. Also, isn't it a bit scummy to keep someone in your life just in case you need a job?
This is true. The better you're at networking and building relationships the easier it gets in almost every domain of life. There's a point at which when you have enough connections and relationships you'll likely never need to write another motivation letter. You can just leverage your network.
In what way is it moral to hire someone based on network instead of merit? That practice is itself the problem.
It is a privilege because the bar you're meant to reach is lower if you know someone.
What relationships would you build? You're coworkers. Friendships require outside-work time and effort, which is already in scant supply. I truly don't know how anyone manages these relationships.
You're assuming a hire based on networking is somehow unqualified. In reality people hire based at least partly on networking because there is an assumption (whether true or not) that you can trust that person to some degree: I know them, they seem to have their act together, they can communicate reasonably well. In other words, they are more of a known quantity than a stranger with nothing more than a decent looking resume. One's network may not be perfect, but it tends to provide more qualified candidates than the Internet at large, so people tend to look to their network first.
If you live near even one person, you can get together with them and talk. That's how networking starts. If you don't live near anyone, there is no shortage of online forums where you can network.
That assumption may not be correct, though maybe it is statistically better than a random Internet resume.
Where would you begin? Just talking doesn't do anything for me. I'm not into small talk or chit-chat. I think part of it for me is suspected neurodivergence, since I have great difficulty following what other people are coasting on instinctively. I'm drained within an hour or two and get incredibly irritable.
I went to a networking event once, on frontend dev and responsive design. This was back in 2012. I attended the talks and had some brief chatting, but the vibe there seemed like it was meant for people already well-networked or in the industry. I don't feel like I belong in these places, despite sharing an interest in computing.
You don't have to engage in small talk or chit-chat: just have a genuine conversation with the other person, and end it when it starts to get tedious. I don't see these conversations having to last more than 10 or 15 minutes; an hour would be a really long time, unless you're enjoying it.
Agreed, this is not always fun or easy, but it may help to approach it like a hacker would: given a seemingly impenetrable system (a stranger's personality), how do you find something in common to talk about?
How to begin the convo and guide it will depend largely on who you're talking to (complete stranger, acquaintance, etc.) but a good starting topic would be something simple like websites and/or something related to your area of expertise or interest. Pro tip: ask them what things they're interested in and see if you can find common ground.
you're not going to go to a networking event once and magically make new contacts and change your life. it may take time, esp. in a setting where there are a lot of presentations and less interactions.
in a room full of aspie nerds, all of whom are kinda awkward, you may need to be the one who breaks the ice.
think of small talk like the wheels on a plane -- it's there to get you up into the sky, or to land you after a long chat, so deploy it just enough to get you in and out of more meaningful convos, onto new topics, etc.
I appreciate the reframing here and will attempt to employ it next time, but more and more I'm discovering that I just don't gel with people, even within my own interests. There's something 'missing' in me that others interpret as permission to mistreat or attack.
I got my last job by kicking ass at the job before that. When someone left the previous company, she made sure to let me know she was hiring. I wouldn’t say we were friends; we never hung out outside of work. But she knew my capabilities and she knew what my interests were.
some people are born with social privilage, but a lot of folks work at it.
meetup.com groups, linux user groups, powershell scripters forums, python guilds, SCADA code conferences, etc.
doesn't even have to be tech stuff per se, my ISP account executives (sales guys) used to pull leads from Cars and Coffee meetups, painball, beer tasting events, etc.
you may not be born with blue-blood connections, but you can certainly build lots and lots of connections, and tech, esp. startup tech, is a place that lends itself well to that. go get em, killer.
> Also, isn't it a bit scummy to keep someone in your life just in case you need a job?
if you only see this as transactional, esp. in a one-way transactional sense, you're never going to network successfully; it's quid pro quo, and you need to be willing (and able) to give as well as receive. and not always just job stuff.
What are these connections, really? Are they actually relationships, or just a list of people you can call for favors?
I've struggled to digest the feedback in the whole subthread. Quid pro quo makes sense, but then, you need something to give. I don't have anything people would want. I don't know anyone hiring, nor could I put a good word in about it.
You mentioned it's not just job stuff; what sort of stuff is it? I'm legitimately confused about how these relationships are any different than a half-baked, not-really-a-friendship, or acquaintance. The whole "why" for me would be to find better opportunities. This seems incompatible with what you and others are saying about networking, like it needs to be more than jobs. I'm struggling to grok what that "more than jobs" would be in networking compared to a friendship.
It's weird to express in light of what others have posted here. It really highlights the difference in how we process or understand socializing.
You're right. It's not friendship. It's reputation.
If you don't know someone's reputation, knowing whether or not they are good is very hard. That's what networking is for. When people know who you are and know your reputation, they feel safer hiring you.
Location: San Francisco, California. USA
Remote:Yes, or Hybrid in San Francisco
Willing to relocate: Not generally.
Technologies: Java, Scala, Python, Typescript, Dart, (some) Javascript, HTML/CSS (sass); Apache Spark, Angular, Protobuf & API design, SQL, NoSQL, Functional Programming
Résumé/CV: https://www.dropbox.com/s/el6pi4cnu3hs4ud/Resume%20%282023%29%20v2.pdf?dl=0
Email: {lastname in resume}[email protected]
Hi, I'm JD. I am a Software Engineer in the San Francisco bay area with six+ years experience across data engineering, back-end, and full-stack applications. I'm passionate about helping others, teaching, as well as improving the 'developer experience' across the board - for professionals and aspiring developers alike.
For two years I spent time at First Orion in the big data space, protecting users of First Orion products from malicious phone calls. My team designed and implemented the analysis and protection from spam and scam calls in major telecom networks that are still in use today.
I then spent four years at Google working to support users internally through my team's products and frameworks, as well as facilitating courses to teach best practice frameworks for their projects. I spent a lot of time working cross-functionally as a developer and design lead for several projects.
My goal is to keep helping others through my work as much as possible.
I'm mostly interested in remote work or hybrid positions in San Francisco, focused on back-end design or data engineering (but I can do full-stack as well). If my experience piques your interest or you'd like to know more, shoot me an email or message me on LinkedIn (link in resume) :)
There are a few old-adage counterpoints here, such as: don't make your passion/hobby your job, have hobbies outside of your work, etc. But you also touch on something that has surfaced as the money in tech has grown and become much more loud in the last few decades.
> Bootcamps have just become farms for people who need a job, but not those who really want this job.
This isn't exclusive to bootcamps - they just happen to be the most expedient way to act on particular desire. The real problem is how LOUD money has become in 'tech' in the last several decades. When I started undergrad ~10 years ago, at a small school not known for anything Math or CS, there were still a lot of students who entered the CS program because they heard, from their family the internet or the world at large, that it was "a good job". (This also stems from college being seen as 'job prospect' improvement as opposed to something for learning, but that discussion lies elsewhere.)
I got lucky that I liked it. Most of them would drop out of the program / transfer to a different area of focus within a year or so. There were probably somewhere around 50-60 people in my low level CS courses. My graduating CS cohort was 9.
Despite liking it, I still find little desire to tinker on things outside of work. A large part of it is that it _is_ my job. I don't want to work, then go home and 'work' for 'fun'.
The other part of it is, as mentioned by others here, the parts of software a lot of us enjoy the most aren't usually what we get to focus on, in one way or another.
> I want to work with more people who LOVE software and find the development of machines and the code that runs on them as fascinating as I do. Unfortunately, its less and less these days.
I get the impression most of this is going to be exclusive to small projects, teams, and in particular startups. Bigger operations are going to prefer prioritizing the more 'stable' or boring sides of software.
> Despite liking it, I still find little desire to tinker on things outside of work. A large part of it is that it _is_ my job. I don't want to work, then go home and 'work' for 'fun'.
I am the same way, but when I take 5-week long vacations I usually start to tinker with stuff on week 3. So it takes me about 2 weeks to detox from job grinding
Funny to realise the best thing my job could do for employee training is to just give me more vacation. Not like they give me any official training though. They let people occasionally go to conferences but I don't really like those, so I don't
Just a small note… Making my programming hobby into a job has resulted in a wonderful and rewarding career for me. I’ve now been coding professionally for around 25 years. I go through waves, but you’ll often find me coding in my spare time before work, after work, or on the weekends. I do much of the stuff this author mentions too, such as designing and 3D printing parts for repairs around the house.
Anyway, to each their own, but I purposely made my hobby my career and I believe I’ve benefited greatly from that.
And if that has worked out for you, that's great! It's not wise to make generalizations about this kind of thing.
To be clear, I think using what I said in the first bit against the author or comment I replied to is kind of side-stepping the real issue. The first of my comment essentially translates to: turning a hobby into a profession is a high risk, high reward scenario. It can work out fantastic (as in your case) or you can come to hate something you used to enjoy.
Programming-adjacent things, I can enjoy. I like puzzles, I like factory building games, I could see myself building robots or getting into 3D printing random bits. But I don't think that I would ever sit down and write a software library outside of work without a strong personal incentive. I'd just rather spend my time on other things I enjoy equally as much.
Remote: Open
Willing to relocate: Yes
Technologies: Java, Scala, Python, Angular, React, Apache Spark, SQL & NoSQL, Dart, Typescript/Javascript, HTML/CSS/SCSS
Résumé/CV: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tNLYIjtH8dgBSMGPbVg3qA0-6q_...
Email: hoglan (dot) jd (at) gmail
Hello!
I'm JD, a Software Engineer with experience touching many parts of the stack (frontend, backend, databases, data & ETL pipelines, you name it). Most recently, I spent several years at Google working full-stack on applications that supported our customer service teams. I then switched to working on facilitating our teams through building frameworks, teaching, and overall enabling them to quickly launch applications.
Prior to that, I spent a couple years at First Orion - a smaller data company - helping found & build out a data engineering team as one of the first engineers. We were focused on building data pipelines and models to protect our users from malicious phonecalls. If you know the phrase "Scam Likely", we were a pioneer :)
There is a noticeable gap in my resume where I was dealing with health issues from 2022 - 2024, but am looking to rejoin the software industry. I'm passionate about helping others through my work, teaching, and building tools to improve the experience for end users - including other developers.