There doesn't appear to be any attempt to control for job level, and it's not even clear how one would control for such a thing. Public company stock and private company stock appear to be valued the same which may be true on the surface, but is a wild misrepresentation of reality (in many ways). Different companies need different distributions of skills, so would have different median salaries even though they might be paying the same amount for the same job. This doesn't account for geographical distribution, those centered in the bay area are likely going to be higher up this list despite others potentially paying much better in their regions.
My job is very easy and likely 36 hours a week. I’ve never once worked weekends or holidays, and the vacation time is better than European.
But when I started my total comp as waaaaaay lower. It took time for the money to stack.
I assume the same for Databricks, but i'm not sure?
I think nvidia has some title inflation. I have a friend who work there as 'distinguished engineer', and it's more likely they would be L6 or L7 at FAANG.
I'm guessing overall Nvidia's comp is very similar to most FAANGs in terms of skill and YOE but not title (maybe excepting entry level, since it goes lower and is more fine grained).
That’s OpenSea, no 11 on the list making $1.4m of monthly revenue and paying SWEs 430k salary
1. Posting some methodology in the README might be good, such as any filtering you did or didn't do.
2. You do have some obvious duplicates on there, e.g. `cit` and `citadel`, `jane` and `jane-street`. It's probably not worth the effort to manually clean that up, but I figured I'd mention.
I've seen their recruiting emails, they are happy to hint at being able to 3x whatever someone's current comp is.
Is that RSUs at some current valuation? ISOs with strike price at current(!) but assuming stratospheric growth continues over vesting period? Something else?
Is the stock value what the landslide support for the CEO-in-exile was about?
If the for-profit didn't already have too much power over the non-profit initially, it does when the entire staff has been given multiples-of-salary reasons to back the for-profit.
How that staff misalignment with the non-profit appears to have been leveraged is exquisite, in how well it was pulled off in the end (especially with the drama). But seems to also be a concern for anyone wanting to structure a non-profit in which there's a fund-raising for-profit sideline, when the stakes are large.
Maybe filter out the bankrupt ones?
There's definitely some publicly traded tech companies that are missing from the list.
