Junior dev VS FAANMG dev

In my experience it’s the other way around.
- Both sides.
  I constantly call out juniors who do things like ignore warnings, completely unaware that the warning is going to cause serious tech debt in a few months.
  But Ive also unfortunately shrugged after seeing hundreds of warnings because to update this requires me to go through 3 layers of departments and we're still waiting on these six other blockers.
  Pick and choose I guess.
  
  Then things will have to wait until the code is of sufficient quality to be accepted.
- Yeah I’m one of the “I only want to write this fucker once so I will make it as solid as I can” types… and my manager/team-lead/principal dev (all the same person - that’s a whole other story) is the “yolo send it” type.
  We do not get on well. I’m probably going to switch teams or jobs soon.

My experience is exactly the opposite. I don't work for a FAANG but I've been around the block a bit. Its always the junior devs that try and add new warnings etc to the code base. I always require warnings to be cleaned up even if that means disabling specific instances (but not the whole rule) because the rule is flagging a false negative.
- the rule is flagging a false negative
  false positive?
  
  Warnings and errors are negatives not positive. So if it generates a warning that is OK, it's a false negative.
- It boils down to desensitization/normalization. Warnings (and errors, of course, but tests as well) exist for a reason. If you don’t care about these gauge constructs are telling you, then they have no real diagnostic value. Getting into a place where you’re not looking at how your systems are actually running is generally a bad idea, especially in the long run.

I thought we decided FAANGM was better as FAGMAN.
- "Pepsiman" started playing in my head, but instead of pepsiman it was f****tman
  
  It was the Batman theme for me. Na nanana na na... fagmaaaaannnn
- Facebook is Meta, no one cares about Microsoft.
  So the acronym is MANGA

and CI/CD goes "f*ck you, no deployment today, Linter is unhappy"

If you work for FAANG you're morally bankrupt
- But financially bussin'!
  And also, it's actually a complicated question. A one-man boycott doesn't do anything. If you work at a FAANG, work for a better world when you're off, and go whistleblower when they do something really evil, I find no fault in that at all.
  
  The other consideration is that pretty much every company you could work for as a software developer is going to try to take advantage of your work. Most companies are morally bad at best and morally terrible at worst. If you discourage any good person from working there, the problem will only snowball from there.
  If working at FAANG gives you the resources to support things you're passionate about, and you're willing to stand up for your values when they do something bad, there isn't a problem with that IMO.
  
  You could say the same about eating meat or any other cause. What's the difference, the animal is already dead anyway, right? Well, it's not that simple.
  Thanks to the growing number of people who eat less or no meat at all, meat production is decreasing. If all of them kept saying that one man boycott makes no difference, the change would not come.
  If you can't find a better job - fine, work for the evil FAANG or whatever. We live in capitalism and it's clear we need to work somewhere. But at least be honest and don't look away from inconvenient truth. There's still something good you could do while keeping the job at $evil_company. For example, you can support financially those who haven't got nice jobs in IT.
  
  Giving up your morals for money is morally bankrupt
  
  *If you're in the US.
  Some interns in the US make more than experienced engineers in Europe...
- I work at a FAANG company. I've also worked at startups and smaller national companies. They're all morally bankrupt, just in many different ways.
  Hell, I've worked for "tech for good" clients that have done reprehensible things that required legal intervention...