Pros: Good work environment; sustainability focus; fosters knowledge.

Cons: Fewer opportunities in remote offices, but that is normal.

Pros: 1. Great Benefits. Besides food and health, there are also many great educational opportunities. 2. Smart People. Most of the people working here are intelligent and a pleasure to work with.

Cons: 1. Career paths are almost non-existent, but senior management has been taking many steps over the last few months to fix this. It needs to be seen how this plays out over the next few months. 2. Work experience depends on the team you are in. Some of the teams are really great, but some of them are pretty bad too. 3. Politics. The internal politics can be really bad (again, some teams are better than others). 4. By and large, software practices range from poor to mediocre. There are a few teams that are an exception to this (the infrastructure teams are really great, but product teams tend to be far more "hack a fix, then worry about negative consequences later." The infrastructure team, OTOH, uses top-notch software engineering practices). 5. The company is a weird mix of transparent, yet opaque. There is a huge effort to appear transparent, but where most important decisions, even at the lowermost levels, are concerned, the decision-making process is very opaque.

Pros: Good snacks. Compensation is okay, but that's not the only thing any good software developer expects in a job. Also, having good reviews only about the food and compensation for any software development company is shameful.

Cons: Management is pathetic, especially those hired straight from college (with only bachelor's, and not even in computer science) and made team leads within 2-3 years. First, they don't have good and deeper technical knowledge as they don't necessarily have all basic computer science background and understanding of the product as a whole. Having knowledge just about a language (like C/C++) is not the same as having actual product development knowledge. Second, since they are straight out of college, they don't have any outside experience and they feel that they do amazing work, while actually, it's not the case. Also, they are just too random/impetuous and irresponsible in their decisions. These guys just tend to make their Evals/Compensation better by making their team members work the way their managers expect them to. Nowhere in all this is actual product development given more importance. They give more importance to the actual number of hours worked rather than the efficiency and output. Also here, more importance is given to the number of bugs fixed, rather than actually finding the root causes and reducing the number of bugs generated in the first place. That's the reason why sometimes it's more of a mechanical work/mechanical temporary fixes than good, challenging work which requires talent. These team leads don't give any credit to the team members who actually work on it, but rather will try to explain their contribution in any good thing the members do. It's hard for smart/talented computer science people to strive in the company. The company just needs to maintain their random codebase by continually adding new things without any good design, introducing new bugs in existing things, fixing them to introduce something new... one day that can end up beyond repair!