The problem is they bill themselves as a staff software engineer. Such a glaring visual issue makes me question their core competency, which makes me question any advice they could offer. Of course they might still be amazing at professional coaching, but maybe don't bill yourself as a former engineer if the first visual impression is very clunky engineering.
Scientists and consultants both build models.
The scientists do,
Step 1: Build Model
Step 2: Think of implications
Step 3: Check if observations make sense based on implications
Step 4: If wrong, refine model or go back to Step 1. If right, submit to other people and ask them to verify.
The consultants do,
Step 1: Build model.
Step 2: Tell people this is the right model.
You’re missing the consulting steps:
0: Figure out what to build.
-1: Win contract.
-2: Declare that you have the best model and it’s perfect for this client.
:D
[flagged]
It is not technical advice. It seems some general career advice for tech people (don't just think in technical context).
But mainly it is a ad to hire her as your coach.
Right, but their top level credential is as a staff software engineer. Glaring webpage styling issues don't bode well for such a credential.
You're misapplying your evaluation here. The most you might say is "don't take front-end Dec advice from them".
Instead of discarding the whole thing, just take what's good and leave the rest.
The problem is they bill themselves as a staff software engineer. Such a glaring visual issue makes me question their core competency, which makes me question any advice they could offer. Of course they might still be amazing at professional coaching, but maybe don't bill yourself as a former engineer if the first visual impression is very clunky engineering.