ageist

While he isn’t an ageist, he does say that the earlier you can do this, the better.

Assuming that people don't grow at 99 because they've been at it for 45 years is stupid and ageist.

For the record, Google is probably the least ageist company i've ever been at or worked for.

It seems like: a) culture fit where you get hired == good b) culture fit where you get declined == racist/ageist/sexist/whatever.

So your dev said something ageist and you taught them how to rebrand it?

I don't think that the younger generation (meaning the people under 30 now) is ageist at all.

That said, I've only worked in one company that seemed overtly ageist (a piece-of-shit startup where I spent 3 months after Google).

Programming culture (today?) is highly egotistical, judgmental, conformist and, paradoxically, divisive.* Ageist too.

Ha, I hope I didn't sound like I rejected being 'old' or ageist.

How have other companies you've worked at been ageist?

Without being ageist, I think that you see a disproportionate number of younger founders simply because their current situation better allows for taking risks.

That would be ageist and invite downvotes.

Instead, it makes the sexist, ageist, Puritanical statement that "older men DM'ing younger women on Twitter is 'creepy'" with quasi-religious fervour.

Also, they are ageist and "don't consider experience at all" (and that is from a direct quote from a person in an interview).

"Assuming that people don't grow at 99 because they've been at it for 45 years is stupid and ageist." You haven't explained why.

And while comments like "men are just smarter" or "whites are just smarter" are quite rightly unthinkable, ageist comments by major tech figures are not unheard of.

Ageist employers aren't hiring founders.