Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

About This Googler's Manifesto

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 404 posts

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#161

Post by codeisawesome »

jogjayr wrote: post #136
smsm42 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet, if we look at Google's track record, they have much better luck with technical problems than with people-interaction problems. Search driven by algorithms - excellent. Social networks - epic fail. Advertising backend - money juggernaut, mostly driven by clever algorithms, as I understand? Mobile OS backend - great (well, ok, not too bad). Mobile OS frontend - meh. Chrome is kinda borderline, but I think technolo…

You're forgetting important Google products where design or user experience played a crucial role in winning. Gmail - the dominant webmail platform that made pioneering use of AJAX; before it you had to refresh the page to check if you had new email. And whose inbuilt chat client crushed Yahoo Messenger/MSN/AOL. People came for the 1GB of free storage, stayed for the friends they made on chat. YouTube - Video juggern…

Don't completely disagree with you. But,

Gmail:

From my hazy memory of the time it was released: 1. Best usage of AJAX and providing complex interaction without refreshing the page. 2. More storage space than any other provider.

Both, technical feats of excellence?

Youtube:

It was an acquired product, and there were quite a few points at which the YouTube community reacted angrily to Google driven changes, prominently when they made Google+ mandatory for comments.

GPS, Orkut, Chromecast and Homepage decisions: I agree on your point here.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#162

Post by ggggtez »

tibiapejagala wrote: post #144

I might partially or totally disagree with the original manifest, but this reply is repulsive. I would never want to have a "senior" like this. So much emphasis on how senior he is, how junior you have to write something so wrong. How OP's career is over. The 3rd point reads like navy seals copypasta but with HR instead. If you don't see any other way to deal with OP's views than described in this belittling rant, th…

On that last sentence, that's the whole point. The manifesto claims empathy for colleagues and customers is not required, but clearly it is.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#163

Post by Udik »

interpol_p wrote: post #157
Aunche wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's completely unreasonable to take a critique on hiring practices or a broad statement about demographics personally. I'm not going to take offense to the statement that men tend to be more aggressive than women. Likewise, if someone claims that Google's policy of favoring elite schools leads to hiring underqualified candidates, would Googlers from MIT suddenly be offended? Of course not. However, that's precisely…

Would you take it personally if those statements were commonly used to explain why you don't make as much money as your co-workers? Why you're more likely to be neurotic? Those sorts of demographic statements might be fine to you, because they're not being used to explain why any current discrimination practiced against you is actually fine.

These statements might be hurtful and counterproductive, but they are a reaction to other statements which are perceived as being simply disregarding the reality of things. I can understand somebody making them just for the sake of reminding others what he thinks reality is. You can imagine plenty of situation in which the truth is ugly and hurts everybody- is that a good reason to let people do all sorts of intellectual contortionism just to avoid mentioning it?

On the other hand, any female engineer in Google earns more than I do, and deservedly so. I don't work at Google and I strongly doubt I'd pass their interviews.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#164

Post by Inconel »

interpol_p wrote: post #139
searealist wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having an agenda of hiring and promoting women over men is discriminating against men. Very few people dispute this happens.

I can't emphasise enough that this is not discrimination. Discrimination is the "unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people." Google only has finite resources. Diverting them to assist the oppressed class (women) is not discrimination against the dominant class (men). It is simply a way to correct for existing discrimination against women.

As someone who takes these kinds of larger social issues fairly seriously, and supports many efforts to correct the long lasting effects of discrimination, I think viewing this issue in such a binary fashion(that is that women as a class are oppressed and men are the oppressors) is both incorrect and unhelpful to the cause you seem to be supporting. Privilege, oppression, and discrimination exist over multiple overlapping spectrums. The notion that in a country like the US white women(due to their being women) are somehow oppressed by black men(due to their being men) is both incorrect, and quite frankly, somewhat insulting. You will not win any allies to your cause by framing these very important issues in such a binary, and unnuanced way.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#165

Post by Inconel »

Uhhrrr wrote: post #159

This essay is just bad. In section 1 the author presupposes that the facts presented in the original post are false (but then fluffs on presenting any evidence for this). Maybe he's right! If someone else writes that piece, it would be a valuable contribution. In section 2 he writes about the social aspect of engineering, which certainly exists, but pretends that being engaged and interested in the technical side of…

Section 3 is most troubling to me as well, even if I can mostly agree with some of his other points. I particularly enjoyed the notion of the manifesto's author being punched in the face while at work, and this being a reason Mr Zunger couldn't have other people working with him, rather than perhaps requiring those people not punch others in the face. In a different scenario this kind of attitude towards workplace violence might be labelled victim blaming.

As an aside, I always wonder whether people like Mr Zunger, who are seemingly so nonchalant in their casual dismissal of the use of violence against those they disagree with, have every had this kind of violence visited upon themselves. In an effort to be charitable, I'm going to assume it comes from a position of privilege and ignorance, rather than malice.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#166

Post by nl »

MichaelGG wrote: post #158
nl wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, yes? I think you mean "no" here, right? Because discrimination means making decisions based on gender, not on individual characteristics. Also your other comments seem to means you support Google's pro-diversity approach then, right? They aim to give equal opportunities to a more diverse set of people. They don't force hiring from under-represented classes.

I'm saying discrimination, meaning non-equal results, is fine. I don't think there should be any active discrimination, and incorrect unintentional discrimination should also be removed.

I'm saying discrimination, meaning non-equal results

I think you may want to reconsider the word you use for that, because that isn't a widely shared definition.

To be clear, when you say "discrimination.. [snip] is fine" most people hear that as "making hiring or promotion decisions based sorely or primarily on the gender of the person is fine". That's what the dictionary definition is too.

This isn't discrimination, and (almost) no one says it is. Unequal outcomes have many sources, and provided they are non-discriminatory that's defensible.

The issues arise when unequal outcomes occur and no one can agree on the cause, because there is a (very good) chance that there is an inequality of opportunity somewhere in the process.

I suspect there is a miscommunication here and your defense of the possibility of unequal outcomes is being confused by the wording.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#167

Post by blub »

tibiapejagala wrote: post #144

I might partially or totally disagree with the original manifest, but this reply is repulsive. I would never want to have a "senior" like this. So much emphasis on how senior he is, how junior you have to write something so wrong. How OP's career is over. The 3rd point reads like navy seals copypasta but with HR instead. If you don't see any other way to deal with OP's views than described in this belittling rant, th…

This Zunger person is a pretty good example of a conflict-(mis)handling approach which I've seen a lot in the past years on tech-oriented social networks:

* public humiliation - check (casting doubt on the engineering skills of the individual).

* threat of violence - check ("a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face").

* retribution through firing - check

* speaking as a champion of all that is good, castigating the evil "outlier"

Basically trying to completely destroy the career of someone whose opinions are for different reasons unpalatable.

The author should go to a psychologist to have their anger managemnt issues threated. They think they've taken a stand, but instead they've just shown they're unfit to be in any leadership position, can't control their emotions properly and can't even make a cogent argument.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#168

Post by nl »

smsm42 wrote: post #62
zorpner wrote: post #4

Perhaps more interestingly, the author does not appear to understand engineering. This guy gets it. It's a deep temptation to abstract engineering away from humanism, but the idea that code can solve problems is an immature understanding of software. People have the problems; people provide the solutions. Code is a tool & intermediary, and hardly essential to the act of problem-solving.

Yet, if we look at Google's track record, they have much better luck with technical problems than with people-interaction problems. Search driven by algorithms - excellent. Social networks - epic fail. Advertising backend - money juggernaut, mostly driven by clever algorithms, as I understand? Mobile OS backend - great (well, ok, not too bad). Mobile OS frontend - meh. Chrome is kinda borderline, but I think technolo…

Not entirely sure I agree but talking to your point:

Doesn't this support the idea that Google needs to improve their people-interaction? And one way to do that is to hire for people who are better at it?

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#169

Post by nl »

Inconel wrote: post #165
Uhhrrr wrote: post #159

This essay is just bad. In section 1 the author presupposes that the facts presented in the original post are false (but then fluffs on presenting any evidence for this). Maybe he's right! If someone else writes that piece, it would be a valuable contribution. In section 2 he writes about the social aspect of engineering, which certainly exists, but pretends that being engaged and interested in the technical side of…

Section 3 is most troubling to me as well, even if I can mostly agree with some of his other points. I particularly enjoyed the notion of the manifesto's author being punched in the face while at work, and this being a reason Mr Zunger couldn't have other people working with him, rather than perhaps requiring those people not punch others in the face. In a different scenario this kind of attitude towards workplace vi…

You realize that the "punch in the face" line is a philosophical point about how angry the author made people, right?

If someone did actually punch the author in the face they would (and should) be fired and charged with assault.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#170

Post by consz »

nl wrote: post #168
smsm42 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet, if we look at Google's track record, they have much better luck with technical problems than with people-interaction problems. Search driven by algorithms - excellent. Social networks - epic fail. Advertising backend - money juggernaut, mostly driven by clever algorithms, as I understand? Mobile OS backend - great (well, ok, not too bad). Mobile OS frontend - meh. Chrome is kinda borderline, but I think technolo…

Not entirely sure I agree but talking to your point: Doesn't this support the idea that Google needs to improve their people-interaction? And one way to do that is to hire for people who are better at it?

Not necessarily -- there's an argument to focus on their comparative advantage and not bother wasting energy improving their people-interaction (something they are comparatively bad at).
Post reply on HN