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

What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 115 posts

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#51

Post by kop316 »

stoev wrote: post #24

I read through the HN comments of this very same article from almost two years ago wondering whether the message of the article would have been interpreted any differently. It is really surprising how much negativity there is in today's comments as opposed to the older topic. In 2016 people were calling this article enjoyable and even "Their favorite Google-related article of the year". I found suggestions on how to…

I wonder if it's simpler than that: Google (Alphabet) has destroyed a lot of good will in the past two years, and the comments in the section reflect that.

I can think of several instances in the past two years that makes me mistrust them more, such as taking down accounts at random and taking a peron's entire digital life with it (causing me to move as much as possible off of Google), the random flagging of documents (aka, they actively scan them and will take off content they don't like), etc.

On the stock Android phone (I have a Nexus), it has felt that they have been trying actively to suck up as much data as possible (the final straw for me to put on a custom ROM is when their google keyboard sent everything I typed to thir servers, effectively making it a keylogger).

I personally think the skeptism they have now is very warrented, and the days "Don't be evil" is long gone.

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#52

Post by kop316 »

tluyben2 wrote: post #35
lsmarigo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> by the same group of people Don't think it's the same group of people, it feels like intelligent and mentally healthy individuals have been opting to abstain from online discussions in general over the last few years in droves after realizing their time and energy and better spent elsewhere. Especially with the trend of comments being taken out of context to attack individuals employers/livelihood. That leaves the…

Ah! I think you are onto something there. I noticed it as well; Reddit is the worst offender as even serious and well founded comments are butchered and lighthearted/funny ones are upvoted in the 10000s. If you have better stuff to do, you will just think; fuck it then I don't answer. I would love to have good discussions with new peers online, but doing that in open court seems to attract the weirdos so I just go do…

So far this seems the best we have, and this is the only community I really will comment in. I think keeping up such a community means we have to ensure that the serios and well founded comments are upvoted, and the lazy/annoying/"funny" comments are kept off.

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#53

Post by naturalgradient »

naturalgradient wrote: post #19
mtgx wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've stopped believing in NYT's "integrity" since a few years ago. It's even worse for political news. As an example, just yesterday I heard about Donna Brazile's admissions that Hillary rigged the primary election by controlling even who the DNC got to hire and how she essentially laundered huge donations to her campaign through the DNC. Sounds like the story of the day, considering Donna Brazile was the former DNC…

The NYT has run of the most effective ad campaigns in recent years, somehow placing itself as the last bastion of 'objective reporting', and the intellectual smugness that comes with it. From my observation, they are giving platform to just one side of the debate in many issues, e.g. title IX legislation, where they are portraying a move that is supported by a number of reputed law professors[0] as another Trump gove…

Sure, downvote, but that does not make it less true. I am not implying the NYT is a worse newspaper than many others in that instance.

I am saying they are trying to pretend they are objective and above the rest in their noble fight for the truth, when there is evidence they are not.

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#54

Post by douglaswlance »

stoev wrote: post #24

I read through the HN comments of this very same article from almost two years ago wondering whether the message of the article would have been interpreted any differently. It is really surprising how much negativity there is in today's comments as opposed to the older topic. In 2016 people were calling this article enjoyable and even "Their favorite Google-related article of the year". I found suggestions on how to…

hackernews has been infiltrated by wantrepreneurs and techno-communists.

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#55

Post by emodendroket »

lsmarigo wrote: post #30
stoev wrote: post #24

I read through the HN comments of this very same article from almost two years ago wondering whether the message of the article would have been interpreted any differently. It is really surprising how much negativity there is in today's comments as opposed to the older topic. In 2016 people were calling this article enjoyable and even "Their favorite Google-related article of the year". I found suggestions on how to…

> by the same group of people Don't think it's the same group of people, it feels like intelligent and mentally healthy individuals have been opting to abstain from online discussions in general over the last few years in droves after realizing their time and energy and better spent elsewhere. Especially with the trend of comments being taken out of context to attack individuals employers/livelihood. That leaves the…

Oh please. Everyone online is far stupider and more insane than before? There's an assertion wanting for evidence.

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#56

Post by emodendroket »

eulo__ wrote: post #32
lsmarigo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> by the same group of people Don't think it's the same group of people, it feels like intelligent and mentally healthy individuals have been opting to abstain from online discussions in general over the last few years in droves after realizing their time and energy and better spent elsewhere. Especially with the trend of comments being taken out of context to attack individuals employers/livelihood. That leaves the…

This has been my view for a while too. Most internet forums I use are a shadow of their former selves. When I first started browsing hn I was blown away with how smart and insightful the posts were. Ideas I had never thought of and quite a few I struggled to even comprehend. It's very rare to see that now days.

And what's with music and TV now? When I was younger everything was good, but now it's bad.

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#57

Post by brudgers »

stoev wrote: post #24

I read through the HN comments of this very same article from almost two years ago wondering whether the message of the article would have been interpreted any differently. It is really surprising how much negativity there is in today's comments as opposed to the older topic. In 2016 people were calling this article enjoyable and even "Their favorite Google-related article of the year". I found suggestions on how to…

The same story can generate different conversations depending on the tenor of early comments, who makes those comments, who sees those comments, and if and what response those comments illicit. Things as small as whether or not a post appears on a weekend or weekday (the previous was a Thursday -- $ date --date="618 days ago") makes a difference.

On the other hand, the perception social science, psychology, and even STEM as science has changed a bit in the last several years and part of that change is increased scrutiny and skepticism.

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#58

Post by emodendroket »

110011 wrote: post #40
stoev wrote: post #24

I read through the HN comments of this very same article from almost two years ago wondering whether the message of the article would have been interpreted any differently. It is really surprising how much negativity there is in today's comments as opposed to the older topic. In 2016 people were calling this article enjoyable and even "Their favorite Google-related article of the year". I found suggestions on how to…

That's a good point. I noticed the spectacular bias in the comments on HN as well. Anything relating to Google is almost surely beaten down for no good reason at all. One of the best examples of this was the new Google Calendar UI announcement. I thought it was a welcome an pleasing change and nothing but a good product getting better, can't we all appreciate that? But the comments on HN were very negative and people…

There was a "spectacular bias" before too, but it was reflexively in favor of things Google did.

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#59

Post by emodendroket »

dogruck wrote: post #26
stoev wrote: post #24

I read through the HN comments of this very same article from almost two years ago wondering whether the message of the article would have been interpreted any differently. It is really surprising how much negativity there is in today's comments as opposed to the older topic. In 2016 people were calling this article enjoyable and even "Their favorite Google-related article of the year". I found suggestions on how to…

That’s a fair insight. (And, yeah, title needs 2016 added). Now I’m curious to see how the comment thread grows. The negativity at this moment could be anchored in the observations of the first couple of top-level comments. Certainly it’s fair to characterize this as a PR puff piece. It’s common practice for companies to buddy-up with news publishers on stories such as this. But, yes, between 2016 and today we’ve def…

> But, yes, between 2016 and today we’ve definitely leapt into the era of Fake News.

Have we, though? The evidence for "fake news" as a phenomenon qualitatively (or even quantitatively) different than chain e-mail forwards is, to my way of thinking, pretty slim.

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#60

Post by gaius »

microcolonel wrote: post #46
gaius wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which eventually turned into a cargo-cult dogma It's very clearly culturally biased too. If you have ever done any training in this area you know that different cultures (even if they appear racially similar) do facial expressions, eye contact, and so on differently. Maybe all we are seeing here is that white people can read the facial expressions of white people...

> It's very clearly culturally biased too. If you have ever done any training in this area you know that different cultures (even if they appear racially similar) do facial expressions, eye contact, and so on differently. Maybe all we are seeing here is that white people can read the facial expressions of white people... I'm under the impression that the cultural differences are largely in how much you let out, not i…

I'm under the impression that the cultural differences are largely in how much you let out, not in what the expression looks like when you do.

Annoyance vs anger is all in how much you let out, no?

Post reply on HN