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

61–70 of 115 posts

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

#61

Post by dogruck »

emodendroket wrote: post #59
dogruck wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The phenomenon is as old as news. The terminology and hyper awareness is fresh.

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

#62

Post by g09980 »

naturalgradient wrote: post #53
naturalgradient wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The parent post by @mtgx is now [dead] just for stating an unpopular viewpoint, which is even more so troubling given the topic of this thread.

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

#63

Post by throw-away-8 »

kop316 wrote: post #52
tluyben2 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Usenet. Slashdot. Reddit. The best we had.

Here we go...

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

#64

Post by eulo__ »

pault wrote: post #49
eulo__ wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you sure it's not because you're better educated and harder to impress? I thought the same thing until I did a deep dive on some old articles and the comments weren't noticably different.

Probably a factor, I also think it's partly because the forums I use at the moment used to be programming centric, but have since broadened their appeal. Hn to Tech business, reddit to literally everything. Lobste.rs has been a fantastic alternative for decent discussion

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

#65

Post by eulo__ »

emodendroket wrote: post #56
eulo__ wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah nar, false dichotomy imo

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

#66

Post by naturalgradient »

g09980 wrote: post #62
naturalgradient wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The parent post by @mtgx is now [dead] just for stating an unpopular viewpoint, which is even more so troubling given the topic of this thread.

It is not quite clear to me what value it provides to the discussion to completely mark comments [dead] beyond downvoting. Why not leave them there?

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

#67

Post by dEnigma »

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…

Personally I found Hacker News to be the best place for serious and thought-out comments. Research and critical thinking is rewarded (most of the time), while silly jokes (when not embedded in more substantial comments) and inflammatory content are frowned upon. It's actually a joy to read comments here, while I really dread —and often avoid— it on other sites.

Apart from that, technical forums for specific topics, like the ones for certain Linux distributions or other open source projects, have their merits; but they are naturally limited in the breadth of topics discussed. (Some might have very interesting and broad off-topic discussions though)

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

#68

Post by jack9 »

emodendroket wrote: post #55
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…

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

As the internet population increased the mean intelligence went down. Such an obvious and expected trend, I have to wonder if you're ok. Maybe you're so well-trained that you stop thinking when you jump to a conclusion.

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

#69

Post by sctb »

douglaswlance wrote: post #54
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.

Even if that were true, the guidelines would ask you to state something substantive about it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#70

Post by goialoq »

Radim wrote: post #13

TL;DR: "…the good teams all had high ‘‘average social sensitivity’’ — a fancy way of saying they were skilled at intuiting how others felt based on their tone of voice, their expressions and other nonverbal cues. One of the easiest ways to gauge social sensitivity is to show someone photos of people’s eyes and ask him or her to describe what the people are thinking or feeling — an exam known as the Reading the Mind i…

That facial-emotional recognition was a famous case of stereotype bias:

http://www.creativitypost.com/psychology/gender_bias_in_the_...

Post reply on HN