211–220 of 335 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds reasonable. I was referring more to the gatekeeping type, like a heavy focus on things like balancing trees and recursion for roles that clearly involve neither trees nor recursion.
Roles that don't involve recursion? What next, no for loops please - we are developers!!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t see anything technically wrong with that approach. The top performers are usually outsized contributors compared to the bottom tier or even mid level coworkers. It’s better to keep a very high performing team even if it’s more expensive.
You do sometimes get weird effects from top heavy structures like that though. The classic example is Google hiring “super good people” for them to end up doing pretty low level (but important!) ops work To take Amazon as an example, you can hire a bunch of high performing engineers but you still need people actually putting stuff into boxes so they get shipped (robots nonwithstanding)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t see anything technically wrong with that approach. The top performers are usually outsized contributors compared to the bottom tier or even mid level coworkers. It’s better to keep a very high performing team even if it’s more expensive.
Logically there's nothing wrong if "human" is viewed as a finite resource or as livestock.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t see anything technically wrong with that approach. The top performers are usually outsized contributors compared to the bottom tier or even mid level coworkers. It’s better to keep a very high performing team even if it’s more expensive.
We shouldn’t give them much credit on this. It’s not really an approach it has to do with regulations for large companies. This “hr strategy” is just a friendly way to tell an employee to leave or figure out what to do. I wonder if the genius behind this also came up with the term “unlimited vacation”. https://www.edd.ca.gov/Jobs_and_Training/Layoff_Services_WAR...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Barely profitable (assuming that's all it is for the number 1 video destination online) is still profitable. Also Youtube != Google Cloud.
Yes I realize that but having revenue without profit is kind of meaningless.
Is it really that you just don’t feel they’re committed enough for your standards?
WSJ has gone hard Murdoch, particularly against Google. In conjunction with comments by Peter Thiel, Trump, and other conservative commentators, it's pretty clear there's a coordinated effort to cast Facebook as a "fair and balanced" face, and to do that, they need a libtard heel, and Google is apparently it. What's interesting is that Trump easily has more of a beef with Bezos as the owner of the Washington Post, bu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t see anything technically wrong with that approach. The top performers are usually outsized contributors compared to the bottom tier or even mid level coworkers. It’s better to keep a very high performing team even if it’s more expensive.
You do sometimes get weird effects from top heavy structures like that though. The classic example is Google hiring “super good people” for them to end up doing pretty low level (but important!) ops work To take Amazon as an example, you can hire a bunch of high performing engineers but you still need people actually putting stuff into boxes so they get shipped (robots nonwithstanding)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Entirely dependent on the team and hiring manager. And the technical requirements of the role you want to move into versus your prior role. If you want to move from working on gmail to working on the android kernel, I imagine there's gonna be some whiteboarding. (Not that gmail is simple software, but just picked two examples that came to mind with different domain expertise).
@ericd, what programming roles don't deal with trees or recursion? I've dealt with trees in every single domain I've been in, frontend or backend, whether doing "real" programming or building with no-code tools like FileMaker. I've seen admins and accountants build trees and recursion with spreadsheets. I don't think these things are as "gatekeeping" as you imagine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a very smart tactic that also, as a side effect, brings the average quality across all engineers at the company up. Smart people with desirable skills would have no problem finding another team within Google to transfer to, while bottom tier performers won’t, thus leaving Google.
Unless their skillset just isn't needed at that location anymore and they can't move to a different city for example because they have children in school. I guess it helps keeping the workforce young and flexible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Logically there's nothing wrong if "human" is viewed as a finite resource or as livestock.
Humans are a finite resource but the comparison to livestock seems unwarranted. A business optimizing talent isn’t inherently removing humanity from its workers.