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

No, I still don't want to work for Google

infotrope.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 410 posts

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#61

Post by icebraining »

bmelton wrote: post #22
tangue wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Average white guy might need his anonymity too. Don't think you or other people at Google are a representative sample of the society. The outcry is justified.

I didn't meant to imply that it wasn't justified, just that I can't identify with it. As I said, and I didn't mean to seem oppressive, I empathize with the plight of those who wish to be able to express things in anonymity, I just personally value the kinds of conversations that occur when people are using their real names more highly. Basically, what may be a need for those in the other camp is simply a preference f…

I just personally value the kinds of conversations that occur when people are using their real names more highly.

By real names, do you mean the names they're known by, "real sounding" names or their legal names? Is George Orwell not a real name?

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#62

Post by seanmcdirmid »

ajross wrote: post #31
varelse wrote: post #28

I worked at Google for a short stint. I found the tech interview easy and I wasn't asked anything particularly ridiculous. I received a job offer shortly thereafter and accepted. As someone who regularly interviews prospective engineers at my current gig, I see no problem with expecting candidates to arrive prepared to answer algorithm questions or questions about their strongest programming language. Ditto for someo…

I don't follow why being an "expert" in D would make you "bored" of Q. If Q is simply a boring field to you, that's one thing (and the appropriate response is to quit and find something better). But it's not your employer's job to give you your dream assignment. If they need Q geeks and you're available, then that's what you're stuck with. That's what being an employee is all about.

As if geeks are so interchangeable like sprockets! I'm an expert in my field, I have a PhD in it, if someone asked me to do machine learning or data mining or image processing, it would be a huge ramp up time for me, say about 2 or 3 years to get to the point of expertise I have in my current field. It would be a boring 2-3 years, and something that I'm probably not very interested in. If there are other jobs out there that make use of my expertise and interest, why bother with something else?

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#63

Post by phillmv »

ajross wrote: post #54
josefresco wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"it's not your employer's job" It's in their best interest however to do so, as replacing him costs money.

Yes and no. Replacing someone who can't possibly be happy with the work you have available is cheaper than keeping them on. It depends critically on the details of D and Q. If you get hired by, say, Facebook and refuse to do web development you're going to be a bad fit. The goof here may have been hiring him in the first place. It's important for both sides to accomodate. But sometimes fits just don't work. If what s…

It's a matter of resource allocation.

If you hire lots of, I don't know, compiler specialists but you allocate them to write web apps we're all possibly worse off. The issue is, and what you're not cottoning on to, is that in a company the size of Google there's probably a team working on x for all values of x that could maybe use another member.

They're only tolerant of their resource allocation scheme because they probably don't worry about their employee acquisition cost.

With a company the size of Google, it'd be really interesting to deregulate their internal labour market (i.e. what Valve does). Let people switch all the time! If you need to prioritize one boring, yet necessary team allocate higher salaries to it.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#64

Post by enraged_camel »

ajross wrote: post #31
varelse wrote: post #28

I worked at Google for a short stint. I found the tech interview easy and I wasn't asked anything particularly ridiculous. I received a job offer shortly thereafter and accepted. As someone who regularly interviews prospective engineers at my current gig, I see no problem with expecting candidates to arrive prepared to answer algorithm questions or questions about their strongest programming language. Ditto for someo…

I don't follow why being an "expert" in D would make you "bored" of Q. If Q is simply a boring field to you, that's one thing (and the appropriate response is to quit and find something better). But it's not your employer's job to give you your dream assignment. If they need Q geeks and you're available, then that's what you're stuck with. That's what being an employee is all about.

Wrong. Any company that wants to be successful has to allocate their employees to positions they will excel at. Not doing so is a gross waste of resources.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#65

Post by 3825 »

spindritf wrote: post #43

I may be making the problem worse but both this post and the comments section are some of the worst I've seen on HN -- from linkbaity title to incorrect possessive pronouns (I barely speak English and caught it while skimming), and then the deep analysis of anonymity on G+ completely based on one or two anecdotes with no relation to G+, anonymity, or even the Internet. Why is this submission at 80 upvotes? What value…

Just a criticism of Google Plus and how it is not the all the goodness what we expected it to be

the real name thing is stupid. I have created and use google plus by a fake name but since it does not sound fake, I have not been flagged.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#66

Post by philwelch »

spindritf wrote: post #43

I may be making the problem worse but both this post and the comments section are some of the worst I've seen on HN -- from linkbaity title to incorrect possessive pronouns (I barely speak English and caught it while skimming), and then the deep analysis of anonymity on G+ completely based on one or two anecdotes with no relation to G+, anonymity, or even the Internet. Why is this submission at 80 upvotes? What value…

None. Linkbait just tends to get upvoted, and sometimes the HN bozo brigade comes out in full force.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#67

Post by tptacek »

michaelochurch wrote: post #35
varelse wrote: post #28

I worked at Google for a short stint. I found the tech interview easy and I wasn't asked anything particularly ridiculous. I received a job offer shortly thereafter and accepted. As someone who regularly interviews prospective engineers at my current gig, I see no problem with expecting candidates to arrive prepared to answer algorithm questions or questions about their strongest programming language. Ditto for someo…

I futilely attempted to get reassigned to something close to field D (really, B, C, E, or F would have been just peachy) and that seemingly got me flagged as trouble internally. "Meets Expectations" ranges from 3.0 to 3.4, and employees in this range have no idea where in that interval they landed, even the career effects of the numbers are dramatically different. 3.4 is above average, while 3.0 is fatal to transfer…

WAT? Enron was a scam from the very highest levels of the corporation. Unless you're suggesting that Kenneth Lay got a 3.0 from his board of directors and reacted accordingly, this is a ridiculous comparison.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#68

Post by mmahemoff »

mememememememe wrote: post #3

I agree with you on the unnecessary puzzle solving. I don't even solve Sudoku. How can I even come up with a reasonable solution in 45 minute? The only puzzle I ever solved with C++ and Java was minesweeper and it took me a month in each language. I do think algorithm design problems like fitting 1 million 8 digits into 1 M ram is an OKAY question. Google's scale is big, and they want to test you how quickly you can…

The article refers to Google developer relations (where I previously worked). Google developer relations does expect people to come from a deep technical background as there's generally a much greater emphasis on support and high-touch collaboration than the traditional developer evangelism role. (Hence, the job titles are "developer advocate" and "developer programs engineer" instead of "developer evangelist".) So programming questions are fair game, if not the only game.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#69

Post by enduser »

hnhg wrote: post #37
ajross wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow why being an "expert" in D would make you "bored" of Q. If Q is simply a boring field to you, that's one thing (and the appropriate response is to quit and find something better). But it's not your employer's job to give you your dream assignment. If they need Q geeks and you're available, then that's what you're stuck with. That's what being an employee is all about.

It reads like the parent got brought in as an expert in D, not Q, and then got told to work on Q, which wasn't their expectation. You'd be unhappy at that happening to you, right?

My understanding is that people don't find out their assignment until after the hiring. Sounds like the Air Force: dream of flying jets, end up cleaning toilets. At least at Google one can quit.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#70

Post by potatolicious »

raldi wrote: post #41

Please don't propagate the myth that Google asks prospective programmers questions like, "How many golf balls could you fit on a bus?" Google interviewers list the questions they asked when they write up their conclusions, and anyone who asked a question like that for an engineering interview would be immediately contacted by the hiring commitee and told not to do it again.

Google was well known for logic brain teasers like that in years past - there was a time when Google recruitment was defined by such questions.

They've since stopped, and sadly it looks like Microsoft has taken up the mantle for stupid irrelevant logic questions.

Post reply on HN