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

71–80 of 410 posts

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

#71

Post by utopkara »

Jabbles wrote: post #42
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…

What prevented you from moving to a different field? Is Google not the dynamic, chaotic mass of teams that I've been led to believe?

LOL. Google is still a company, and the employees are hired to deliver stuff that the executives decide is important. It is not a college or grad school where you can switch between majors or research topics at will. Usually you have to stay for about 18 months in an assignment before you can successfully change to another group. Otherwise, there's always the door; which almost everybody prefers, considering how easy it is for them to find jobs they like outside of the big G.

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

#72

Post by erikpukinskis »

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…

Sorry, I must be being dense. How is the title linkbaity? It's as close to a literal description of the article content as I can imagine. What should the title be?

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

#73

Post by redwood »

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.

Why would that even be a bad question to ask?

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

#74

Post by bmelton »

belorn wrote: post #47
bmelton wrote: post #4

I tried, but I found that I can't really identify with the plights of some. Thankfully (for reasons I'd rather not be challenged to justify, except to say that it's apparently good as measured by others) I'm a fairly normal white guy with no marginal traits that might cause me to have different viewpoints than I currently do. This means that I support the notion real names on Google Plus, and I also believe that all…

This idea that there are no real concerns about losses of anonymity is to me very odd. Its odd, because its obvious that the information is valuable, and the possibility for abuse is almost unlimited. To point to a few of them, what if, if ever time you drive to fast, your car insurance increased in costs? (already happened in sweden). What if, if ever time you took a job interview, the company order up a complete re…

Regarding the car insurance: This is happening to an extent in the US currently. There are several companies who offer discounted rates for attaching 'trackers' to your car that report your driving behavior back to the insurance company.

I have very real concerns that this will grow to becoming as mandatory as requiring seat belts while driving. I'm sort of mixed on this point because, while this is obviously a very real invasion of privacy, I also tend to drive safely, and wish that more people did. In short, I'm conflicted. That said, just as I am currently able to not use those insurance providers, I am able to blog anonymously from a variety of other sources. I don't have to blog on Google Plus if I don't want to, and I don't believe that we're in danger of any laws being put forth that require real names on every internet post everywhere. If there were, I'd agree that this is a more likely comparison than it is, but I feel it's somewhat contrived at the moment. Your argument is akin to requiring that you HAVE to blog about everything that you do, and is only a matter of whether or not it's received by troublesome parties. I still have the choice whether or not to blog about a given activity, and if I do blog about it, I have the choice of specifying who receives it (or making it altogether private).

Regarding the job interview, if that were the case for all the applicants, I'd probably fare well enough. It should be worth noting that I've opened my life to such intrusion before for a job with the federal government, but I understood that as a condition of employment. If all employers made this common practice, I agree it would be very troublesome.

Skipping a little bit, all of the examples you gave are basically those of invasions of privacy, which I don't feel fairly reflects the issue at hand. Nobody's forcing you to post things on G+ at all, but if you choose to publish something, it happens to be in your real name. Again, you can still restrict visibility, or choose not to post at all, or choose to post somewhere differently that allows anonymity/pseudonymity. As such, I feel your examples are all significantly different from my original point.

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

#75

Post by michaelt »

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…

Some of what Google does is tech industry gospel - for example things like technical interviews. When there's faults with it, that's relevant to my interests, as I might want to avoid their mistakes at my own company.

That's why I found the article interesting, at any rate.

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

#76

Post by bmelton »

lmm wrote: post #9
bmelton wrote: post #4

I tried, but I found that I can't really identify with the plights of some. Thankfully (for reasons I'd rather not be challenged to justify, except to say that it's apparently good as measured by others) I'm a fairly normal white guy with no marginal traits that might cause me to have different viewpoints than I currently do. This means that I support the notion real names on Google Plus, and I also believe that all…

>as I've met people who are public with their genderqueer status who haven't been assailed or assaulted, I can't help but wonder if the fear isn't simply perceived fear or not. No, it really isn't. While obviously it doesn't happen to everyone, such people are at a measurably higher risk of violence; there are well-documented cases of people being killed just because of that status.

I think you're probably right, and it occurs to me that I'm thinking of the civilizations in the cities I've visited recently (SFO, DC, etc.) and are perhaps not reflective of what it's like to be a transgender in other parts of the world / nation.

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

#77

Post by kordless »

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…

I think the post is negative. With all the awesome stuff going on in tech, I don't think we need to spend our time writing (or reading!) negative posts like this. It's unlikely to help anyone and only serves to get the rest of us all upset. Google has done some awesome stuff and the experience of a few (or even a moderate amout) people who have worked there isn't helpful to the conversation.

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

#78

Post by roc »

potatolicious wrote: post #70
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.

retaken, perhaps.

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

#79

Post by rm999 »

bmelton wrote: post #4

I tried, but I found that I can't really identify with the plights of some. Thankfully (for reasons I'd rather not be challenged to justify, except to say that it's apparently good as measured by others) I'm a fairly normal white guy with no marginal traits that might cause me to have different viewpoints than I currently do. This means that I support the notion real names on Google Plus, and I also believe that all…

You claim you have empathy for the group twice, but the content of your comment can basically be summed up as "I don't empathize with them, I don't know what they are going through." Maybe you mean you sympathize with them, but it's hard to tell from your comment.

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

#80

Post by yummyfajitas »

praptak wrote: post #25
th0ma5 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once tried to downplay the expression of marginalized groups with a college professor, and they said that those who are in the groups doing the oppression are often blind to what goes on, and sort of that the group as a whole makes any oppression seem normal. There are many parts of the world where quite a lot of things are criminal, punishable by death, and sometimes there's just a social pressure for killing even…

> those who are in the groups doing the oppression are often blind to what goes on "Derailing for dummies" is an interesting analysis of this. It should be required reading for participants of discrimination-related discussions.

"Derailing for Dummies" is merely an attempt to dismiss the arguments/opinions of members of certain groups without logically addressing them.

The only purpose is to create a rhetorical Escape Hatch [1] when logical arguments fail (or one is too lazy to construct them).

[1] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Escape_hatch

Post reply on HN