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

121–130 of 410 posts

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

#121

Post by bmelton »

benatkin wrote: post #55
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 aren't the first to try to attach a different meaning to the term free speech and you certainly won't be the last. That isn't what it means, though.

Care to clarify?

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

#122

Post by vidarh »

_pferreir_ wrote: post #85
simonsarris wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always thought that strange too. I get a fair number of recruiter emails, and almost all of them seem to assume out of hand that relocation is the least of my concerns, when it probably easily the #1 thing. Every reply I give[1] ends up being a cheeky way of mentioning that I have a life and a home in a place and I do not intend to abandon it for a mere job. Perhaps my current job isn't the most interesting thing i…

Let's hope you can afford to do that for many years to come. When the choice is between relocating or unemployment, an average job offer suddenly gets much more interesting. Unfortunately, here in Europe things are starting to change for the worse.

> Unfortunately, here in Europe things are starting to change for the worse.

For very geographically specific values of "Europe". Lots of places are on the contrary seeing things improving. Europe isn't a single entity.

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

#123

Post by bmelton »

thwest wrote: post #87
bmelton wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'm amazed and pleased at your self awareness and honesty in this thread. Thank you. If you could give some thought to the responsibility (and unique opportunity) us normals have to fight oppressive structures from within, I would personally appreciate it. From that perspective, I think you are confusing "empathize" with "understand". If you empathized, you would be more likely to be more concerned with the needs of…

Thanks for the compliment. I honestly didn't intend to stir anything up this much, and my original statement was more of a tangent that only slightly related to the comment I wanted to make about autonomous cars.

Regarding empathy vs. understanding, I'll direct you to another comment[1] I made on the subject, but the TL;DR version is that I believe that I am empathetic to the plight of people who feel they need anonymity, but am not empathetic to the people who feel that they need anonymity and must also have it on Google Plus, despite there being other alternatives available.

[1] - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4713137

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

#124

Post by VLM »

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…

"I am ignorant to how much they would matter in real life."

There exists only one "business model" for social media and that is to post ridiculously personal, identifiable information all on the same unifying social media site. The key is there is only one model allowed to exist at present. Forcing non-anonymity means people might have to think about the issue, perhaps fraction the model into public and private parts, or evolve new standards of their own online conduct instead of just dumping everything everywhere. People hate nothing more than being forced to think, for example, its well known that many of the general public would rather die than think. Its a direct attack against the very idea of a single unified "business model". That's the main reason why its hated. The very idea of posting different things on different sites is whats being attacked, and by banning anonymity G+ was fracturing the existing model into "only post public identifiable stuff here, and anonymity required stuff elsewhere". They're hating a move a player made and some hating by extension the player, but we're not allowed to discuss hating the game or even what the game is...

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

#125

Post by dlo »

rachelbythebay wrote: post #94
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.

What's actually in the post: "If you are a Google recruiter, and you want me to interview for SWE or SRE or any role that has an algorithm pop quiz as part of the interview, [...]" I was asked about algorithms for my internal reinterview to transfer from SRE (O ladder) to SWE (T ladder) in 2010. It was the usual sorting algorithm complexity stuff. That's never been my strong suit, and I'm sure I disappointed the inte…

She links to to an article that propagates said myth. Click on "arbitrary technical puzzles".

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

#126

Post by brown9-2 »

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…

Are you referring to Enron's stacked ranking practice? I don't think Google does anything approaching that.

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

#127

Post by Shorel »

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…

Dude if you can really solve minesweeper, publish the paper and become famous and rich, because that shit is NP-complete.

http://www.cs.montana.edu/courses/spring2004/spring2004/curr...

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

#128

Post by bmelton »

rm999 wrote: post #79
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.

It's possible that I'm misusing the term. I'll state that I am at least sympathetic, just not on the stance that not only are they entitled to anonymous/pseudonymous speech (which I feel they are), but are also entitled to having it on Google Plus specifically (which I feel they are not.)

[1] - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4713137

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

#129

Post by tangue »

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…

Your sincerity is worrying to me. I thought Internet would break physical and mental boundaries... And indeed it's quite the opposite, I realize how different we are.

But in a way, I understand your point, it's just that the world is not ready for that. Just look how far an Apple versus Samsung debate could go on a place like HN and imagine that you're talking about serious issues in a less tolerant place. I don't want to die (or be rejected) because I said I don't like X or Y on the Internet. (And I was the first supporter of G+ until they messed up with real names policy).

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

#130

Post by bmelton »

orangecat wrote: post #120
bmelton wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't mean to imply that they don't have the right to anonymity, just that I don't think that Google is any less right for refusing to provide it. It is their platform, and those who feel they require anonymity are free to choose another platform (like Livejournal, Twitter, Identi.ca, etc.) to voice their opinions from. Whether or not the benefit of real names matters, Google has decided that they think it does. I…

but even though I (obviously) disagree with the idea that Twitter allows pseudonyms I can understand not caring about pseudonymity, but I see no good reason (for individuals as opposed to corporate entities) to be actively opposed to it. Why do you think you have any right to know my name, and what harm comes from not knowing it?

I don't disagree with the premise. When I say I disagree with Twitter's choice, what I mean is that I would probably enjoy Twitter much more if that wasn't their stance.

The reason for this is perhaps anecdotal, but in my personal experience, I generally find richer, deeper and more meaningful discussion when real names are involved.

This is anecdotal at best, and HN is a notable exception to that rule, but that is my experience. If I were president of the world, I would not change Twitter's rules, as that is within their right to provide pseudonymity, but if I were president of Twitter, I might just change it. (Though from a business perspective, what they have has been working for them, and I'm profit-minded enough to wager I wouldn't mess with that.)

Post reply on HN