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

141–150 of 410 posts

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

#141

Post by tejaswiy »

rmrfrmrf wrote: post #24

One thing I can't stand is "recruiters" who invite you to come interview with them. Oh, great, you "invite" me to come torture myself for months on end just so I can have a snowball's chance in hell at getting a job? This is 2012. If you want to learn about me, go on my website and read my blog posts, look at my current projects, and download my resumé. If you think I'm so great, make me an offer. Don't spam my inbox…

What's the standard interview process at Google? Does it really take 3 months of interviewing to get a job?

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

#142

Post by Apocryphon »

dpark wrote: post #34
paganel wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am ignorant to how much they would matter in real life. I am neither queer nor gender-queer, so while I am empathetic to their struggles, I just can't identify with what are possibly very real concerns about losses of anonymity, and 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. I live…

I think you chose an exceptionally poor reason to downvote him. You downvoted him because you disagree with his views ("view things through very narrow lenses"), which is different from downvoting him because you disagree with him only in phrasing. Downvotes should be for comments that do not add to the discussion. Considering that most of the comments here are in response to him, his comment clearly added to the dis…

Downvotes are for disagreements, too.

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

#143

Post by varelse »

jjwiseman wrote: post #103
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…

Blind allocation got me too. They told me how allocation worked before I joined, but I was hopeful that they would put me on a project that had some overlap with what I was interested in and what I had worked on for the past 15 years (computer vision, robotics, natural language processing). No. I found out on the last day of orientation I would be doing YouTube ads. I knew there was no way I could do that for 18 mont…

Pretty much my naivete and experience as well (minus the 20% project because the one I wanted to do would have tipped some sacred cows had it succeeded)...

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

#144

Post by waqf »

dpark wrote: post #34
paganel wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am ignorant to how much they would matter in real life. I am neither queer nor gender-queer, so while I am empathetic to their struggles, I just can't identify with what are possibly very real concerns about losses of anonymity, and 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. I live…

I think you chose an exceptionally poor reason to downvote him. You downvoted him because you disagree with his views ("view things through very narrow lenses"), which is different from downvoting him because you disagree with him only in phrasing. Downvotes should be for comments that do not add to the discussion. Considering that most of the comments here are in response to him, his comment clearly added to the dis…

> Considering that most of the comments here are in response to him, his comment clearly added to the discussion.

By your criterion, how would one distinguish between someone "adding to the discussion" and a troll? Or is it your position that trolls add to the discussion, because they elicit responses?

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

#145

Post by waqf »

Apocryphon wrote: post #142
dpark wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you chose an exceptionally poor reason to downvote him. You downvoted him because you disagree with his views ("view things through very narrow lenses"), which is different from downvoting him because you disagree with him only in phrasing. Downvotes should be for comments that do not add to the discussion. Considering that most of the comments here are in response to him, his comment clearly added to the dis…

Downvotes are for disagreements, too.

Downvoted because I disagree with you.

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

#147

Post by ScottBurson »

vidarh wrote: post #86
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…

If Googles interviews had seemed to be remotely reasonable, I'm sure the people complaining would have been fewer. As it is, they seems very much to have the attitude that it doesn't matter if they weed out tons of great candidates as long as they weed out the bozos too. I once went through technical phone screening with them for a management position, and was bizarrely asked lots of probing questions about unix file…

they seem very much to have the attitude that it doesn't matter if they weed out tons of great candidates as long as they weed out the bozos too

Yes, this is their explicitly stated intention, as I recall.

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

#148

Post by bane »

Like many people I have issues with Google. But let's not be silly about things I'd still love to work there.

Not out of any particular fanboyism, but because I've worked at plenty of places that are not Google, and the normal day-to-day in a place like a large defense contractor are categorically worse than even the worst nightmare scenario I've ever heard about working at Google.

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

#149

Post by clarky07 »

I was with this post until I got to:

"Over time, I’ve come to consider that this situation is irremediable, given our current capitalist system and all its inequalities. To fix it, we’re going to need to work on social justice and rethinking how we live and work and relate to each other."

Give me a break. Socialism isn't going to fix anything. Have you seen Europe recently? Capitalism and Democracy are the worst solutions for economies and governments, except for all of the others that have been tried. America and capitalism have given more opportunities to help people grow out of poverty into success than anything else in the world. If you think you are entitled to something, you're wrong. Get off your ass and do something productive and go take that thing you think you're entitled to. If you are sitting on your couch watching tv, the only thing you are entitled to is being overweight.

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

#150

Post by jessedhillon »

varelse wrote: post #107
rb2k_ wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're unwilling to provide proof you're not a bozo, you're probably going to be just awful to work with as well. I always liked the idea of people looking at your previous work (github, ...) and having a pleasant conversation about it rather than making engineers jump through hoops. Especially if the company comes to you I think it's a weird thing that they'd assume you're a "bozo". Given how lax the US employm…

So here's where we have to agree to disagree. A pleasant conversation about your previous work is great, really, and as part of a complete package, likely to send you right to the top of my list. However, in my experience, the tech industry is overflowing with pretenders. If I haven't met you personally, those github records are of limited use as there's no way to prove you actually did the work in question. I apolog…

Is your mentality typical of Google hiring practices? As long as we're going by anecdotal evidence here, nothing you've said here rings true. I've found great engineers by chatting with them -- if you can't separate a great, well-accomplished engineer from a faker by talking with him/her at length about their previous work, then IMHO the problem is with you, not them.

You said it best -- the process you describe above is reflective of a paranoid, neurotic obsession to have "the best" engineers, for some definition of best. Whether or not we agree on what constitutes "best" is not important, but if you insist that people who refuse, or fail, your particular method are bozos then you have your head stuck firmly up your ass.

Post reply on HN