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

221–230 of 410 posts

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

#221

Post by eli_gottlieb »

michaelochurch wrote: post #188
samstave wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went through a 3-month long interview with google in 2007, they said I did great in the interview and told me they'd be sending me an offer. Two days later they rescinded and said they would not be giving me an offer without explanation. I was really pissed off. A couple years later they contacted me again for a job and started the interview process, then I told them what happened the last time. They then said they…

Get any offer in writing, and if it's rescinded, the words you want are: promissory estoppel .

At-will employment, unfortunately, makes that doctrine legally useless for workers in America.

A friend of mine came to this country (Israel) to work as a chemical engineer. His salary isn't large by American standards ($27,000 USD/year take-home pay), but for here it's pretty good and the benefits package is superb. The thing that really hit me, though, was that his job offer was a literal, written contract specifying, in legally binding terms, the conditions and compensation of his employment.

It was one of those "Why don't we have that back home?" moments. Why don't Americans get binding contracts for jobs? Honestly, which bastard came up with at-will employment?

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

#222

Post by coliveira »

papsosouid wrote: post #158
potatolicious wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my limited anecdotes of the time, I believe Google actually did it. We're not talking about programming-related brain teasers here, we're talking about non-programming ones. e.g., "3 light bulbs in a room" and "family crossing the bridge" being the classic examples.

I've heard the same thing, always from unreliable "I heard" sources. I've never heard anyone who actually did interviews or was interviewed say that.

I was interviewed by Google and had to answer this "brain teaser" kind of questions. So, no, it is not just folklore.

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

#223

Post by eli_gottlieb »

varelse wrote: post #220
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. And as someone growing to be an expert in programming languages, I'd appreciate if Google didn't immediately peg me as "useless academic" for using something other than C++, Java, and Python. Di…

Scala is great, I wish it saw wider use. But given your claim to be an expert in programming languages and that many teams need C++, Java, and Python skills, perhaps a little flexibility on your part would go a long way? Or given that such flexibility is not an option, why not target teams that need Scala skills instead of complaining about the teams that don't?

I actually can program in C, C++, Java and Python just fine, and I've repeatedly told the companies so (and have published portfolio work in Java and Python). Where they faulted me was for falling back on Scala syntax in my psuedocode answers to interview questions, rather than immediately jumping into "ordinary thought" in an imperative, weakly-typed, object-oriented language.

If I worked with X most recently and I tell you so, could you allow that I'll have X at the top of my head in the interview rather than Y, Z, A or B? I'm not going to totally swap-out everything about my last job and my hobby projects from my brain for the sake of someone who hasn't even offered me a job yet.

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

#224

Post by stonemetal »

amplitwist wrote: post #165
papsosouid wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What on earth provoked that random screed? Who said anything about left or right, or PC socialist or fascist? You scare me because you seem to be mentally unstable.

I think it's pretty obvious what I'm talking about. The comment I was replying to suggested that people would be imprisoned for thoughtcrime. The original comment was disagreeing (slightly) with someone that has a very left-wing view of "social justice" or whatever. People like the person above clearly haven't learned their lessons about censorship, because there is a fair chance that even those with the "correct" po…

The comment I was replying to suggested that people would be imprisoned for thoughtcrime. The original comment was disagreeing (slightly) with someone that has a very left-wing view of "social justice" or whatever.

No, he is suggesting that historically people have been imprisoned for thought crime, been passed over for jobs, and generally shunned when social values change. Thus the whole it is OK to be yourself thing might be true right now, but could be ones undoing if things change and one is on the record as pro X.

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

#225

Post by varelse »

xenen wrote: post #207
jessedhillon wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abov…

I think the problem is the fact that we have two types of engineers: the academic geeks, and the creative geeks. I wouldn't give anyone a pass if they show no personality, creativity and out-of-the-box thinking with good product intuition during my interview. Vice versa, I don't think any academic geeks would give me a pass if I couldn't solve their math puzzles with a proof. I could be just talking out of my ass her…

In an interview, I have 30-60 minutes to figure out whether I want to hire you or not. My team writes a lot of code.

Therefore, I'm going to ask you what your favorite language is and then test your ability to write 10-20 lines of code in that language to solve a relatively simple problem.

If you can't do that, it seems to me that a) you don't like to write code and therefore I shouldn't hire you or b) you're out of practice and shouldn't have claimed expertise or c) you're a poser.

If your expertise is with something else, go apply for positions that require skill with said "something else" as we'll both be a lot happier that way.

It's a completely different situation if I know you personally but 95% of the time I don't and I have to make a quick decision.

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

#226

Post by michaelochurch »

jjwiseman wrote: post #177
sxp wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was Others who have run into problems and left might be outliers, but it's difficult to come to a solid conclusion based on anecdotes. People who have bad experiences will have stronger feelings and bring up their experiences whenever possible (E.g. michaelochurch who complains about Google every chance he gets) while those who have good experiences like myself don't mention it as much. I only mentioned my case be…

I think this is something that varies by office and by manager. I was told that maybe they could let me transfer after a year, but that even a low "meets expectations" score would mean zero chance of being able to transfer.

This is essentially correct. 3.4 is fine, but 3.0-3.1 means you are dead and may not even know it. It's utterly immoral, because a lot of employees at 3.0-3.1 think they're doing fine. Their managers are just giving them low scores to keep them captive.

What's amazing to me is that employees don't know their rights. If your manager deliberately interferes with your work performance, that's illegal (harassment law). If a company allows transfer, then exploration of internal opportunities is part of the job. A manager who makes transfer impossible through negative reviews is interfering with work performance and therefore breaking the law. (That, by the way, is why "calibration" happens in secret.)

I'd love to see this turn into a huge class action lawsuit against every company (including Google) that does that shit. Serves the fuckers right.

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

#227

Post by eli_gottlieb »

rohern wrote: post #176
Jabbles wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I thought the various groups inside Google competed for engineers? To the extent that there are posters advertising working on Chrome/Android etc. Given that it is "easy" for people to leave, I would have thought the policies would be forced to change?

> "Given that it is "easy" for people to leave, I would have thought the policies would be forced to change?" I wish this were true. Certainly, if people were more careful about how they spend their lives, this would be true. However, you need to consider the average (or even above average) young engineer and how he makes decisions. Sit in a computer lab at a major engineering university and start a conversation with…

A lot of great minds I have studied with simply shrug when asked what they want to do for a career. Hence Google has its pick.

Admittedly, many people know damn well what we like doing, but are just about equally sure there aren't any actual jobs doing it.

For example, I like academia. It's not perfect, and I could certainly make some improvements (like more money, less bureaucracy, less enforced hierarchy, and more personalization of... everything), but next to business life (at both a mid-sized corporate environment and a niche bespoke software business), I like it and I'm good at it. That doesn't mean there are anywhere near as many jobs available for aspiring academics as there are qualified aspiring academics.

Eventually, something has to give.

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

#228

Post by [deleted] »

varelse wrote: post #225
xenen wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem is the fact that we have two types of engineers: the academic geeks, and the creative geeks. I wouldn't give anyone a pass if they show no personality, creativity and out-of-the-box thinking with good product intuition during my interview. Vice versa, I don't think any academic geeks would give me a pass if I couldn't solve their math puzzles with a proof. I could be just talking out of my ass her…

In an interview, I have 30-60 minutes to figure out whether I want to hire you or not. My team writes a lot of code. Therefore, I'm going to ask you what your favorite language is and then test your ability to write 10-20 lines of code in that language to solve a relatively simple problem. If you can't do that, it seems to me that a) you don't like to write code and therefore I shouldn't hire you or b) you're out of…

[deleted]

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

#229

Post by gbaygon »

rayiner wrote: post #133
DanBC wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a silly question like, "how many golf balls could you fit on a bus." Why is it a silly question?

Because it makes all sorts of assumptions that are outside the scope of what you really want to test. First, it assumes familiarity with golf balls. I have friends who grew up in Manhattan who have never seen a golf ball. They may have seen one on TV, but that doesn't let you really gauge the size of something. Second, it assumes familiarity with buses, and assumes the interviewer and the interviewee are talking abou…

It doesn't make assumptions, YOU make assumptions.

You can calculate a "valid" response in function of the bus volume and the ball radious f(v,r) without assuming anything and without having any real data.

Off course you can also focus on the "supidity" of the test and that also gives the company an idea of your thinking process and problem solving capabilities.

In any case the test serves its purpose well.

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

#230

Post by mamoswined »

griftah wrote: post #155

She is building a social network for hobbyist gardeners. Apparently this is what humanity needs more than geek toys like self-driving cars and augmented reality sunglasses.

"hobbyist" is relative. I started as a hobbyist and eventually expanded it into a business. Also in an era when people are underemployed, I feel that these sort of activities will become a valuable way to obtain a degree of self-sufficiency.
Post reply on HN