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

321–330 of 410 posts

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

#321

Post by krichman »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #258
bluetshirt wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"being more familiar with Scala than Java" is a few miles east from "cannot/will not write pseudocode comprehensible to people who don't grok functional languages".

As with most communications distances, that depends entirely on where the other person is sitting. I never use monads, for instance, and only use type-classes when they look really applicable. Still, if the person I'm talking to has never heard of a map() primitive outside of MapReduce, that causes issues. And then the #1 thing that really causes friction is recursion. Most people interviewing on behalf of BigCo's se…

I write tail-recursive functions in C using gotos sometimes. I figure why bother with recursion when the function call would be two jmps, register spills, and stack growth?

I'd say you are doing it right, it's just too bad the companies you had these experiences with don't understand you are a solid candidate.

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

#322

Post by nostrademons »

mattdeboard wrote: post #312
nostrademons wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked at two startups and founded one before joining Google, and I have a friend that's been bouncing between working for and founding startups since he's left Google. I understand what the CEO was saying. In a startup, there's a lot of grunt work that has to be done and there's nobody to do it, and so you frequently end up taking on a lot of tasks that really don't teach you anything. In a big company like Google…

Interesting perspective. But like you said, at this point in my career I want to know how to do all this stuff. Thankfully I'm in a position where I get/have to do basically everything, so I'm getting very broad experience. There are specific areas where I want to focus -- search, data analysis, infrastructure -- and my next job I'll probably be looking for a focus in one or more of those areas (each of which Google…

Again, YMMV. I was hired as a UI SWE, told my manager (repeatedly) that I wanted to do more backend algorithmic work, eventually refused to do any more UI work, then taught myself enough about Google Search's backend systems that I became known as a full-stack engineer that knows everything. It probably delayed my promotion by about a year, but it was worth it, and it's not like anyone stopped me.

I'm now doing basically product-manager type work, despite officially being a SWE. Again, nobody stops me. I've found that if you're producing stuff of value, you can basically move into another role simply by doing the work entailed by that role. I know two other SWEs that are de-facto PMs, and one SRE who became a SWE (and core LLVM contributor in the process).

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

#323

Post by mietek »

ori_b wrote: post #241
xenen wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, I never would have expected Google's perf management to be as bad as what I've read here - Glassdoor reviews all sound so peachy.

Take what Michael Church says with a grain of salt. I was around to observe his threads on the eng-misc mailing list while he was still at Google. Without his consent, I'd rather not say what went on, but I would advise you to get your information elsewhere.

Michael O'Church seems quite happy to share what went on. What's stopping you?

Michael O'Church's arguments are internally consistent, and more persuasive than vague statements impugning his character.

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

#324

Post by michaelochurch »

nostrademons wrote: post #322
mattdeboard wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting perspective. But like you said, at this point in my career I want to know how to do all this stuff. Thankfully I'm in a position where I get/have to do basically everything, so I'm getting very broad experience. There are specific areas where I want to focus -- search, data analysis, infrastructure -- and my next job I'll probably be looking for a focus in one or more of those areas (each of which Google…

Again, YMMV. I was hired as a UI SWE, told my manager (repeatedly) that I wanted to do more backend algorithmic work, eventually refused to do any more UI work, then taught myself enough about Google Search's backend systems that I became known as a full-stack engineer that knows everything. It probably delayed my promotion by about a year, but it was worth it, and it's not like anyone stopped me. I'm now doing basic…

Google is a fascinating place. From what I gather, it used to be Valve-like back in the time when Google-culture was established. It was pretty much open allocation. You worked on what was interesting to you, and as long as you were achieving something, you were in good graces. Back then, I can see why people would get emotionally invested in such a place. Now it's just another corporation.

The problem, in the past couple years, is that it became a place where if you have an unethical manager, you're just screwed. He'll burn you before you can serve your 18 months and get away. But it seems pretty clear that if you get a good manager, Google is a pretty great place to work.

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

#325

Post by tsotha »

rhizome wrote: post #215
theorique wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why apologize for a Gladwell link?

He has been criticized for a lack of rigor in his assertions.

It's not academic research. The guys is primarily an author selling books, and rigorous academic treatises tend to end up in journals nobody reads.

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

#326

Post by kamaal »

tatsuke95 wrote: post #308
engtech wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gladwell writes a lot of anecdotes which are then taken as pseudoscience, and unfortunately get repeated as science because of his popularity. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/11/18.html > Michiko Kakutani reviews Malcolm Gladwell's latest book in the New York Times: “Much of what Mr. Gladwell has to say about superstars is little more than common sense: that talent alone is not enough to ensure success, that…

> or utterly lunatic theories on experts I've read (and enjoyed) all of Gladwell's books. Outliers' theme revolved around the idea that in order to be good at anything you need to practice. It popularized the "10,000 hours" principle. I'm not sure how that qualifies as "lunatic". This is pop-media, not academic research; it's a good "jumping off" point. God forbid someone tries to be entertaining with their non-ficti…

The problem with the "10,000 hours" principle is may be you will be immensely successful following it. But don't be surprised if you don't.

For you to be successful "10,000 hours" might be one of the many thing that need to fall in place. In many cases it might not even matter, to give you a simple example- If you are born in a society full of tribal wars in some poor country in Africa. I seriously doubt merely putting in 10,000 hours of work will help you out of the situation. The fact is luck, opportunity, being at the right place all matter.

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

#327

Post by kamaal »

michaelochurch wrote: post #269
durin42 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This statement out of michaelochurch is just silly. Most managers I know consider 20% time to be important to those engineers that desire taking it. That said, not everyone tries, and you can lose your ability to do 20% if you underperform. michaelochurch appears to have had a very strongly negative experience with his time at Google - I'd implore you (and everyone) to not base your assessment of what the company is…

Actually, my reason for spilling on Google is that someone from Google did something unethical after I left and Google refused to investigate (knowing they'd have to fire the person if they did). If Google had done the proper investigation and canned the person, I would never have said a word about them. I'm pretty much over it by this point, but I still think the terrorists who thought it would be fun to destroy Goo…

>>Google is a great place if you have a good manager and an interesting project. If you land on an interesting, relevant project, and your manager supports you in the political processes, it's a great place to work. I've never argued against that, because it's true.

That's true for any company I know of, Hardly an interesting proposition to work at Google.

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

#328

Post by kamaal »

jrockway wrote: post #253
michaelochurch wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

20% time can easily destroy your career. Most managers view it either as a waste of time or a flight risk. If the manager has to put someone on the 5% shit-list (which has more to do with his performance than yours) and you're 20%ing, then you're probably screwed. Blind allocation is imbecilic, but I think even the idea that people need to be "allocated" to projects is moronic. It doesn't belong in this fucking centu…

What was your 20% project?

Doesn't matter. The whole point in the 20% projects is not to ensure rewarding best projects, but to reward trying. Because eventually the good projects will flush out.

If you say you will punish failed 20% projects. Nobody is going to buy into a concept where you people are likely to be punished for failing to try and do something good for the company in the spare time.

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

#329

Post by kamaal »

michaelochurch wrote: post #314
quomopete wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why would you be bored learning something new?

One of the things I disliked about Google was the tyranny of At Google. If you didn't do it At Google, it doesn't count. You don't really know the first thing about anything unless you did it At Google. It's an extreme case of institutional arrogance. This explains the blind allocation policy. If knowledge that is not At Google doesn't count, then there's no point in matching people with their expertise or interests,…

Again, None of what you are saying seems to be a problem only at Google. These are really MegaCorp problems, and they apply to Google as well.

I knew even from the beginning even 5-6 years earlier, when there was immense desperateness among geeks to work there. It was only a matter of time when all MegaCorp problems will eventually plague Google.

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

#330

Post by neilk »

bane wrote: post #148

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.

I think almost anything is better than a giant defense contractor. I had a friend who worked at the place she called "the bomb factory" (in a completely innocuous IT role) and her stories were universally depressing.
Post reply on HN