No, I still don't want to work for Google • Hacker News Board

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

#331

Post by fudged71 » Tue, Oct 30, 2012, 5:02 AM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #33

darklajid wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're all entitled to our opinions. This boring / average white guy here thinks that real name policies are very, very bad and unacceptable, while I do support limitations in free speech (Europe, Germany -> We've got a number of cases where free speech is limited and I support these in principle, while avoiding the slippery slope thing. In fact, I'm typing this while wearing a 'Zensursula' (Zensur, censorship + Ursul…

I feel like I unintentionally stirred things up with my commentary on empathy, so I'll skip responding to that part for now except to say that yeah, I know they're just my opinions, and they were formed from a position of relative safety. Obviously, autonomous cars are in their infancy, but I think that to trivialize them at this point because of that is to ignore their farther reaching steps. When the light bulb was…

I agree. Autonomous cars can and will have a profound impact on society, in combination with cheap personal powered transportation like electric skateboards and bikes. The less time we spend commuting, the more time we have to care for each other, innovate, and stay healthy. When we waste less land on parking lots, and turn off lights when they're not being used, we will benefit. When goods and people are shipped autonomously in the night, we will save ourselves much stress and inefficiency. When the world is 3D mapped and sensed in realtime, we can spend less time worrying about the unknown and spend more time doing useful productive things.

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

#332

Post by clarky07 » Tue, Oct 30, 2012, 5:04 AM UTC

uriah wrote: post #293

clarky07 wrote: post #149

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 solu…

The US actually lags behind most of western Europe and Canada in social mobility. Especially among the poorest. "European Socialism" is not that different from the US. In Europe you may get free child care, health care, etc. and industries that the government likes get subsidies. In the US, this assistance comes in the form of tax cuts. Tax exemptions for employers who pay for health care, the child tax credit, tax d…

I find much of that to be a huge waste of money. Why are we encouraging people to have kids with a tax credit? There were a lot of people in my hometown on welfare who would have more kids because you get more food stamps and welfare than what the kid would cost them. Brilliant. We are subsidizing terrible parents bringing kids into poverty because these idiots want more food stamps.

Just because things are done a certain way doesn't mean it's a good idea. It certainly isn't a capitalist idea to have favored industries with subsidies or tax credits. America is far from being a pure capitalist society. It's a bastardization of capitalism and socialism, and while I may not be in the majority, I'd prefer pure capitalism over what we've become.

I'm all for helping people who can't help themselves, but I'd prefer it be done in the private sector. I give more to charity than I pay in taxes, and the money I give does far more good than food stamps and welfare ever will. If I didn't have that money wasted on taxes (note I don't think it all is, just a lot of it. i.e. roads are a good thing, military, etc.), I could give a lot more to the places I think are more worthy.

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

#333

Post by clarky07 » Tue, Oct 30, 2012, 5:07 AM UTC

roguecoder wrote: post #273

clarky07 wrote: post #149

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 solu…

Socialism isn't the opposite of capitalism; it is a complement that addresses specific market failures and can improve its ultimate performance. For actual examples of not-capitalism, I recommend looking at the coordination work that won this year's Economics Nobel Prize for examples of more-efficient solutions to specific distribution questions. Even corporations themselves are a compromise of free market principles…

While I agree it's reasonable to question, I'd prefer that I allocate my resources how I deem appropriate rather than the government do it for me. They aren't nearly as efficient.

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

#334

Post by yuhong » Tue, Oct 30, 2012, 5:43 AM UTC

tangue wrote: post #129

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…

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 w…

Yep, while I don't advocate real name policies, I do want the problems to be fixed if possible.

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

#335

Post by baruch » Tue, Oct 30, 2012, 5:47 AM UTC

jessedhillon wrote: post #150

varelse wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abov…

I don't quite support your position and am more in line with the parent one. It may be possible to find the "truly great" by a nice discussion but for those that are good and above it isn't so easy to separate them from the good talkers without some deeper technical discussion that gets started by an innocent technical question. The question is used to weed out the complete bozos and the deeper discussion to understand the depth of the person interviewing.

I truly don't understand someone who claims to be a great talent and not willing to put up with an hour or two if interview on technical topics. He might or might not be a bozo but by such a stance he failed my personal fit test.

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

#336

Post by trhtrsh » Tue, Oct 30, 2012, 7:21 AM UTC

mietek wrote: post #323

ori_b wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> What's stopping you?

Respect for the confidentiality of internal communications.

Anyone is free to share their own impressions, but it is inappropriate to pull someone else's privileged documents and wave them in public.

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

#337

Post by skrebbel » Tue, Oct 30, 2012, 7:54 AM UTC

michaelochurch wrote: post #174

brown9-2 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

At Google, "Perv" history is part of the transfer packet, which means that people with average political-success (sorry, I mean "performance") histories become immobile, creating a low-morale underclass that is good for mailing-list drama but bad for the company. It turns average employees and no-fault lack-of-fit cases into problem employees who have to be pushed out. It's disgusting, and people who believe this is…

> belong in jail for the billions of dollars of shareholder value that they torched for no good reason.

Wait, isn't it the shareholders' risk of investing in a company that torches money for no good reason?

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

#338

Post by fourstar » Tue, Oct 30, 2012, 7:54 AM UTC

nessus42 wrote: post #194

rachelbythebay wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Personally, I think that this whole "oral exam" style of interview is completely wack. If you have a lot of experience with it, then you are likely to do great, and if you don't, then you are likely to suck at it. When I was in high school, for instance, I was on the math team, and the first year, I got four questions right the entire year ! By the time I was a senior, I got four answers right every meet, on average…

> Did I get smarter between being a sophomore and being a senior? Not at all!

You learned nothing in 2 years of high school? Huh.

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

#339

Post by fourstar » Tue, Oct 30, 2012, 7:56 AM UTC

subsystem wrote: post #218

papsosouid wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When there's faults with it, that's relevant to my interests, as I might want to avoid their mistakes at my own company. Same here, except that is why I found the article to be a crappy, linkbait, waste of time. It wasn't about mistakes in google's hiring process, it was a personal rant about what the author dislikes about google.

You're not providing much value with your comment yourself. I thought it was an interesting personal story of what can happen the company you work for gets acquired by a large company. Just because it's not "top 10 hiring mistakes" doesn't make it uninteresting. The comments also include far more insight than usual into things that aren't necessarily found elsewhere.

How would he provide value on top of something that he perceives of not having any itself?

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

#340

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Oct 30, 2012, 7:59 AM UTC

mietek wrote: post #323

ori_b wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]