Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I won’t work for Google

qnrq.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 225 posts

Re: Why I won’t work for Google

#211

Post by smikhanov »

Selfcommit wrote: post #168
smikhanov wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you actually interview with them? I have Computer Science education, 10+ years of industry experience, am very familiar with most of the Cormen book and have been programming since I was a kid. I was interviewing with Google twice (after their recruiters reached out to me) and haven't made the bar. Don't think that the fact of recruiter getting in touch mean anything -- they are playing their own numbers game.

Is this the book you reference? http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Algorithms-Thomas-H-Corme...

Yup

Re: Why I won’t work for Google

#212

Post by WorldWideWayne »

leoc wrote: post #188
quaunaut wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes he has. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB9L1PD7Cpo Go to 4 minutes into that video. It's his first interview post-reveal, in Hong Kong. "Beyond that we've got Prism, which is a demonstration of how the US Government co-opts US corporate power to its own ends. Companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, they all get together with the NSA, and provide the NSA with direct access to the back ends of all of th…

Thank you, I stand corrected. That's the first time I've seen Snowden make the direct-access claim. Disappointing to see that it wasn't only Greenwald who didn't read the PRISM document carefully.

The NSA did have direct access to internet/telephone carrier traffic - http://www.wired.com/2013/06/nsa-whistleblower-klein/

Do we know everything now? Certainly not. NSA has resources that nobody knows about and I'm 100% certain that they have direct access to your data in ways that nobody has ever imagined.

Re: Why I won’t work for Google

#213

Post by cscurmudgeon »

etfb wrote: post #30

The primary reason I won't work for Google is because I'm nowhere near smart enough. But I like to tell myself that the ethical shortcuts they've taken in pursuit of the almighty dollar are a good secondary reason. It's just that I don't need a secondary reason, so yay, consequence-free ethics!

Not this FUD again. If Googlers are so smart why are they not rich?

There are lots of professions that the average Googler couldn't get into which makes more $ (e.g. finance, doing a profitable startup). If you ask an average Google, they would give similar ethics-based reasons like OP (e.g. Wall street is bad.)

Get off your high horse, you are not smart, you just gamed the interview process. If you are smart, quit and start a company.

Re: Why I won’t work for Google

#214

Post by gress »

Oletros wrote: post #207
gress wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The data is part of the rental - you can only use it tot target your ads.

Please, point where in the Ads documentation where it explain that USER data can be seen by advertisers.

It can't. It is processed on the advertisers behalf by Google.

If Google allowed it to actually be downloads, their competitors would be able to use it, so the processing is done within Google.

That doesn't make it any less of a product for advertisers.

Re: Why I won’t work for Google

#215

Post by gte910h »

rwallace wrote: post #68
clarry wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All mainstream modern technology companies are in a no win tragic situation. Actually the big companies (and to a lesser degree other significant entities like Wikipedia) that essentially hold the keys to the Internet and have the money -- if anyone, they are in a position to change things. They have tremendous power. Think civil disobedience. Corporate disobedience? There are many legal as well as illegal things t…

A company called Qwest tried that, and its CEO ended up in prison on trumped-up charges of insider trading. Calls for other people to become martyrs for your favorite cause don't have a lot of moral authority in my book.

> ended up in prison on trumped-up charges of insider trading

Or on charges that fit the statute, but are over-criminalized.

We have way too many laws. Everyone is violating them, so drawing the ire of criminal prosecutors = jail term.

Re: Why I won’t work for Google

#216

Post by Oletros »

gress wrote: post #214
Oletros wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please, point where in the Ads documentation where it explain that USER data can be seen by advertisers.

It can't. It is processed on the advertisers behalf by Google. If Google allowed it to actually be downloads, their competitors would be able to use it, so the processing is done within Google. That doesn't make it any less of a product for advertisers.

So no, data is not rented, thanks for acknowledging that.

Re: Why I won’t work for Google

#217

Post by presootto »

hitchhiker999 wrote: post #40

Perhaps a few people don't understand why OP takes this so seriously. This is the 'long game', the game for the betterment of human existence. (Cliche? yes, true enough? - probably) If you still feel these huge corporations have our best interests at heart, you are being a touch naive. They are not 'evil' ofc, but they're probably not the best idea for the future.

There's plenty of people who still believe that, even inside of Google. Then there's the group of employees, known as the 'memegen consenus', who have come to realize that Google is not different from any other large corporation.

Color me cynical, but after witnessing things like the 'no poaching' settlement and the internal memo that calimed they didn't believe to have done anything wrong, I can't see why Google should be anybody's dream company.

Google's reputation is worse then Microsoft these days, so it seems the public is finally waking up.

Disclaimer: I work for Google.

Re: Why I won’t work for Google

#218

Post by api »

quaunaut wrote: post #19

I'm still waiting on proof from Snowden as to Apple/Google/Facebook's direct, illegal cooperation with the NSA. So far, all I've seen proof of is compliance with warrants(which admittedly are questionable, but Google has a direct financial gain in fighting them, not helping them), claims that they've fought them, and evidence that the NSA is both tapping the trunk as well as decrypting SSL'd communications.

This isn't just about the NSA, PRISM, etc. It's about surveillance as a business model and as the core purpose of the service. Mass surveillance by advertisers and potentially much creepier private sector entities (astroturf PR firms, think tanks, political parties, ideological pressure groups, insurers, private "intelligence" firms, etc.) is just as violating and potentially worse in the long term than surveillance by the NSA and its kin.

The surveillance-based "free" business model is not our friend.

Re: Why I won’t work for Google

#219

Post by porpoisemonkey »

etfb wrote: post #34
porpoisemonkey wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. Google's caches are pretty commonly used to view pages with high levels of traffic.

https://google.com/search?q=define:irony

I'm not sure why you posted this link. The comment I was responding to does not meet any of the definitions you posted.

As others have pointed out using Google cache to view a high traffic anti-Google article would be coincidental and not ironic.

Re: Why I won’t work for Google

#220

Post by hrktb »

hitchhiker999 wrote: post #210
hrktb wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About Coca Cola, there is this very good talk by Melinda Gates about what they do in the developping world: http://www.ted.com/talks/melinda_french_gates_what_nonprofit... I think enabling enterprising people to do business may be the most positive thing Coca Cola does to the world. For Google, it seems making money is not the end game. What they do have many positive fallouts, but I'm not sure they move the 'real' w…

With all due respect, and thank you for the reply - I feel compelled to say this: I used to think like that, however after many years of observing the complicit abuse corporations like these preside over - I can no longer hold that opinion.

If it is about Coca Cola, I have an idea of what kind of abuse or corporate behavior it has, and I don't think 'sugared water' is much needed in our world (I don't deny the value, I just think it's not a need). But even for such a company, there are some positive fallouts.

In the ranking of evil companies, I'm not sure they even come close to the French water groups or big medical corporations, but I might just lack information.

Edit: for Amazon and Microsoft, of course I get how bad they can behave. Amazon more so when it comes to distribution level workers and general social behavior. Microsoft I don't kniw if there are people ignorant of what they did the last decades.

Post reply on HN