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

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

#101

Post by LaRakel » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 4:38 PM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #44

LaRakel wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pseudonymity for everyone helps the ones who do need it, because then they don't stand out. If you're not part of any minority or have no radical politics, yeah you might not need it. But even then, you would want the comfort of the advertising industry and your future employer not being able to disrespect your privacy. (Public data and privacy? Yes.) Why then is it good to kick people out for using pseudonyms? Why d…

I didn't mean to imply that they don't have the right to anonymity, just that I don't think that Google is any less right for refusing to provide it. It is their platform, and those who feel they require anonymity are free to choose another platform (like Livejournal, Twitter, Identi.ca, etc.) to voice their opinions from. Whether or not the benefit of real names matters, Google has decided that they think it does. I…

I do interpret what you wrote as a slightly less sensitive version of "If you don't like it, then leave," type of comment.

That type of comment is doesn't say anything, there's no real argument in it. It's simply dismissing criticism. You can dismiss any criticism whatsoever using it.

The sweeping "if you don't like it leave" doesn't really work. There's good reasons to use a platform despite deficiencies, no platform is exactly how I'd do it. Perhaps Google+ is technologically better, or the audience on Google+ is better for what I have to say. Maybe I want to keep in touch with real life acquaintances and they are on Google+. Do I have to convince every contact I have to switch to a platform that is worse in different ways?

Even if I vehemently disagree with their stance on publishing your true identity; there's reasons to use a platform despite it and keep complaining about their bad policies.

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

#102

Post by X-Istence » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 4:41 PM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #74

belorn wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This idea that there are no real concerns about losses of anonymity is to me very odd. Its odd, because its obvious that the information is valuable, and the possibility for abuse is almost unlimited. To point to a few of them, what if, if ever time you drive to fast, your car insurance increased in costs? (already happened in sweden). What if, if ever time you took a job interview, the company order up a complete re…

Regarding the car insurance: This is happening to an extent in the US currently. There are several companies who offer discounted rates for attaching 'trackers' to your car that report your driving behavior back to the insurance company. I have very real concerns that this will grow to becoming as mandatory as requiring seat belts while driving. I'm sort of mixed on this point because, while this is obviously a very…

The biggest issue I have with said trackers is that they don't allow for judgement calls. Recently for example I was travelling from Arizona back to my home in Colorado, and was on several single lane highways. The speed limit is set at 65 Mph, however you have some people that choose to drive under the speed limit at 60 Mph.

To pass those people you need to speed up, enter the opposite lane of travel, pass the person, then enter back into the correct lane of travel. While you are speeding up to pass the person you go above the allowed speed limit (generally somewhere around 80 Mph) to make sure that you don't stay in the opposite lane of travel to a head-on collision.

With one of those boxes your insurance could now consider you a dangerous driver since you were speeding, and could now ding you, when in reality you were simply passing a slower car.

You could now suggest that I just stay behind the slower car, but with no passing lane for the next 70 miles that would have added a not insignificant amount of time to my already lengthy travel time, and then I haven't even mentioned all of the RV's that are driving 50 Mph because they are dragging a car behind them.

--

Safe driving has to be evaluated some other way. I've been involved in only one accident, and I lost control of my car in an attempt to avoid an accident on icy roads and took out a lamp post. (A pick-up truck driver lost control over their vehicle and was sliding towards me while all four of his tires were locked up. My corrective action was an attempt to move out of the way ... ended up hitting a patch of ice instead, at which point I was no longer able to complete my manoeuvre). Even if I had that box in my car it wouldn't have had me driving any differently because I was already driving safely for the conditions present and that box wouldn't have made the difference.

The biggest issue that I have found here in the US (at least compared to Europe) is that it is too simple to get your drivers license, and you can get one at an age where you don't realise the full extent of what it means to control a 2000+ pound metal box at speed. Where you don't yet fully understand the consequences and what it means. Traffic schools/lessons in the US are a joke compared to the rigorous requirements set forth in most of Europe (I'm talking Germany, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Belgium as the ones I am familiar with).

Should insurance companies be able to offer such boxes to people if they want to take them? Maybe, I am still split on whether or not we should allow insurance companies to go down such a slope, because at some point it becomes too easy to then make it mandatory. I don't think such privacy invasion measures should ever be allowed to become mandatory.

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

#103

Post by jjwiseman » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 4:42 PM UTC

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 months, and I told my manager. He was understanding, but there wasn't really anything he could do. He passed my concerns up the management chain.

A couple weeks later my manager gave me their response, which was, literally, "We don't care." That shocked me a little, and I knew at that point I wouldn't be at Google for very long. Maybe that was even the right thing for them to do, since I was proving myself to be the kind of employee who wouldn't work on a project they weren't interested in for a year and a half just because it was good for Google, or good for their potential career at Google.

For a short time I led a 20% project with three other engineers that was in my interest area, and after we won an innovation award I hoped that it might make the Google bureaucracy more sympathetic to my preferences, but management didn't care. I left not long after that.

(tl;dr: I learned that Google is a bureaucratic megacorp.)

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

#104

Post by tptacek » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 4:44 PM UTC

dpritchett wrote: post #98

tptacek wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WAT? Enron was a scam from the very highest levels of the corporation. Unless you're suggesting that Kenneth Lay got a 3.0 from his board of directors and reacted accordingly, this is a ridiculous comparison.

Apologies in advance for the Gladwell link, but he's likely referring to Enron's "star system": http://www.gladwell.com/2002/2002_07_22_a_talent.htm

I'm not disputing that there were silly McKinsey-ite management practices in place at Enron. I'm disputing the idea that those practices had anything to do with Enron's failure. The reason 'michaelochurch invoked Enron in his comment was to link Google with Enron, as if to imply that Google's internal management practices would eventually result in a similar comeuppance. That's an absurd connection to make.

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

#105

Post by pwthornton » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 4:44 PM UTC

redwood wrote: post #73

raldi wrote: post #41

Please don't propagate the myth that Google asks prospective programmers questions like, "How many golf balls could you fit on a bus?" Google interviewers list the questions they asked when they write up their conclusions, and anyone who asked a question like that for an engineering interview would be immediately contacted by the hiring commitee and told not to do it again.

Why would that even be a bad question to ask?

Because they're not real logic questions and they don't predict anything. It's about the same as judging someone's programming/design/writing/etc. ability by making them do crossword puzzles or Sudoku.

The LSAT is filled with logic games, and they are nothing like a silly question like, "how many golf balls could you fit on a bus." They are actual logic questions that have a definitive answer that tests your reasoning abilities.

Being good at brain teasers does not make you intelligent; it makes you good at brain teasers. And they don't help prevent Alzheimer's, so they're really just a way for board people to pass time.

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

#106

Post by pyre » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 4:46 PM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #74

belorn wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This idea that there are no real concerns about losses of anonymity is to me very odd. Its odd, because its obvious that the information is valuable, and the possibility for abuse is almost unlimited. To point to a few of them, what if, if ever time you drive to fast, your car insurance increased in costs? (already happened in sweden). What if, if ever time you took a job interview, the company order up a complete re…

Regarding the car insurance: This is happening to an extent in the US currently. There are several companies who offer discounted rates for attaching 'trackers' to your car that report your driving behavior back to the insurance company. I have very real concerns that this will grow to becoming as mandatory as requiring seat belts while driving. I'm sort of mixed on this point because, while this is obviously a very…

Nobody is forcing your to post on G+ or Facebook, but as large companies, their policies have ripple effects. If we accept what they do now, what will things be like in 10 years?

At least in the US, there was already political chatter about requiring everyone on the Internet to have trace-able identity, and maybe using FBConnect or Google logins to do that.

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

#107

Post by varelse » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 4:48 PM UTC

rb2k_ wrote: post #88

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 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 apologize for the paranoia upfront, but once a bozo gets into the foodchain, they can do a lot of damage before getting expelled.

And in the end, the kind of technical questions I ask are so basic that unless you haven't programmed in years or you've never read a programming or algorithms book in your life, you'll get them. What's really disappointing is how few do get them lately. But I attribute that more to the current environment of recruiter cold-calling as opposed to a decline in the expertise of programmers.

Much like in dating, most of the "good ones" are taken, and if not, they don't stay on the market very long.

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

#108

Post by DanBC » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 4:48 PM UTC

pwthornton wrote: post #105

redwood wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would that even be a bad question to ask?

Because they're not real logic questions and they don't predict anything. It's about the same as judging someone's programming/design/writing/etc. ability by making them do crossword puzzles or Sudoku. The LSAT is filled with logic games, and they are nothing like a silly question like, "how many golf balls could you fit on a bus." They are actual logic questions that have a definitive answer that tests your reasonin…

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

Why is it a silly question?

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

#109

Post by eumenides1 » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 4:49 PM UTC

Kylekramer wrote: post #32

eumenides1 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Google should have done their homework before contacting a past employee (including contractors). Google as a large organization should know why people left their company and the context of situations around it. Some employees aren't vocal about it, but I don't think this is the case.

At risk of being callous, why should they? If an employee already dislikes a company to the point that a recruitment letter angers them, why should the company go out the way to accommodate them? The amount of effort it would take to throughly research every recruitment letter recipent seems like it would be a largely pointless endeavor with minimal returns. Most people aren't going react negatively to an email feele…

They need to improve their recruitment emails and they could by cross reference their list with a list of people who have left your company at least. Personal emails can be collected on exiting the company if Google needs to contact you.

The only thing on the line is reputation and people don't like to be "spammed" unless they ask for it.

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

#110

Post by mst » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 4:51 PM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #76

lmm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. No, it really isn't. While obviously it doesn't happen to everyone, such people are at a measurably higher risk of violence; there are well-documented cases of people being killed just because of that status.

I think you're probably right, and it occurs to me that I'm thinking of the civilizations in the cities I've visited recently (SFO, DC, etc.) and are perhaps not reflective of what it's like to be a transgender in other parts of the world / nation.

And even then, there's the problem of "what do you want your family to see?"

I know a number of people who're completely open about stuff to their friends, but very carefully maintain a cis+hetero front to their family in order to avoid a complete disaster.

(psueodynoms aren't a fully sufficient solution there of course, but they definitely help quite a lot)