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

111–120 of 410 posts

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

#111

Post by bmelton »

spacemanaki wrote: post #92
bmelton wrote: post #4

I tried, but I found that I can't really identify with the plights of some. Thankfully (for reasons I'd rather not be challenged to justify, except to say that it's apparently good as measured by others) I'm a fairly normal white guy with no marginal traits that might cause me to have different viewpoints than I currently do. This means that I support the notion real names on Google Plus, and I also believe that all…

You wrote in another comment that you think you unintentionally stirred things up with your comment on empathy, but I'm going to pile on anyway. I didn't downvote your comment though, because even though I take serious issue with your comment, your post did foster discussion. I think you're using the word "empathy" incorrectly. If you really empathize as you claim, you wouldn't dismiss the "possibly very real concern…

This seems to be a common reply to my statements, so I'll say it once here and link to it elsewhere.

I feel that I am empathetic (or at least sympathetic) to the plight of transgenders, minorities and others who feel that they need an anonymous or pseudonymous platform upon which to share their views.

I am substantially less concerned with those who do not see that it is Google's right to offer a platform that requires real names. So long as there are other platforms available and allowed that support anonymity/pseudonymity, I don't see it as a great concern that one particular vendor doesn't work exactly how they want.

If the discussion were framed as a matter of law, and that a new law were coming down requiring all discussion platforms / social networks / blog platforms to use real names, I would be against that law.

It is within the rights of those providing the platform to determine what policies they wish to allow or disallow. It is within the rights of the users of those platforms to use or not use the platforms they agree or disagree with.

I do not feel it is within the rights of those users to demand (or at least, to get a result from the demands) that a platform change its policies to suit their ideals.

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

#112

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #104
dpritchett wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#113

Post by vidarh »

enduser wrote: post #69
hnhg wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It reads like the parent got brought in as an expert in D, not Q, and then got told to work on Q, which wasn't their expectation. You'd be unhappy at that happening to you, right?

My understanding is that people don't find out their assignment until after the hiring. Sounds like the Air Force: dream of flying jets, end up cleaning toilets. At least at Google one can quit.

It's one of the reason why every time a Google recruiter contacts me, the conversation starts with me interrogating them about what exactly they are able to promise, and so far all but one were able to give answers that made it worthwhile to accept an interview.

If Google had been the hottest place in the world to work, and I'd been fresh out of university, then maybe.

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

#114

Post by bmelton »

LaRakel wrote: post #101
bmelton wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 platfor…

To frame the discussion differently, I disagree with Paypal's recent mandatory arbitration clause, but I have reasons to use Paypal despite it; Namely, I have a few accounts that I pay for that only offer Paypal as a payment option.

As of this morning, I have sent emails to each of those account holders asking whether or not they have alternate payment methods available, as I will be canceling my Paypal account shortly so as to opt out of their mandatory arbitration clause.

If I choose to accept their mandatory arbitration and continue to use the platform, then that is my choice. That it causes me considerable inconvenience to opt out of their policy is my problem alone. So long as there are other ways to pay, then it isn't Paypal's responsibility to cater to me or my beliefs.

Does this mean that I might have to cancel some accounts (namely PRGMR.com, which I use and love) and replace them with other, perhaps more expensive alternatives? Yes, but that is the choice that I am making regardless.

If G+'s benefits to you are greater than your conviction against their real name policy, then that is the choice that you have made. You're of course entitled to your opinion on it, but nobody's forcing you to use it even if it is perhaps the most convenient way to do what you want.

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

#115

Post by bmelton »

pyre wrote: post #106
bmelton wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And as I mentioned in another thread[1], that is something I disagree with entirely.

[1] - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4713137

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

#116

Post by mcguire »

samstave wrote: post #48
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…

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…

Same thing here, almost exactly, although they didn't wait a couple of years before contacting me again---more like a month.

On a third go-around, I asked what the deal was and haven't heard much from them since.

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

#117

Post by interg12 »

TL;DR: Worked at Metaweb which was acquired by Google to develop for Google+. Left within a year because of a disagreement over policy against pseudonymity and the affect it has on victims of harassment. Received email from Google years later offering job.

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

#118

Post by Jabbles »

sxp wrote: post #89
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…

The allocation policy is something that people are not fans of, but it isn't as bad as you make it sound. When I joined Google, I also initially joined a team that was a bad fit for me. However, I transferred to a completely different team (from enterprise server software to consumer mobile software) after 4 months of near zero productivity, and the new team was a perfect fit. Much of Google's culture is based on bei…

Could you say more about how you arranged to transfer? Others have suggested it is impossible or very difficult, but perhaps they are outliers or victims of older policies. Was it 4 months of trying to be moved, or did you move quickly after trying your assigned role for a while?

(I think I would move the other way, into servers :))

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

#119

Post by eumenides1 »

jnazario wrote: post #53
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.

you're treating the company as monolithic, and it's not. every group has their own hiring practices and contractors, and manage it differently. i came across this when a bunch of infosec people (myself included) got spammed for entry level jobs. every group has their own targets, methods, faults and strengths. it's just how it is. can't fault the entire company for one bad incident. if you do have concerns, reach out…

Your right, but Google still has polices and procedures to follow for hiring that do blanket across the company. It could be some thing like, do not contact former employees unless a human vets it.

In a situation with former employees, you have to take into account all that has happened with them. Because the employee sure will (for better or worse).

If you have different groups operating for hiring, they need tools and info to work better. I'm not faulting google for this incident, I just think it could be done better.

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

#120

Post by orangecat »

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…

but even though I (obviously) disagree with the idea that Twitter allows pseudonyms

I can understand not caring about pseudonymity, but I see no good reason (for individuals as opposed to corporate entities) to be actively opposed to it. Why do you think you have any right to know my name, and what harm comes from not knowing it?

Post reply on HN