Live data from Hacker News

Postmortem of my 9 year journey at Google

tinystruggles.com

141–150 of 255 posts

Re: Postmortem of my 9 year journey at Google

#141
post #29

I've done the path from SWE to SRE and back to SWE. I was always happy to do production support and diagnose and fix production problems, so I naturally moved to SRE which is always looking for people. It was a real mistake, SRE is hugely stressful and really unrewarding compared to SWE. Yes you learn some skills and get some occasional glory, but year after year of fighting fires really didn't build any long lasting…

Maybe you should clarify what company you worked in, because that's clearly not Google. In Google, SREs do 12 hour shifts. Night shifts (or rather 24 hour shifts) are (ironically enough) usually done by SWE teams. Almost every SWE team in Cloud has a 24 hour shift, and I agree, they are quite terrible.

Re: Postmortem of my 9 year journey at Google

#142
post #34

The traditional view is that young engineers should join startups in hope of a massive payoff if one goes big, but working for 10 years at BigCo with good salary and stock plans can set you up for life without any risk. One path to avoid is the one I took which was to work at a big tech co as a contractor. Good rates but nothing to show for it after 10 years other than the experience and whatever I had put in my 401K…

I don't know that sounds very optimistic. I'm 10 in tech and L6 now. I'm definitely not set for life, like, not even close.

The key is to move out of the bay area as soon as you have a 2M net worth.

Re: Postmortem of my 9 year journey at Google

#143

There are a bunch of comments saying that Google is just like any other big tech company and that the exciting engineering bit has gone. My experience is only from the last 2.5 years, but I've got a slightly different take. Engineering from >10 years ago seems like it was a wild west. Some truly stunning pieces of technology, strung together with duct tape. Everything had its own configuration language, workflow engi…

I left over ten years ago and it's hard to understand that perspective. Back when I was an SRE (~2006 to 2009) there were only one or two monitoring systems (which didn't overlap, so you could argue there was one) and a handful of config languages. Compared to anywhere else Google had military levels of discipline and order.

> Deployments were infrequent, unreliable, and sometimes even done from a dev's machine.

Deployments were weekly and done from a dev machine because that way someone was watching it and could intervene in case of unexpected problems. Some teams didn't do that and tried to automate rollouts completely. I could always tell which products weren't doing enough manual work because I'd encounter obviously broken features live in production, do a bit of digging and discover end user complaints had been piling up in the support forums for months. But nobody was reading them, and the metrics didn't show any problem, and changes flowed into prod so the team just ... didn't realize their product wasn't working. There's no substitute for trying stuff out for yourself. I encounter clearly broken software that never seems to get fixed way too often these days and I'm sure it's partly because the teams in question don't use their own product much and don't even realize anything is wrong.

Re: Postmortem of my 9 year journey at Google

#145

There are a bunch of comments saying that Google is just like any other big tech company and that the exciting engineering bit has gone. My experience is only from the last 2.5 years, but I've got a slightly different take. Engineering from >10 years ago seems like it was a wild west. Some truly stunning pieces of technology, strung together with duct tape. Everything had its own configuration language, workflow engi…

So sure they can very reliably and safely deploy... It just doesn't feel like they've actually deployed anything interesting in 5+ years (except maybe some AI stuff). From the outside it looks like the company is perpetually refactoring

history's biggest yakshave...? not surprising for a programmer-run company

I'm sure it still matters to bring down the power and server bills. But one can't help feel like they could be doing much more

Re: Postmortem of my 9 year journey at Google

#146

There are a bunch of comments saying that Google is just like any other big tech company and that the exciting engineering bit has gone. My experience is only from the last 2.5 years, but I've got a slightly different take. Engineering from >10 years ago seems like it was a wild west. Some truly stunning pieces of technology, strung together with duct tape. Everything had its own configuration language, workflow engi…

Although there were some rough areas, Google has been considered to have pretty advanced software engineering for 20 years or more. There was plenty for a new engineer to boggle at even then. On the other hand, someone who started in 2015 missed out on the years when Google was mostly considered to be the good guys and given the benefit of the doubt. That’s about when the culture started turning against “big tech” in…

No, that culture started turning against big tech when Microsoft and Oracle started very brazenly abusing their market domination in the late 90s.

The culture turned on Google around the same time Google lost their innocence and dropped the "Don't be evil" clause (note the dropping of that clause was not the cause, just one of the symptoms).

Re: Postmortem of my 9 year journey at Google

#147

All these things make me envious of people who get to work at Google or any other FAANG company, where they are both paid well and validated for their intelligence.

The validated for their intelligence thing is a problem. Googlers in the early days constantly told each other that they were the "smartest people in the world". I noticed this immediately after joining and found it quietly troubling, because there's all kinds of smart and the interview processes were really only selecting for skill with computers or maths. A lot of Googlers wouldn't survive long on the streets or alone in the wilderness, as these require different kinds of smart to what they had. Some colleagues were troubled by those statements for other reasons: they didn't personally feel like one of the smartest people in the world, and this led to imposter syndrome. But we said nothing because, hey, the company was doing great and people did seem pretty smart overall back then. Plus nobody wants to call themselves out as an imposter, and Google had a certain degree of institutional humility to it as well. The company was very much about empowering everyone, no matter who or how "smart" they were.

What you're seeing from Google in the last ten years is a maybe predictable consequence of that culture, where some Googlers really do seem to think they're generically much smarter than everyone else, about everything. You started to see mass scale social engineering via manipulation of search results and products, driven apparently by the immense faith they have in their own wisdom. Is there any claim Googlers cannot immediately resolve as true or false given nothing more than a few ML models and a team of contractors in LatAm? Apparently some of them think that's all it takes.

This quasi-misanthropic culture is miles away from the trusting "make it universally available and useful" culture the company once had, but the seeds of that culture's end were clearly visible even at the start. You can't constantly validate people by telling them they're super smart before some of them come to actually believe it, and that leads naturally to the belief that if they're really the smartest people in the world then surely that means they should be running it.

Re: Postmortem of my 9 year journey at Google

#148
Some 20 - 10 years ago I was seriously interested in joining Google for many of the reasons he lists. In the end I never applied because at the time they had no development in any country I would have been interested to relocate to.

However, during recent years I have turned into a Google hater. He does not mention any of those aspects. Google is an evil business IMHO. They are an advertising company. The challenges for this planet are sustainability. The goal of advertising is to waste resources. I can type this on a low end phone that soon turns 10. It works perfectly, except that no recent Android version is supported. Google is in the business that cores and memory have been doubled several times since then, for no benefit to mankind. And phones are far from the only category, advertisement is about selling a lot of stuff that does not bring any true improvement in quality of life. Video is one of the worst energy wasters in computing. 90% of Youtube is useless crap, not worth destroying the planet. Nobody would pay a realistic price for it. They are an ugly oligopolist. The list could go on and on...

Re: Postmortem of my 9 year journey at Google

#149
Having spent some time with Google as SWE, I think Google was by far the best engineering company I have worked with. Even Amazon, Microsoft were terrible when it comes to software engineering.

I am one of those engineers who do not care about culture as long as I am getting paid for the efforts I put in. Google in that sense beat others by HUGE margin.

The engineering work was however very different. We focused on right engineering solutions instead of just business aspect. While that kind of attitude hurts us in short term, it pays big in long term.

Re: Postmortem of my 9 year journey at Google

#150

There are a bunch of comments saying that Google is just like any other big tech company and that the exciting engineering bit has gone. My experience is only from the last 2.5 years, but I've got a slightly different take. Engineering from >10 years ago seems like it was a wild west. Some truly stunning pieces of technology, strung together with duct tape. Everything had its own configuration language, workflow engi…

What’s the point if the capacity to deploy good products has been lost in the process? What if what you see as unreliable was at the hearth of what enabled great things to happen. This is a typical caveat of a programmer centric organization. Things get more reliable but more frozen and innovation die.
Post reply on HN