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

Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook

naildrivin5.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 173 posts

Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook

#151

Post by rbarooah »

nazgulnarsil wrote: post #148
rbarooah wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how I've equated a conversion to a genuine need being met. That would imply that nobody ever buys anything that isn't suited to their needs. I guess I'm falling for trolls here.

preferences are subjective. If someone is buying something you claim they don't need you need to, at the very least, get them to agree with you before you have a plausible case. you aren't being trolled, get an introductory microecon text.

Plausible case for what? What case do you think I'm making that you are somehow contradicting? Nothing I've said is in conflict with the idea of preferences being subjective.

Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook

#152

Post by zach »

_ut0p wrote: post #50
Lewisham wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. Google's mission statement is: "Google’s mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." Nothing in that statement necessarily presumes the use of ads to pay for it. If users said "we'd rather pay 1c per search than see ads" (and the math added up) Google would change to that instead. I'm currently an intern at Google. Everyone knows where the money comes fro…

Google's mission statement is: "Google’s mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." -- Yeah. Show me one company which doesn't have a mission statement like helping people, curing diseases, feeding the hungry...

There are generally three kinds of mission statement.

The plain mission statement which comes out and tells you what the company does, as if you'd never heard of them before. This is best typified by the Five Guys fast food chain's mission statement: "We are in the business of selling burgers." However, most companies will at least throw an adjective in there. I honestly like Blizzard's: "Dedicated to creating the most epic entertainment experiences... ever."

Then there's the framing mission statement, like Google's, which tries to put a context around the plain work they do. Another example is Starbucks, who claims a mission to "inspire and nurture the human spirit – one person, one cup and one neighborhood at a time." These are the ones that try to be aspirational.

Finally, there are the ones that seem to have been written by lawyers or legislators. These drone on endlessly are so awful they demean the dignity of the companies that have them, so I won't finger anyone to protect the guilty. However, you know for sure you're reading one about the time you halfway through and find the word "stakeholder."

Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook

#153

Post by nazgulnarsil »

rbarooah wrote: post #151
nazgulnarsil wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

preferences are subjective. If someone is buying something you claim they don't need you need to, at the very least, get them to agree with you before you have a plausible case. you aren't being trolled, get an introductory microecon text.

Plausible case for what? What case do you think I'm making that you are somehow contradicting? Nothing I've said is in conflict with the idea of preferences being subjective.

why do you continue to deny your parent post?

QUOTE: "the sellers have to be meeting genuine needs, or the buyers have to have the information necessary to make good determinations."

both of your assertions are false. markets tend toward equilibria you disagree with. that you disagree with them doesn't make the needs "non-genuine", nor does it mean information asymmetry is a barrier to efficient markets. correcting information asymmetry is itself subject to market forces.

Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook

#154

Post by Jangus »

AlexC04 wrote: post #41

Every time I click on a title like "Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook" I keep expecting it to be a great big 96 point for page saying "Because they wouldn't fucking hire me" So far, I've only been disappointed by these troll posts.

Agreed. Community college educated - government job - average experience - are a few reasons "Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook."

Because they wouldn't fucking hire me...and I'm cool with that.

Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook

#156

Post by saurik »

rbarooah wrote: post #146
quanticle wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the difference between need and want? Economically, there is no difference - there are simply goods that have less elastic demand curves and goods that have more elastic demand curves. The elasticity value that distinguishes "need" from "want" is totally arbitrary.

Fair point, but it doesn't really affect the sense of what I said in my original comment. Also, just because economists haven't found a bright line between concepts doesn't mean they aren't distinct. I think there's a distinct difference between needing food, and wanting an xbox.

If you start with that assumption, you immediately confront the issue that you may 'need' food, but you don't need tasty food, or much food, or even "easily digested" food. One does not even 'need' "clean" food, as humans are easily able to tolerate being ill most of the time; and, unfortunately, many people worldwide operate with this constraint their entire lives.

In fact, we didn't even really 'need' food at all: what we needed were a few nutrients, maybe in the form of a pill. Food is a luxury, and if our stomachs disagree we can always get stomach-ectomies.

Until, of course, you find that one guy who defines the point of his existence to be the very first guy to get a billion points in Halo: a person might be in a hospital, dying anyway, and while eating may prolong his life another month, he will consider his whole existence to be a waste if you take away his Xbox; at this point the concept of objective needs totally disappears, and you end up back in the land of "differently elastic demand curves".

Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook

#158

Post by atdt »

cletus wrote: post #40

It's strange to have some moral objection to advertising because advertising is, ultimately, a form of discovery, a way of connecting people who want or need something with those that supply it. Ad revenue on the Internet, almost by definition, means someone found something they wanted. How exactly is it bad to connect people with things they want and need? The problem with advertising is when it gets too obtrusive,…

Someone smarter than me put it thus: [Advertising] cannot be reconciled with the notion of independently determined desires, for [its] central function is to create desires – to bring into being wants that previously did not exist.

Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook

#159

Post by rbarooah »

saurik wrote: post #156
rbarooah wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair point, but it doesn't really affect the sense of what I said in my original comment. Also, just because economists haven't found a bright line between concepts doesn't mean they aren't distinct. I think there's a distinct difference between needing food, and wanting an xbox.

If you start with that assumption, you immediately confront the issue that you may 'need' food, but you don't need tasty food, or much food, or even "easily digested" food. One does not even 'need' "clean" food, as humans are easily able to tolerate being ill most of the time; and, unfortunately, many people worldwide operate with this constraint their entire lives. In fact, we didn't even really 'need' food at all:…

I didn't say everyone's needs are the same.

Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook

#160

Post by saurik »

rbarooah wrote: post #159
saurik wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you start with that assumption, you immediately confront the issue that you may 'need' food, but you don't need tasty food, or much food, or even "easily digested" food. One does not even 'need' "clean" food, as humans are easily able to tolerate being ill most of the time; and, unfortunately, many people worldwide operate with this constraint their entire lives. In fact, we didn't even really 'need' food at all:…

I didn't say everyone's needs are the same.

Ok: I think one easily gets the other impression from your want/need distinction. Regardless: the first two paragraphs do not even touch on that: that person might 'need' an Xbox, but not one that has a working blue video composite. The point is that there is an elasticity to the demand curve for everything that the person might 'want', but there is no obvious breaking point where you suddenly end up with a 'need': and a great example is that you do not really 'need' food, you just want it very very badly.
Post reply on HN