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

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

#151

Post by bmelton » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 5:28 PM UTC

tangue wrote: post #129

bmelton wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't meant to imply that it wasn't justified, just that I can't identify with it. As I said, and I didn't mean to seem oppressive, I empathize with the plight of those who wish to be able to express things in anonymity, I just personally value the kinds of conversations that occur when people are using their real names more highly. Basically, what may be a need for those in the other camp is simply a preference f…

Your sincerity is worrying to me. I thought Internet would break physical and mental boundaries... And indeed it's quite the opposite, I realize how different we are. But in a way, I understand your point, it's just that the world is not ready for that . Just look how far an Apple versus Samsung debate could go on a place like HN and imagine that you're talking about serious issues in a less tolerant place. I don't w…

So, the main question there is: Would the thread have degenerated to that point if everybody were using their real names? I suspect the answer is 'no', and that is why I prefer the use of real names on the internet.

In counterpoint, while I understand that these views are public, it is to that degree that I make sure to state them as accurately as I am able. This means that my comments tend to be a little wordier than necessary, but if (as another has suggested) employers were rejecting me from a job based on a comment I made on the internet, then I would view that as better than being hired by a company that would fire me for something I said on the internet.

I am fully aware that neither case is the ideal, just as I am also aware that there are shady companies who perform overzealous background checks. I won't comment on whether those checks are right or wrong except to say that by not hiring me based on the result of an overzealous check is perhaps as much a win for me as it is them.

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

#152

Post by eropple » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 5:28 PM UTC

3825 wrote: post #65

spindritf wrote: post #43

I may be making the problem worse but both this post and the comments section are some of the worst I've seen on HN -- from linkbaity title to incorrect possessive pronouns (I barely speak English and caught it while skimming), and then the deep analysis of anonymity on G+ completely based on one or two anecdotes with no relation to G+, anonymity, or even the Internet. Why is this submission at 80 upvotes? What value…

Just a criticism of Google Plus and how it is not the all the goodness what we expected it to be the real name thing is stupid. I have created and use google plus by a fake name but since it does not sound fake, I have not been flagged.

"Skud" is not a fake name to her.

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

#153

Post by _pferreir_ » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 5:28 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #122

_pferreir_ wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's hope you can afford to do that for many years to come. When the choice is between relocating or unemployment, an average job offer suddenly gets much more interesting. Unfortunately, here in Europe things are starting to change for the worse.

> Unfortunately, here in Europe things are starting to change for the worse. For very geographically specific values of "Europe". Lots of places are on the contrary seeing things improving. Europe isn't a single entity.

If a growth rate of 0.5% for the EU is not a good indicator of an economic slowdown, then you must be talking about Europa, Jupiter's moon. I know that EU Yes, I know some countries are doing better than others and that in some places unemployment is even decreasing, but taking into account the fact that Spain is on the verge of bankruptcy and countries such as France and Italy are being hit by austerity, I see no reason for optimism.

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

#154

Post by bmelton » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 5:30 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #61

bmelton wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't meant to imply that it wasn't justified, just that I can't identify with it. As I said, and I didn't mean to seem oppressive, I empathize with the plight of those who wish to be able to express things in anonymity, I just personally value the kinds of conversations that occur when people are using their real names more highly. Basically, what may be a need for those in the other camp is simply a preference f…

I just personally value the kinds of conversations that occur when people are using their real names more highly. By real names, do you mean the names they're known by, "real sounding" names or their legal names? Is George Orwell not a real name?

An interesting question that I will admit that I haven't given much thought to. To me, I consider my real name as "Barry Melton", even though it is really "Bartholomew Melton".

I have signed contracts, purchased property and pay utility bills under the former, while the latter is relegated to a very few.

Unrelated, I think this is the first that I realized George Orwell was a pen-name.

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

#155

Post by griftah » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 5:30 PM UTC

She is building a social network for hobbyist gardeners. Apparently this is what humanity needs more than geek toys like self-driving cars and augmented reality sunglasses.

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

#156

Post by barrkel » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 5:32 PM UTC

phillmv wrote: post #63

ajross wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and no. Replacing someone who can't possibly be happy with the work you have available is cheaper than keeping them on. It depends critically on the details of D and Q. If you get hired by, say, Facebook and refuse to do web development you're going to be a bad fit. The goof here may have been hiring him in the first place. It's important for both sides to accomodate. But sometimes fits just don't work. If what s…

It's a matter of resource allocation. If you hire lots of, I don't know, compiler specialists but you allocate them to write web apps we're all possibly worse off. The issue is, and what you're not cottoning on to, is that in a company the size of Google there's probably a team working on x for all values of x that could maybe use another member. They're only tolerant of their resource allocation scheme because they…

If you hire lots of [...] compiler specialists but you allocate them to write web apps we're all possibly worse off.

Speaking from direct experience, faced with the job of developing a framework for web data entry apps, what I ended up doing was writing a dataflow language for data binding. Another ex-Delphi compiler developer, Danny Thorpe, ended up co-creating Google Gears. IMO compiler development is a great basis for a certain kind of thinking about solving problems; but I'm also biased.

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

#157

Post by dpark » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 5:37 PM UTC

Apocryphon wrote: post #142

dpark wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you chose an exceptionally poor reason to downvote him. You downvoted him because you disagree with his views ("view things through very narrow lenses"), which is different from downvoting him because you disagree with him only in phrasing. Downvotes should be for comments that do not add to the discussion. Considering that most of the comments here are in response to him, his comment clearly added to the dis…

Downvotes are for disagreements, too.

That's a recipe for hivemind rule: downvote everything you disagree with so that only the things you agree with show up. I think there's enough of an information bubble on HN without actively trying to create one.

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

#158

Post by papsosouid » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 5:38 PM UTC

potatolicious wrote: post #140

papsosouid wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were they well known for it because they did it, or because people assumed they did it? An awful lot of people immediately jump to "stupid brain teasers" when hearing "they ask technical questions". I have people write code and solve actual problems during interviews, and have gotten several "these kinds of riddles are a waste of time" responses from people who are offended by the notion that I want them to be compet…

From my limited anecdotes of the time, I believe Google actually did it. We're not talking about programming-related brain teasers here, we're talking about non-programming ones. e.g., "3 light bulbs in a room" and "family crossing the bridge" being the classic examples.

I've heard the same thing, always from unreliable "I heard" sources. I've never heard anyone who actually did interviews or was interviewed say that.

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

#159

Post by Apocryphon » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 5:40 PM UTC

waqf wrote: post #145

Apocryphon wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Downvotes are for disagreements, too.

Downvoted because I disagree with you.

That's fair, and I'd expect for you to do so. Upvoted for following convention.

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

#160

Post by eropple » Mon, Oct 29, 2012, 5:40 PM UTC

bmelton wrote: post #111

spacemanaki wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 requir…

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.

Sure it is. The only reason for a company to exist is to provide positive social effects (and capitalism is predicated on the idea that positive social effects correlate with revenue and, less so, with profit). When you want to create an all-encompassing social network, except for people X, Y, and Z, you're not providing positive social effects. You're being a dick. And Google, through their much-trumpeted "don't be evil" policy, has put upon themselves the responsibility of being even less of a dick. They have decided to assert that they're "better," so it is completely reasonable to expect that they should be and to demand it publicly.

"Well, users don't have to use it" is a pretty shitty escape hatch that ignores that social networks only have value through the network effect--and presupposes that people who will leave the social network because of attacks upon others in their social group. This is a sucker's bet because, frankly, of people like you, who acknowledge that they would feel differently if their own ox were gored but do not care because it is not.