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

Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 300 posts

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#211

Post by ForHackernews »

driverdan wrote: post #115
ForHackernews wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if they read your personal Gmail account to see if you're considering other offers? Or if you've corresponded with other people about their proposal?

They would be facing hefty lawsuits if they did that.

Are you a lawyer? Their terms of service[0] and privacy policy[1] appear to give them pretty broad leeway:

"When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones."

I could easily argue that spying on your email in order to gain advantages in acquisitions or hiring could be justified for "improving [their] Services" or "to develop new ones".

[0] https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/ [1] https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en...

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#212

Post by pjlegato »

gress wrote: post #206
derefr wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're thinking of "rules" as in externally-imposed rules. The parent is using "rules" in the sense of social contracts and market incentives: best-practices that emerge from the game-theoretic equilibria between players. For example, "don't start a nuclear war" isn't an explicit rule by some world government, but it does seem to be a rule all the world-leaders are implicitly following. For another, "don't appear to…

And people are just unfeeling automata whose only value is to maximize their game theoretic outcomes. /s

Perhaps what you refer to as "feeling" is a maximized game theoretic outcome, or a component thereof.

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#213

Post by dreamweapon »

fecak wrote: post #193
dreamweapon wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it possible that Google liked your product and subsequently thought you might be a good hire, but didn't like your product as a potential acquisition? That is where I think the difference lies. Were you contacted as "I'm from Google and we are interested in you", or "I'm from Google and we are interested in your product"? That is a big difference. If you look at the opening emails from the two Googlers (X and Y) t…

Again, if you read my comment and the parent comment, I am specifically addressing the parent comment (written by MCRed, just so we're all clear here), and I am responding to his/her anecdote about Google recruiters. The emails you are referring to pertain to the linked article, and have nothing to do with my comment here.

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#214

Post by bambax »

enneff wrote: post #208
bambax wrote: post #204

Recruiting is a lot like dating. Companies are only interested in candidates that won't work for them and people would prefer to work for firms that won't hire them. For all the talk about "competence" or "love" or even attractiveness or education, the only thing that really matters is social status. All people ever want is trade up. There are tricks to make this work; you can fool the other party (difficult and dang…

If that's your take on dating then I feel very sorry for you.

I don't date.

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#215

Post by usefulcat »

amirmc wrote: post #187
jseliger wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

manages via the fame of its name [. . .] What I experienced was less heinous but had the same elements- misrepresentation, name dropping I think the original author should name everyone involved. I understand why he didn't, but people can only get away with this shit because they do it anonymously and no one talks to each other. This is a much less extreme example, but years ago my former landlord threatened to kill…

Your comment seems to completely absolve the company that hired these people. Why give them a pass but not the people they're paying to do this?

I don't get this at all. Where does GP say anything suggesting Google either should be or is absolved of wrongdoing? Did you perhaps reply to the wrong comment?

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#217

Post by patio11 »

imacomputer2 wrote: post #180
vidarh wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a typical engineering signing bonus, but it's far from unheard of.

Seriously? You've heard of engineers being hired for 2M? I want that job! This is a serious question. 2M is just unthinkable for me.

Know that this is a thing that exists in the world. At least one HNer could get it approximately tomorrow if they wanted it. Typical form is a large equity grant which, for a publicly traded company, is indistinguishable from cash with a vesting schedule.

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#219

Post by DubiousPusher »

sosuke wrote: post #167
fecak wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a recruiter, I'd be curious to hear what tricks were played to get you to interview. I'm an independent, so when I speak to people there is never anything ambiguous about our discussions (my clients are not looking to acquire your product if you have one). Is it possible that Google liked your product and subsequently thought you might be a good hire, but didn't like your product as a potential acquisition? That i…

Just a side not, whether you're targeting people with projects or not. The opening phrase recruiters use of "are you looking for a job" or "are you interested in a position" especially when they say they've done background work is all wrong. If I says yes to either of those I've lost the power position. Recruiters should come with reasons why you should join that position, why you should leave etc.

I never want to work for a company that gives a crap about who has the "power position." There's companies I'm interested in and companies that are interested in me. I have an idea of what they can afford and I know what I need. I set a number there and if they can't pay it I can't accept.

If a recruiter's goal is to shave off $5,000 or $10,000 from your ask then they are wasting time because they could likely just as easily find someone who can fill the position at that compensation level.

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#220

Post by Retra »

derefr wrote: post #199
Retra wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So it's all a game, don't hate the players, hate the rules. There are no rules. Trying to paint this turd with catchy slogans isn't helpful either.

You're thinking of "rules" as in externally-imposed rules. The parent is using "rules" in the sense of social contracts and market incentives: best-practices that emerge from the game-theoretic equilibria between players. For example, "don't start a nuclear war" isn't an explicit rule by some world government, but it does seem to be a rule all the world-leaders are implicitly following. For another, "don't appear to…

No, you're telling me that that's what I'm thinking. I haven't said what I'm thinking.

If I _were_ to do so, it would sound like "There's no point in hating the rules, because the rules don't care. Hate the players, because they are the ones who care enough about them to follow them."

I don't care if these rules are explicit or not; I care that they don't produce the outcome I want. And the people who follow those rules are not absolved by weakness, ignorance, self-interest, or any other excuse in failing to resist those rules.

(There's no rule that says anything done in self-interest is correct. Sometimes it is correct to make sacrifices for others.)

Post reply on HN