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

My Google Internship

goldsborough.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 270 posts

Re: My Google Internship

#261

Post by greglindahl »

hota_mazi wrote: post #224
dragonwriter wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 99.99% of the world is find with the 'binary signage' on toilets [citation needed] AFAICT, even many people that see gender as binary favor gender-neutral restrooms. > The number of people who actually have issues with 'binary' is very, very small. The number of people who identify outside of the classical binary distinction mau be small (or it may be that lots of people simply lack vocabulary to explain non-binary…

It's easy to test: remove the entire distinction and have only one type of toilets where everybody can go. Let this experiment run for a few months. Then compare the number of people who complain about that experiment with the number of people who complain about binary signage. I'm betting the former number will dwarf the latter. And no, I don't have a citation for that, just giving my opinion.

The W hotel in downtown Austin, TX has had all of their restrooms in the bar/restaurant area as single-user facilities labeled Men/Women for... ever since it was built, I think. At least 5 years that I can remember. Among other reasons, it efficiently supports conventions with wildly varying gender ratios.

Re: My Google Internship

#262

Post by edblarney »

euyyn wrote: post #251
edblarney wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Google is pretty serious about expenses and costs" Which validates my point: the value of the 'free food' is a calculation. It's based on employee productivity gains, retainment etc.. If it wasn't an economic value-add, it would be canned. "Google stock doesn't give dividends: all profits are reinvested in the projects" Sorry to be picky but this statement is not true at all. 1) It does not matter whether a company…

The definition of retaining earnings is reinvesting profits in the company's projects; I'm not sure what made you think only non-profits do it. It's pretty common for companies that are growing. In any case, that was just one easy way to show you you're wrong in thinking this: > [Google] literally have billions more than they know what to do with Google knows exactly what to do with it, and from my understanding hasn…

"The definition of retaining earnings is reinvesting profits in the company's projects;"

No, it's not.

More importantly - your statement that "Google re-invests all profits in projects" is definitely not true, moreover, it's relationship to 'dividends' is not relevant at all.

"Google knows exactly what to do with it, and from my understanding hasn't ran out of business ideas for that since its founding."

Again, not true.

That any company has such a large war chest is strong evidence that they have no clue how to spend it.

Yes - it's important to have a fund for acquisitions and to take on unforeseen threats, but it's generally accepted that near monopoly providers have this problem.

Microsoft had so much money relative to earnings at one point - that financial analysts started to treat it as a 'fund' as opposed to a product company - and use different metrics to understand it's efficiency.

These companies have very low capital efficiencies, and all that money is seen as a drag on many measures of efficiency, which is why they are strongly pushed to return the money to shareholder - who can put it to work more effectively elsewhere.

Google has absolutely no idea what to do with at least 1/2 of assets that it is sitting on, which is why they are sitting on them.

Put another way:

If Google did have amazing, high-ROI projects to invest in, they situation would be the opposite: they would be spending it all - and likely taking on debt (because it's very cheap right now) - which would be a way to leverage their 'amazing projects' quite dramatically and to make more money.

'High growth' companies should almost always be leveraging up, because that's how they can get the most out of whatever it is that they are doing. Same for companies that can forecast consistent returns.

If your 'business idea' is getting more ROI than your 'cost of capital' then the more you lever up, the more money you make.

But no. Google has nowhere to spend the money.

Re: My Google Internship

#263

Post by esrauch »

edblarney wrote: post #247
wglb wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if 'Binary Gender' is, and will always be normative, simply because almost everyone is binary , I wonder what it might be like to be left-handed. Would you consider it social extremism to treat left-handers, which are a seriously small minority (10%) as actually equal to right-handed, normative, normal folks?

10% is a meaningful minority. As it stands, the world is mostly made for right-handed people, with a lot of accommodation for lefties. In very lose terms, the number of people who identify as 'somewhere on the spectrum of gender' is about 0.5% - but this includes a huge amount of people who have a 'feeling' and frankly, are probably ideological about it, i.e. "I don't believe in gender, ergo, I refuse to identify as…

Do you not think its noble to make life better for 0.1% of people?

Re: My Google Internship

#264

Post by photogrammetry »

poikniok wrote: post #57
photogrammetry wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your salary/compensation?

You expect a director at Google to post their comp? Seriously?

Only reason for the question was to see how inflamed HN commenter(s) (you) would get. People at startups are mocked all the time for their low wages, and forced to release them, but those in positions of experienced authority never have to.

Re: My Google Internship

#265

Post by edblarney »

esrauch wrote: post #263
edblarney wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10% is a meaningful minority. As it stands, the world is mostly made for right-handed people, with a lot of accommodation for lefties. In very lose terms, the number of people who identify as 'somewhere on the spectrum of gender' is about 0.5% - but this includes a huge amount of people who have a 'feeling' and frankly, are probably ideological about it, i.e. "I don't believe in gender, ergo, I refuse to identify as…

Do you not think its noble to make life better for 0.1% of people?

"Do you not think its noble to make life better for 0.1% of people?"

It's not within reason or pragmatism to change how everyone on the planet refers to gender - and our entire 'bathroom social norms' to accommodate a tiny minority.

Here is a practical, non-ideological solution:

It seems as though every edifice has to provide special facilities for handicapped people.

Change the sign on the handicapped door, to something considerably more generic, like 'a bathroom for whoever' - and then those who are not comfortable with male/female - or for any other reason - can use it.

Now the 99.9% have their bathrooms - and 'everyone else' who doesn't fit perfectly into that paradigm, can use the 'other' facility.

Re: My Google Internship

#266

Post by orodley »

edblarney wrote: post #167

"It’s Googley to stand up for diversity and inclusion, such as protesting against binary gendering on toilets" This is BS. 99.99% of the world is find with the 'binary signage' on toilets, and it is absolutely not 'anti trans' or 'anti anyone else' frankly, to do so. BTW - this is not like a 1960's movement - you're not in the 'right side of history' here. 'Binary Gender' is, and will always be normative, simply beca…

Just by the way, the statement in the article is incorrect. Google Sydney does have male/female toilets, but we have unisex toilets as well.

Re: My Google Internship

#267

Post by Chris2048 »

rincebrain wrote: post #257
Chris2048 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But does it matter in that context? Does/should a belief be weighted higher if it causes "offense" - this would mean the easily offended would have their beliefs weighed higher, and thus people would be encouraged to be so.

I don't think a belief should be necessarily weighted higher because it causes offense (or not), no. I was trying to indicate the difference between "I would never" and "no one should ever" - the former being a belief that attempts to say nothing about what other people should or should not do, where the latter certainly says something about what everyone should do.

Doesn't the former lack the moral principle of universalism?

Re: My Google Internship

#269

Post by thewhitetulip »

rxlim wrote: post #200
thewhitetulip wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in India, have written a tutorial on Go, https://github.com/thewhitetulip/web-dev-golang-anti-textboo... , am decent with Go, am learning Vue.js, writing book on it as well, http://github.com/thewhitetulip/intro-to-vuejs/ . I am a full geek, applied twice. Didn't get any reply! edit: changed book to tutorial

I read your tutorial some time ago and found it to be very good, probably one of the best introductions to Go I have read so far. Keep up the good work.

Thank you :-)

Re: My Google Internship

#270

Post by romwell »

wsh91 wrote: post #244
euyyn wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what's your point. wsh91 is explaining how much it means to him/her that at Google we're generally happy to personally do those kinds of "accommodations" (for lack of a better word). I couldn't care less about any team-mate of mine coming dressed the way they wanted. And I'm not surrounded by "every minority group", so if someone told me tomorrow he rather I use "he"/"she"/whatever when referring to them in…

Thanks for giving a shit. :) (I go by "they".) And I promise that for those of us who are a little different, the effort is what matters.

I gave up reading the comments, but just wanted to say that not everyone thinks like the person who started the thread.

I mean, you know that, but I just wanted to come out and comment here, lest the OP thinks that things like having single-stall bathrooms and keeping your opinions of how others dress to yourself makes one a social extremists.

What can I say - I admire your patience, and glad that there are places where you are not forced to exercise it as often.

Post reply on HN