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

281–290 of 300 posts

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#281

Post by girvo »

gamblor956 wrote: post #252
markdown wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as one speaks/writes the truth and can back it up with evidence, one should not fear defamation/slander suits. Unless you're in America, land of the dysfunctional legal system, home of the brave.

You've got that backwards. America and Canada are the only country in which truth is a defense to defamation. Remember the British guy with the Nazi fetish? The tabloid that published that story lost even though it was true. In other countries (notoriously India), criticizing a government employee's performance is defamation (even if true). Edit: Looks like Canada also allows for truth as a complete defense to defama…

I believe truth is also an allowed defence in Australia: http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia...

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#282

Post by csirac2 »

jlarocco wrote: post #40
MindTwister wrote: post #2

Does anyone have similar experiences with Google?

The few times I've interviewed with Google (plain old job interviews, not as an acquisition or acqui-hire), they've always been pretty arrogant. Enough so that I wouldn't interview with them again if they contacted me. The attitude is clearly, "You're going to jump through our hoops and do what we say, because we're Google and we're totally awesome and we can take you or leave you." I don't know if the guy in this st…

I was invited to interview with Google in Sydney (site reliability engineer), but the salary range was less than I was already making in a much cheaper town (Canberra).

Arrogance is the right word... I got the impression they would prefer candidates who were bending over backwards to get in the door, and by asking about salary and relocation costs I clearly wasn't.

Edit: Then about 6 months later I took a job in Sydney anyway, at a 20% higher salary... Then took another paycut to go back to Canberra (Sydney is expensive!)

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#283

Post by gress »

pjlegato wrote: post #212
gress wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Clearly, because game theory is the ultimate theory of the nature of the universe, consciousness included. /s

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#285

Post by kngspook »

hkmurakami wrote: post #247
lugg wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been feeling for a while now, software developers need agents. I only talk to one recruiter. If I want a particular job I know is going I will direct him to it and he will handle any side lining from other recruiters. Works a treat.

An acquaintance of mine (she used to be a den herself) wrote here about why engineers today don't have agents. http://blog.alinelerner.com/why-talent-agents-for-engineers-...

I've worked with Aline. She's fucking awesome.

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#286

Post by kngspook »

Raphael wrote: post #202
MCRed wrote: post #41

For a period I was heavily recruited by google. Their recruiters tried a great many variations of attempts to trick me into interviewing for a job. It seems weird that they would do this, because pretty soon, it would become obvious that it was a job interview and nothing more. Maybe there are a lot of talented engineers out there who are doing startups but aren't really committed to them and google manages via the f…

Perhaps "corporate development" is biz-speak for "mergers and acquisitions", but from a literal perspective, a standard hire would develop the corporation.

I'd love to see Google PR put out a statement explaining that your definition of Corp Dev is what Google uses. :P

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#287

Post by patio11 »

tmuir wrote: post #278
patio11 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

pg is an HNer. It's safe to assume that several other HNers have reputations that would allow them to write such a ticket. Do you assert that someone whose only marketable skills revolved around software development could achieve such a thing?

I assert this. Please understand if I can't be more specific than "I have material non-public information on this topic."

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#288

Post by kngspook »

tmuir wrote: post #278
patio11 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

pg is an HNer. It's safe to assume that several other HNers have reputations that would allow them to write such a ticket. Do you assert that someone whose only marketable skills revolved around software development could achieve such a thing?

I believe that a (relative) large number of HNers could pull 2M in comp annually. I believe very, very few could do so in a purely-technical, no-management role though...PG included.

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#289

Post by chii »

SomeCallMeTim wrote: post #279
chii wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not a scam in the sense of an illegal scam, but it certainly is trying to prey on someone who might not know better. If you are a lone engineer, but is capable of making a successful app, you have a certain aptitude for programming. This is useful to google. The recruiter is making a bet that this lone engineer is not business savvy enough to know how much their true worth is, and if the bet worked, google would…

$2M is a reasonable definition of "success" as far as I am concerned. And the $300-$500k+ salaries that Google is frequently throwing at engineers these days are worth more than the marginal chance you'll make a multi-million dollar exit event. So I'd hesitate to call anyone hired by Google a "victim."

let's say you found a rough diamond in a mine (that you own), which if polished, could be worth $10 mil, but somebody offered you $2 mil for it. Do you still think it's a good deal to take it?

It's not the absolute amount that matters - it's how much they are "underpaying".

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#290

Post by bambax »

welly wrote: post #280
bambax wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed the part about why not.

> 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. This bit. Might be applicable for recruiting but not for dating. Perhaps in some cases but by no means all or even close to all. And for someone who claims not to date, I'm not sure you're even qualified to make such a bold statement.

Didn't say I never dated -- I don't date because I'm married. And you don't need to be a lobster yourself to be able to observe how lobsters live, feed, mate.

Also, I thought I was saying something pretty much uncontroversial; I'm surprised people go out of their way to say it's "bold" and "sad". Really, it's neither.

Post reply on HN