Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development
291–300 of 300 posts
Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for this. (We are very technical, and building an online application, which is what I meant by "purely online", though. i.e. features we could bring online via an online /web agent that is on your side rather than the side of companies.)
Oof. I foresee a hard road ahead of you if can't bring on someone knowledgeable with the actual interpersonal dynamics of hiring. Reason is this isn't a technical problem, it's a social one. One of the things that the recruiter who found me my job did for me was to interact with the company for me. I told him my concerns, and he either talked me through them or relayed them, through the filter of someone whose seen t…
Thanks for your input, though my question was specifically to lugg and asked "can you imagine what, if any, part of this could be done purely online". Still, your thoughts on a different subject have been interesting and thanks for them. You can also send me email if you'd like to write more.
Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
Re-read it. #1 the recruiter (Maxine) didn't really work for the famous googler she claimed to work for. She worked for #2 who was just a regular old manager.
I see the claim that she is a recruiter in the article. I do not see the evidence for that claim. I don't think the article establishes that googler #1 (with the name MARXXXXX) is Maxine. It's all very confusing; why mask out the name in one place, then use it elsewhere? And why would a web search turn up that MARXXXX exists and then we decide that Maxine may not exist "Max will never meet Maxine; she probably doesn’…
Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do something with audio: The iPhone has speakers, right? And software can send a signal to the speakers? Or if not speakers, then a female plug can use to drive speakers? And the thing has a microphone, right? And might add on some tubes or some such to make the speaker and microphone directional? For the signal to make the signal to noise ratio better and to make the sound more directional, use high frequency. Or ju…
https://iqtainment.wordpress.com/acoustic-ruler/ I've played with it - with some calibration, it seems to work. But YMMV, and I got it mostly just in an appreciation of the author's clever idea.
Thanks!
Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of recruiters at Google are temps and will lie through they're teeth in order to get candidates interested. Google still has a reputation of being an amazing workplace. This, however, is becoming less and less true. Just last week Victoria Lease resigned after months of sexual harassment without any consequence for the perpetrators. There are much better places to work for then Google these days. Disclaimer: I…
You have been bitching about google for the past year, including saying that Eric Schmidt should be put in jail. You say you are Rachel Whetstone, senior vice president of communications and public policy for Google. However it seems unlikely that Rachel would say some of the stuff you have come out with. Please don't feed the troll.
If you prove that I lied about Victoria Lease resigning because of sexual harassment I'll close my account.
Since you won't be able to do that as I'm telling the truth I will continue exposing Google's hypocritical behavior.
Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
$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".
If the diamond could be worth $10M when polished, but also could be worth $0 because of flaws you can't yet see, and there's only a 20% chance that it will be worth $10M, then $2M is exactly the right amount to take. And in this particular case, I'd take the $2M every time, because that's the exact expected value of 20% odds of a $10M valuation.
And when you have your own company, there is always some level of risk. The chance of $10M may be far less than 20% -- and there may be a 1% chance of $200M.
It's only if you think your diamond has either already been polished to the point of being worth more than $2M, or you feel your own odds of success at polishing are better than 20%, that you should say no to the offer.
The original author believed that, which is perfectly fine. He had previous experience with selling a company, and so he may have even been right.
But those with less experience may actually do well to sell unless someone with more experience is around to tell them they're sitting on a diamond mine that's worth way more than the offer. Or you can roll the dice based on your own appraisal of the odds; that's fine too.
I've actually been in the situation where I did say no to terms I didn't find good enough, but then later the company failed and I ended up owning 100% of nothing. So having them "underpay" for me would have ended up with me owning 40% of something at least, since they were going to fund it to the next level.
It's easy to take a look at the odds and guess wrong -- and it's also easy to be an armchair quarterback and tell people that they should have taken a chance instead of the easy cash. As a result of my experience, I'd likely lean toward the easy cash at this point, but feel free to make your own decisions as you see fit.
Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development
#297Fits in nicely with Paul Graham's story not to talk to corp dev at all. Still, I find myself hoping that someone did turn up on April 9.
That's not what he said though.
He said not to talk to them till you are ready to sell. That's quite different from what you said.
Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development
#298Earlier 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.
Hi. we're working on this. can you imagine what, if any, part of this could be done purely online? what would your top three features be? (in an actual, online agent, actually on your side.)
- Honed my CV (more like made me rewrite it), it was full of fluff pieces and bullshit that made ME happy. He basically took a red marker to all the things that weren't purely factual and provable (or at least explainable.) He was an ex developer and current on tech so he knew what he was talking about in regards to what needed to be said and what wasn't. This could easily be done online with google docs and a skype call.
- Answered all the dumb questions every developer wants to know but really shouldn't be asking a prospective employer in an initial interview (can I wear shorts and a tshirt? how much $$$? flexitime? holidays? beer on friday? - This would be solved by an FAQ employers could fill out.
- Filtered jobs I'd call awful on anyway (multiple reporting lines, under paying, no source control, one man bands, etc etc This is easy for development, just make sure it passes the joel test.
- Found opportunities that actually match my skill-set (Full stack PHP Developer with javascript tendencies) - Sort of job board style sites attempt to solve this but suck at it pretty badly, because who pays their bills?
- Interview prep happens but its essentially just reminding me to be myself and if I don't have an answer say so. I don't know what would be worth it to you for putting this online but you could certainly do some last minute reminder calls with the candidate and follow up directly afterward to ensure everything went well / any issues can be discussed while they're fresh.
Sorry if that doesn't help much, a lot of it requires a person and a phone, I'd certainly start in those areas though, do things that don't scale n all heh.
Feel free to email me if you want any further info, don't follow HN too much.
Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of recruiters at Google are temps and will lie through they're teeth in order to get candidates interested. Google still has a reputation of being an amazing workplace. This, however, is becoming less and less true. Just last week Victoria Lease resigned after months of sexual harassment without any consequence for the perpetrators. There are much better places to work for then Google these days. Disclaimer: I…
You have been bitching about google for the past year, including saying that Eric Schmidt should be put in jail. You say you are Rachel Whetstone, senior vice president of communications and public policy for Google. However it seems unlikely that Rachel would say some of the stuff you have come out with. Please don't feed the troll.
Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have been bitching about google for the past year, including saying that Eric Schmidt should be put in jail. You say you are Rachel Whetstone, senior vice president of communications and public policy for Google. However it seems unlikely that Rachel would say some of the stuff you have come out with. Please don't feed the troll.
I think it is hyperbole, and I searched and can't find any comment on HN where he claims that he is Rachel Whetstone.