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

Mourning Google

tbray.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 485 posts

Re: Mourning Google

#341

Post by tensor »

Multicomp wrote: post #216
Chathamization wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the impression I have. I remember a little over a decade ago when the population at large was completely hyped about all of the world changing technology we were going to see coming from the moonshots at Google X. The excitement over Google Glass, the mystery over the Google barges. Eventually, people started wondering when these hyped up products in development were going to actually become products[1]. Not i…

> People like to say, "But those people don't even create anything, they're just taking credit for other people's work!" But just letting smart people gather and work on pet projects doesn't seem to work particularly well either. Maybe having a headstrong product oriented person upstairs is useful/necessary. I mean, isn't that what Bell Labs basically was? Put smart people in a supportive playground and harvest the c…

One thing everyone here always forgets about places like Bell Labs and Xerox parc, was that it was NOT a monoculture of developers working on things. These places encouraged collaboration between many different disciplines. They encouraged diversity.

What turned me off tech culture is not just that tech companies became more like banks. It's that there is a monoculture of thought, and highly arrogant thought at that. It's the place where developers are royalty and everyone else is regarded as mouth breathing servants. Of course, most companies, for damn good reason, are not structured with developers running everything, and so you get a constant stream of toxic comments complaining about how every other role at the company is useless and holding back the oh-so-brilliant developers.

That's not diversity, it's not inclusion, and it's not a recipe for actually changing the world for the better.

Re: Mourning Google

#342

Post by ash »

sneed_chucker wrote: post #243
Multicomp wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People like to say, "But those people don't even create anything, they're just taking credit for other people's work!" But just letting smart people gather and work on pet projects doesn't seem to work particularly well either. Maybe having a headstrong product oriented person upstairs is useful/necessary. I mean, isn't that what Bell Labs basically was? Put smart people in a supportive playground and harvest the c…

Don't think the Bell Labs people were pulling Google tier TC.

What's TC?

Re: Mourning Google

#343

Post by behnamoh »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #310
Chathamization wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the impression I have. I remember a little over a decade ago when the population at large was completely hyped about all of the world changing technology we were going to see coming from the moonshots at Google X. The excitement over Google Glass, the mystery over the Google barges. Eventually, people started wondering when these hyped up products in development were going to actually become products[1]. Not i…

You have observational bias based on the things that you are interested in and observed as an outside observer. The real innovation at Google is internal and invisible to you -- often secret, maybe kind of boring, but totally transformational. It's infrastructure and its support. And all those moonshot things and stuff were mainly PR, sideshows, and not the primary focus of the company's brains. And they ke thing is…

How do we break ads for Google? More generally, what do we do to make ads disappear or weakened? I guess that's the only way current Google would want to innovate more.

Re: Mourning Google

#344

Post by kbenson »

Chathamization wrote: post #124
cousin_it wrote: post #16

I have a different theory about the cause of the decline. Google 10-15 years ago had a clear idea of how to win: hire the best programmers, give them freedom, and they'll build products that will win in every market. And, well, that hasn't happened. Long before the current talk of Google's decline, there was talk of the Google black hole, where talented people would get hired and their noteworthy output would drop to…

That's the impression I have. I remember a little over a decade ago when the population at large was completely hyped about all of the world changing technology we were going to see coming from the moonshots at Google X. The excitement over Google Glass, the mystery over the Google barges. Eventually, people started wondering when these hyped up products in development were going to actually become products[1]. Not i…

Having someone with a strong vision to rally around and attract others with similar views probably works wonders in itself. This could be someone powerful at a large company attracting like minded employees, or a small company whose founder and mission mission attracts specific hires, which explains to a degree some of the performance of small companies (or lack of performance of large ones if you see it that way).

Maybe Jobs' strength was that he had strong visions in multiple areas, and was able to have a few different stacks of people really in line with each and keep them moving separately?

Re: Mourning Google

#345

Post by bsenftner »

deltaburnt wrote: post #170
bsenftner wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My theory is any engineer led organization is doomed to fail because the STEM education does not include professional communications, and as a result any engineer led project and organization has communications issues that ultimately lead to failure. Quality communications is so critical in any collaborative, it is simply amazing an emphasis on communications is not a part of technology development - where "new" and…

My degree required a communications course, and a full year senior project course that included pitching, design documents, and demos. My understanding is plenty other universities require similar courses. Furthermore, even if that were true, companies (especially ones like Google) look for project and product managers that have CS degrees or other STEM degrees. Personally, my frustration with project/product manager…

Those under specified requirements and unrealistic deadlines are both the outcome of poor communications. An adept communicator is able to identify and convey the critical importance of correctly defined requirements. Likewise, such a communicator addresses unrealistic deadlines and explains the reality to those that need such explainers why their unreality is impossible, and they thank the good communicator for their honest language rather than any form of negative reaction. Such is the power of quality communications. An unrealized super power that actually exists in our social civilization.

Re: Mourning Google

#346

Post by test77777g »

marcosdumay wrote: post #286
test77777g wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve noticed developers have a pretty low bar for being a “psychopath” I’ve found psychopaths to mostly be people that see programmers as disposable. This is pretty much true, hence the psychopaths everywhere.

Hum... Seeing people as disposable is a quite reasonable definition for that word.

No it’s not, you’re just seizing on a particular word to warp the social perception of what I said.

Re: Mourning Google

#347

Post by bsenftner »

Apocryphon wrote: post #267
bsenftner wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My theory is any engineer led organization is doomed to fail because the STEM education does not include professional communications, and as a result any engineer led project and organization has communications issues that ultimately lead to failure. Quality communications is so critical in any collaborative, it is simply amazing an emphasis on communications is not a part of technology development - where "new" and…

How do non-software engineering fields somehow achieve this?

There is an entire college of communications devoted to the power of persuasion via language, professional communications, and media. Software developers culturally ignore that entire school of thought, to our determent.

Re: Mourning Google

#348

Post by AlbertCory »

The best things about being there were things I'd probably never be able to do anywhere else:

https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/culture-at-google-part-o...

https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/culture-at-google-part-t...

https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/culture-at-google-more-a...

Oh yeah. I did do some work, too.

Re: Mourning Google

#349

Post by cmrdporcupine »

behnamoh wrote: post #343
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have observational bias based on the things that you are interested in and observed as an outside observer. The real innovation at Google is internal and invisible to you -- often secret, maybe kind of boring, but totally transformational. It's infrastructure and its support. And all those moonshot things and stuff were mainly PR, sideshows, and not the primary focus of the company's brains. And they ke thing is…

How do we break ads for Google? More generally, what do we do to make ads disappear or weakened? I guess that's the only way current Google would want to innovate more.

I don't really care if Google innovates. The good thing that is coming out of these layoffs and recent departures is that talent locked up in Google will scatter out into other places, instead of being locked up inside. In the long run it will be good for the tech industry.

Re: Mourning Google

#350

Post by nkohari »

gumballindie wrote: post #229
ecshafer wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Training models is fair use, and i think the courts will agree with that. Saying its based on theft is not so cut and dry as youre making it out.

Those would have to be some rather corrupt courts to agree to such theft. What's next? Agreeing that if you are out on the street it's fair game to be robbed?

Your definition of theft doesn't necessarily match the legal definition. It still remains to be seen whether training foundation models is fair use or not, and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
Post reply on HN