> 10. Millions of people will use and appreciate your software
What an understatement.
Jobs at Google (1999)
41–50 of 133 posts
Re: Jobs at Google (1999)
#42Re: Jobs at Google (1999)
#43For Software Engineer, the first requirement - >> Several years of industry or hobby-based experience Key takeaway is “hobby-based”
2nd requirement: BS or MS in Computer Science or equivalent (Ph.D. a plus) So, sure, they were fine with hobby experience. But only if backed by solid CS chops.
Ha. I was working on my PhD in 1998 and I applied to Google for a summer internship. The problem was, Google demanded every transcript from every school I had ever attended, so two different undergrad, a masters, as well as my current institution. Each of those transcripts was like $20-$25 to obtain. I consulted at my checkbook. I had about $200 to my name that year. Wasn't gonna happen...
Re: Jobs at Google (1999)
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This seems like a good reason not to work somewhere. I'm curious; why do you feel that way?
A workplace that offers free snacks, drinks, ping-pong tables and relaxation pods is set up to maximize your time spent in the office and encourages a culture that excludes people who value their time off work, for example because they have a family.
If they really want to bias against families, the next level is hookers.
Re: Jobs at Google (1999)
#45> This means we base employment decisions exclusively on our current business needs and the given merit of a candidate. We encourage excellence at all levels in our organization, and are not influenced by race, color, gender, sexual orientation, age, handicap, religion, or any other factor irrelevant to doing a great job. Not anymore eh?
I suggest they were incorrect in their claim not to be influenced by those things - that's why they have a diversity problem now. Edited to add: In 1998 I probably would have read this and cheered it as a place where diversity was recognised and welcomed; in 2018 I read it as "we don't feel we have to do anything about our unconscious biases, which we're satisfied with"
(warning typing on bumppy airplane ride on tiny phone, where is my emacs again ?)
Given how successful how successful they are and how right they were on so many other things it is hard to tell if they were incorrect or not.
But while we are at it let's talk about unconscious bias. This is brought up a lot. If it does exist and is affecting people's decisions why do we always talk about it in thr manner you just have.
Could women not have unconscious bias to men and wanting to work with them? Maybe. I see a lot of hate spouting out of "Diversity Warriors". Just the other day a lady from glitch was so happy about diversity she had to talk disparaging about men -- making a very very welcoming presentation.
Could blacks have unconscious bias to whites? Maybe. I often hear the problem is "I see to many white faces" - while living in a majority white nation. Just watched a video where that was sighed as a major problem at Evergreen. But this dotey has been told many times befor. Nobody does the math to realize that in a majority white nation the only way to fix the "problem" is to active limit reproduction or inclusion of white people. You could also attempt to reproduce no whites at a higher rate or import more non whites. With way the peoblem translate in to "white".
Could gay or trans people have unconscious bias twars cis gender people? Maybe. Given the distain all over social media for srait people, even more so for white men.
Could it be that these groups of people also too have unconscious bais and don't want to work with white men and found employment elsewhere?
I don't bring this up because I don't want diversity. Or that I have a problem with any of these groups. I bring it up because it is awfully shitty thing to constantly blame a single group of people every time somebody feels the outcome is unjust.
Why don't I see marches of women demanding to work in trash pickup? Or people demanding more men veterinarians? Or having better quotas of who gets to die doing their job today (80% men today, women have it safe).
Doninreally want these things? No. I think people while chose to do what they want do in the long run. But you cant make the "why" people don't chose a given job because of a single group for purly being that group.
Also. When working with code nobody gives a fuck who you are. They give 10 fucks about how awesome your code is and 100 fucks if they learn something from your work.
Re: Jobs at Google (1999)
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This seems like a good reason not to work somewhere. I'm curious; why do you feel that way?
A workplace that offers free snacks, drinks, ping-pong tables and relaxation pods is set up to maximize your time spent in the office and encourages a culture that excludes people who value their time off work, for example because they have a family.
This is ridiculous. I'm married, have two kids, and prioitize family. I leave at or before 5 nearly every day. And....
I love office perks. On-site haircuts are fantastic - much faster than going to a salon on a weekend. Snacks and free good coffee make the day more pleasant. I don't take advantage of all of the possible perks, as some are clearly aimed at people working different schedules than I. But the reverse holds true as well (the single 23 year old likely does not avail themselves of bring your child to work day activities. :)
It's not all a conspiracy to screw workers. Improving quality of time at work and productivity during work hours is a win for everyone. I leverage perks to get more family time, not less, and I observe many of my with-family colleagues doing similarly.
Re: Jobs at Google (1999)
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This seems like a good reason not to work somewhere. I'm curious; why do you feel that way?
A workplace that offers free snacks, drinks, ping-pong tables and relaxation pods is set up to maximize your time spent in the office and encourages a culture that excludes people who value their time off work, for example because they have a family.
I work at Google. I get in at 8, leave at 4, because I value my family time more than my work time and it has not held me back whatsoever. Not even an eyebrow raised.
Re: Jobs at Google (1999)
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This seems like a good reason not to work somewhere. I'm curious; why do you feel that way?
A workplace that offers free snacks, drinks, ping-pong tables and relaxation pods is set up to maximize your time spent in the office and encourages a culture that excludes people who value their time off work, for example because they have a family.
I don't think it works this way (I worked at Google, the snacks were nice to have when I was there, but never a reason to stay late).
Re: Jobs at Google (1999)
#49> This means we base employment decisions exclusively on our current business needs and the given merit of a candidate. We encourage excellence at all levels in our organization, and are not influenced by race, color, gender, sexual orientation, age, handicap, religion, or any other factor irrelevant to doing a great job. Not anymore eh?
I suggest they were incorrect in their claim not to be influenced by those things - that's why they have a diversity problem now. Edited to add: In 1998 I probably would have read this and cheered it as a place where diversity was recognised and welcomed; in 2018 I read it as "we don't feel we have to do anything about our unconscious biases, which we're satisfied with"
[deleted]
Re: Jobs at Google (1999)
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google were not "evil" for a long time after this. They really were a force for good in the world for a long time. I have never admired a large company so much as I did the Google of the early 2000s. Youthful, gifted, moral, crazily ambitious, constantly doing things I thought impossible… The "evil" only really crept in once they started to take over all of the world's advertising.
So they were “not evil” as long as they were being funded by investors and didn’t have a self sustaining business plan...
This is a common pattern that companies follow; make a good product now, make money later. Many products become crappy and companies go sour when they turn this corner.