Jobs at Google (1999) • Hacker News Board

Re: Jobs at Google (1999)

#61

Post by akhilcacharya » Fri, Sep 28, 2018, 1:51 PM UTC

cs02rm0 wrote: post #23

joe-user wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This seems like a good reason not to work somewhere. I'm curious; why do you feel that way?

I worked somewhere with free coke and kit kats. Turns out, I've got willpower when in the supermarket, but not when there's a fridge in the office. I could just about limit myself to 1 of each a day, but even that was too much.

Yeah, same here.

Interned at a place with free food and snacks (better than the ones I’ve seen at Google IMO) to a place without any and I lost weight. Nice side benefit.

Re: Jobs at Google (1999)

#62

Post by godelmachine » Fri, Sep 28, 2018, 2:05 PM UTC

inerte wrote: post #59

godelmachine wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am quite sure Google has always picked fellas without college degrees, provided they proved solid hobby based achievements.

Rarely, but yes. Overall Google was notorious for demanding degrees from top universities.

That's informative. Thanks!

I had read an article where they elaborated how getting into Google is a lot more difficult than getting into Harvard.

Re: Jobs at Google (1999)

#63

Post by Klathmon » Fri, Sep 28, 2018, 2:19 PM UTC

myth_buster wrote: post #41

> 10. Millions of people will use and appreciate your software What an understatement.

It's mind boggling the number of users that google products have.

I couldn't imagine my code impacting 2 billion users, but the chrome team has to every goddamn day.

Re: Jobs at Google (1999)

#64

Post by ronilan » Fri, Sep 28, 2018, 2:26 PM UTC

It is from October 13 1999 not 1998. That’s after the 25M funding....

Re: Jobs at Google (1999)

#65

Post by berbec » Fri, Sep 28, 2018, 2:29 PM UTC

santix wrote: post #52

I like how you could send your resume as a text file but it better be ASCII.

EBCDIC-ists!

Re: Jobs at Google (1999)

#66

Post by ppierald » Fri, Sep 28, 2018, 2:31 PM UTC

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #6

> 8. Free snacks and drinks This seems like a good reason not to work somewhere.

In the 90's this was rare and a big lure for candidates. Now it's table stakes.

Re: Jobs at Google (1999)

#67

Post by CalRobert » Fri, Sep 28, 2018, 2:46 PM UTC

joe-user wrote: post #12

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #6

> 8. Free snacks and drinks This seems like a good reason not to work somewhere.

> This seems like a good reason not to work somewhere. I'm curious; why do you feel that way?

For many alcoholics, it's not possible to have "just one beer". If it's there, it's a constant, overwhelming temptation that is at best a distraction from your work and at worst the cause for a relapse. In addition to trying to avoid the distraction of the beer in the fridge, you need to be around people who _are_ enjoying a beer or two responsibly, which makes it even harder.

Fortunately, I'm not an alcoholic. I quite enjoy a beer or two with colleagues now and then, and that's the end of it. But I'll bet at least some of those same colleagues were going through a silent torture keeping it under control.

But I'm pretty sure I'm a compulsive eater. If there's a box of donuts I'll have one, for sure, like everyone else. Then a couple hours later, after having thought about donuts for the last two hours - (and hating myself for having eaten the donut), I'll have another. If there's free chips I'm sure to grab a pack when I walk by. A failure of willpower? Sure. A sign that I'm a lesser person, maybe lazy (funny since I would cycle 12 miles to work while they all drove...), and definitely gluttonous? You'd think that based on how some people treat you.

I lost 100 pounds by keeping absolutely, positively, nothing in my home that I could eat without cooking - this was an effective deterrent to impulse eating since cooking was a sufficient pain in the ass (these days I actually enjoy cooking! But I also weigh under 200 lbs now so I guess it's ok. Workplaces with free food can destroy that for people who struggle with eating. An aside - anyone who's gone from very obese to merely overweight or normal will tell you it's shocking just how differently people treat you. Not just potential romantic partners - _everyone_.

Anyway, I guess I'm saying that free food in the workplace, for me, is a psychological nightmare. Though if the free food is apples and carrot sticks, that's fine. I'll eat them if I'm hungry, and only then.

Re: Jobs at Google (1999)

#68

Post by Aeolun » Fri, Sep 28, 2018, 3:15 PM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #55

cs02rm0 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked somewhere with free coke and kit kats. Turns out, I've got willpower when in the supermarket, but not when there's a fridge in the office. I could just about limit myself to 1 of each a day, but even that was too much.

That's one thing that bothers me too. If they provide something for free it's almost always junk food, candy or soda. I prefer not to have this in my face all the time while I am at work.

I think my workplace has set an effective deterrent by making all these ridiculously cheap, but still like $0.10. Hungry people eat, but not so much impulse eating.

Re: Jobs at Google (1999)

#69

Post by chaosphere2112 » Fri, Sep 28, 2018, 3:18 PM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #55

cs02rm0 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked somewhere with free coke and kit kats. Turns out, I've got willpower when in the supermarket, but not when there's a fridge in the office. I could just about limit myself to 1 of each a day, but even that was too much.

That's one thing that bothers me too. If they provide something for free it's almost always junk food, candy or soda. I prefer not to have this in my face all the time while I am at work.

Almost definitely not the case at Google presently. 80-90% of the fridge space is dedicated to non-soda beverages (flavored seltzers, cold brew coffee, iced teas), and the chips + candy are hidden out of sight in the snack areas.

Re: Jobs at Google (1999)

#70

Post by paganel » Fri, Sep 28, 2018, 3:23 PM UTC

mbrumlow wrote: post #45

learnstats2 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Or people demanding more men veterinarians?

I was curious about this and it turns out that in the United States and Canada women have indeed become the predominant gender by far in this line of work, at least according to what I could find in this study (which is quite old, back from 2003): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC340187/

> Veterinary medicine, previously a male-dominated profession, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women studying at veterinary colleges and practising in all fields of the profession. In Canada, and in the United States, women constitute approximately 80% of the veterinary college student population. Forty-three percent of practising veterinarians in Canada are now female, and women are predicted to represent the majority of the veterinary profession by 2007

It's curious because over here in (Eastern) Europe I'd say that men are at least as equally represented as women when it comes to being a veterinarian, I wasn't aware that in Northern America things had changed.