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

Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

ln.hixie.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 1001 posts

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#601

Post by CrimsonRain »

pyb wrote: post #334
emodendroket wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like the generic complaints of everyone who doesn't like their manager ever and frankly I would have thought twice before attaching my name to a broadside that attacks a former manager by name. But hey, what do I know, I never worked at Google.

A 18-year veteran like OP shouldn't be complaining about their manager's lack of vision ; they should have realised by now that it's also their job to enact the vision. He was probably paid too much to behave as a passenger.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Hixie has enough vision and is loved by everyone. It's not his job to manage a clueless manager.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#602

Post by pas »

concordDance wrote: post #583
mmkos wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh well. Maybe it's about time incompetent people were named and shamed, maybe that would put a stop to failing upwards for people who really shouldn't be there.

Once it becomes acceptable I expect the correlation between people naming and shaming and actual poor performance/bad behaviour to drop drastically. Proper workers aren't as good at playing politics as those who just focus on politics.

there would at least be some data, probably noisy, gamed, a bad proxy for this signal, but much better than the current empty void littered with courtesy linkedin endorsements

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#603

Post by gerdesj »

"Much of these problems with Google today stem from a lack of visionary leadership from Sundar Pichai, and his clear lack of interest in maintaining the cultural norms of early Google."

"The oft-mocked "don't be evil" truly was the guiding principle of the company at the time"

A company with public shareholding loses the ability to be anything other than a generator of increasing shareholder value. That is its overt and stated purpose when it goes public. In return for investment, the company must ensure a return on that investment. It's not that you've sold out or sold your soul - it is simply the market and how it works.

If you want to try to be the nice guy then don't go public. "Don't be evil" is a lovely idea but it does not wash if you want lots of loverly shareholder cash. Stay private and raise capital via the old fashioned method of convincing some rich people to buy into your idea and become private shareholders.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#604

Post by iainmerrick »

munificent wrote: post #213
liveoneggs wrote: post #29

"Flutter is amazingly successful. It's already the leading mobile app development framework" ???

There are a lot of reasonable metrics one might use to define "leading mobile app development framework": * Number of developers using it on some daily/weekly/monthly, etc. cadence. * Number of apps published (to iOS, Android, both). * Number of jobs available using the framework. * Various subjective desirability metrics from developers survey like the StackOverflow ones. It's anyone's guess as to which is the best…

Huh, that’s hard to believe. If you go by job postings, React Native is miles ahead.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#605

Post by dekhn »

emodendroket wrote: post #433
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, if I look at their kids and think to myself "hey, those might make good husbands/wives for my own kids when they grow up".

Should I take it to be some kind of Freudian slip that you’ve written “myself” rather than “themselves” here?

No, not the way it's written.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#607

Post by jra_samba »

throwaway678808 wrote: post #267

Overall reasonable post, but thanking Chris DiBona in this post honestly makes me question the whole narrative. When I was at Google he was on the short list of petty tyrants to avoid at all costs. Just a mean person having way too much fun running a tiny Kingdom Of No.

I am a personal friend of Chris, and was with him through most of his tenure at Google (we both got laid off at the same time). When Chris said no (and it was rare), it was usually because people were thinking of themselves over the good of the company (and usually around personal projects they wanted to own instead of Google).

You might disagree with it (and I'm sure you do), but Chris always thought of the company first. He was the personal embodiment of early Google culture and a fantastic manager.

I just wish they'd made him a VP of Open Source (a position IMHO Google sorely needs). He probably could have staved off some of the failures.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#608

Post by Vicinity9635 »

gerdesj wrote: post #603

"Much of these problems with Google today stem from a lack of visionary leadership from Sundar Pichai, and his clear lack of interest in maintaining the cultural norms of early Google." "The oft-mocked "don't be evil" truly was the guiding principle of the company at the time" A company with public shareholding loses the ability to be anything other than a generator of increasing shareholder value. That is its overt…

>A company with public shareholding loses the ability to be anything other than a generator of increasing shareholder value.

People always say this but I've never seen a law or regulation enforcing it. Care to enlighten me?

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#609

Post by deanCommie »

mpalmer wrote: post #337
throwaway678808 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked in the org that Jeanine now runs. It had a series of bad-to-disastrous leaders at the Director, VP, and SVP level. To call out Jeanine and only Jeanine in language this harsh feels wrong. From my recollection and from what I have heard from people still working there, she is par for the course. Also I am almost never the person to bring this kind of thing up but ... there aren't a lot of other black women in…

While I don't think mentioning her by name was necessary (she's just an example of the culture of bad middle management he's calling out), I do think highlighting her race as a meta-criticism does neither the OP nor Banks herself any favors. My rule of thumb: unless given an obvious reason not to, assume good faith on the part of individuals.

Throwaway didn't claim bad faith necessarily, but just pointed out an important variable.

It's good to have good faith, but it's also good to understand that good faith individuals also suffer from blindspots and unconscious biases.

Hypothetically if there is a set of leaders, directors, and VPs, that all seem equally incompetent, but you call out only one, what might be the reason for it? It could be random. It could be because they were this person's actual direct manager. It coudl be because they're genuinely the one that are the most incompetent of the lot. But it could also be that they're the one perceived to be the most incompetent of the lot. Why? Does them being a woman or black factor into it? Who knows. Not even OP might.

It's not helpful to jump to racism at a moment's notice. It's not helpful to use race as a shield from criticism. But it's also not helpful to pretend that racism doesn't exist, even unconsciously within folks that would otherwise believe they don't have a prejudiced bone in their body.

In conclusion, people shouldn't ACCUSE, and other people shouldn't get DEFENSIVE. It's OK to discuss. I thought Throwaway did a decent job of not accusing. Many responses got too defensive tho.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#610

Post by whoknowsidont »

obviouslynotme wrote: post #584
whoknowsidont wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and the ability to understand what the organization even is becomes impossible. What makes it impossible?

I explain it in the third paragraph but to illustrate it further: Consider a function. A function that is 1 line long is immediately understandable. At 10 lines, it is readable within a minute or two. At 100 lines, it is maybe legible to someone who lives in that function. At 1000 lines, it is a black box. Human organizations are the same way. You might suggest refactoring, which is what companies do too. They create…

But that has to do with the capabilities of the executives involved, it doesn't make it impossible. Just like in your example, there are many, many developers that can perfectly understand large functions or code bases without issue.

If you have such a code base and you hire people that are not equipped, either through inexperience or capability, of managing that code base that is a resourcing issue.

If your executives cannot understand and control the organization they are tasked with controlling and cultivating, then they should be fired.

Which is basically what this dude is getting at.

Post reply on HN