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

What I learned getting acquired by Google

shreyans.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 645 posts

Re: What I learned getting acquired by Google

#631

Post by shostack »

fidotron wrote: post #81
dekhn wrote: post #29

I remember a startup that had a great product that would match you, a person with a questiojn about a topic, with an expert on that topic, over gChat. Google acquired them, and they immediately were told they had to port their infra into google3 and borg. This was a short window where the new hotness was help-over-chat. They rewrote their whole system and then Google told them they didn't actually need the product (a…

I think the outside world massively underestimates the viciousness of politics in the upper echelons of Google, and how it has been that way for a very long time. (It predates Sundar ascending to CEO). I have never worked for Google, but closely enough with teams and execs in those upper regions to know how the sausage is made and it forever soured me on possibly working there (and I believe that is entirely mutual).…

Can you share more details or anecdotes of politics there?

Re: What I learned getting acquired by Google

#632

Post by blagie »

taude wrote: post #435
blagie wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the same. The Microsoft problem was * independent* contractors. I.E. treating people as self-employed. Normal contractors are employees of a temp firm. None of these issues apply there. Footnote: I started my career as an IC, before I had family or kids. It was great. 32 hour work weeks and time (and the legal right) to do startups on the side. Ton of flexibility relative to a real job.

The microsoft lawsuit applied to the contractor staffing agencies, too. I'd google it for you, bute they had so many orange v-badges back in the day, that it has to be pretty easy to google.

Web search says that contrary to stereotypes, the problem was that they did NOT have contractor staffing agencies, and that as a result, they were not withholding taxes. This was resolved by bringing in a staffing agency.

A second problem was that they DID have ambiguous language in their employee handbooks, which meant that once temps were ruled employees, they became benefit-eligible, including in retroactively.

https://www.reuters.com/article/businesspropicks-us-findlaw-...

Re: What I learned getting acquired by Google

#633

Post by lazide »

astrange wrote: post #626
lazide wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What they did with Ayer’s was so clearly unsustainable (and disproportionate) it’s a classic story in the business world of giving away the farm. Anyone doing that at scale is going bankrupt quickly. Which is the point.

Google has infinite money and doesn't have to care about things like that. They can waste money on food just like they waste it hiring 10000 engineers who don't do any work.

Bwahaha. Good luck with that.

Re: What I learned getting acquired by Google

#634

Post by mattigames »

svieira wrote: post #211
mattigames wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im pretty sure that if there were only one single human in the world the success ratio of the communication with God would be just as bleak, and the situation there is more like a company that after digging a tiny bit you discover only exists on paper.

> after digging a tiny bit What makes you so sure that "the company" doesn't exist? Sounds like you've discovered something almost axiomatic to have that level of certainty since there isn't a state-of-Deleware for the perfect being.

The time to argue is long gone, if you are past highschool and still believe in ghosts you call "Gods" I don't want anything to do with you, that exception you make in your head from some basic rational thinking makes me suspect that you have many one similar exceptions that I am better away from.

Re: What I learned getting acquired by Google

#635

Post by eru »

OJFord wrote: post #582
eru wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No love for Switzerland?

I didn't mean 'Western Europe' to exclude it. UN geoscheme lists it as such if you want something concrete. (Though it also puts the UK in Northern Europe, and leaves out Italy & Spain & Portugal (Southern), which I didn't mean either.) It's a funny term. In UK use it means something like 'mainland Europe but not Russia or some former Soviet states'. It's about the bits you think of and travel to, I suppose. Although…

Oh, I meant EU+UK would exclude Switzerland. No comment about Western Europe intended.

Re: What I learned getting acquired by Google

#638

Post by ExoticPearTree »

RugnirViking wrote: post #602
ExoticPearTree wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Children of wealthy people who have no motivation to contribute anything to the world, learn no skills, and are lazy, should not end up on the same level as hardworking skilled children of poor parents. They should end much lower. Barriers to this include enormous inheritances, the housing market (prices driven up enormously by hoarding and inheritance), the cost of university education, vast disparities in the qua…

I am not arguing it is morally wrong for a wealthy child to spend their wealth. I am talking about the whole of society. It's really very annoying of you to persist in strawmanning me in literally every coment. Sure I used negative words to describe an entirely hypothetical person, but the reality is that people exist on a range of productivity. let me switch to a tangent. You seemed to be concerned with making a wea…

One aspect is the work you do and what it pays. If you're in the right industry, you can become wealthy (being in top 5-10% or less of the population) working a normal job.

On the other hand, if you're in a industry that pays very little, then no matter how much you work, you're not going to make it. And probably you're going to make if you decide to become an entrepreneur and get a piece of the pie. But it doesn't work for all and the only thing you can do is to switch industries if you can.

And these days I think the inequalities are greater due to rampant inflation that makes everyone poorer (considering only money earned) and though in percentage terms it is the same for everyone, it hits the lowest earners the most.

The thing is that in a free market I don't know how this can be solved.

Post reply on HN