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

691–700 of 1001 posts

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#691

Post by ddejohn »

_the_inflator wrote: post #288

I give Hixie exactly this: he is not brownnosing and he openly speaks up. There is nothing insulting from his side, and I personally like people with the standards Hixie has. It sounds like he acted internally in the same way which is fine. Hixie has seen some things at Google. I will be forever thankful to him for realizing HTML5. I read many document changes back then and when people left out of protest or whatever…

> The web would not be what it is like without him.

As somebody that really dislikes the way the web generally is nowadays I got a chuckle out of this :)

This is a mostly tongue-in-cheek comment.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#692

Post by Ckirby »

antupis wrote: post #373
miohtama wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is called Scumpeter's creative destruction (to be distinguished from other creative destruction) and why large companies may lose the ability to be innovative and compete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction However. it's hard to see Google's core business dominance, search and ad, to be destroyed very easily. It's also super confusing that no other entity has been able to create a matching service…

5 years ago it was hard to see , now I ampersonally using more chatgpt than Google.

What kind of shallow, bland, inoffensive and disconnected items do you search for that a simple chatbot can spit out?

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#693

Post by Ckirby »

sumeno wrote: post #598
pardoned_turkey wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Layoffs at Google didn't happen because they had to happen. They happened because the leadership was concerned that in the good years, the company accumulated way too much dead weight - pointless projects, underperforming employees that the managers never had to deal with because they could always hire more people, etc. It's an awful fix and only a temporary one, but unnecessary risk-taking can jeopardize a lot more…

> Layoffs at Google didn't happen because they had to happen. They happened because the leadership was concerned that in the good years, the company accumulated way too much dead weight - pointless projects, underperforming employees that the managers never had to deal with because they could always hire more people, etc. This doesn't really match the reality of the layoffs. They weren't team/project based or perform…

[flagged]

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#694

Post by strangescript »

pardoned_turkey wrote: post #86

Ian's post is pretty incisive, although I've read so many of these over the past 15 years or so. And the prescription is always to go back in time. I don't really think that's possible. When you're a newcomer, a disruptor, the whole point is to be different. You're bold, you have a clarity of purpose, you say things like "we're building a new kind of a company" or "the user comes first." But once you achieve market d…

Companies confuse their initial product success with general success. "We made this amazing thing, so everything we do is amazing". The logic is flawed but can carry the company a tremendous distance before becoming unsustainable. Google is reaching the early steps of the unsustainable phase, and their initial product success is finally being threatened via AI. Working on an open source library for 9 years and then complaining that the company is changing is ironic.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#695

Post by caminante »

cavisne wrote: post #617
progbits wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it was too much, but one counterpoint: if horrible managers never get called out how are you supposed to know to avoid them / how will they face consequences? I understand authors frustration, I've experienced the same in the past but could not voice this beyond just some close friends and coworkers (who knew it already anyway), for fear of repercussions. I've since left but of course this person remains, and f…

I think the right/ethical move is to identify your organization (ie Flutter) and not name anyone specifically. I agree completely with the article, but naming someone publicly makes the author seem like they are living in a bubble. Ie in their world the head of their org is a public figure, but hardly anyone knows what Flutter is let alone the org structure.

Why would the author single out Flutter if their critique is broader?

It's not a monolith organization. Google re-structured as a conglomerate (Alphabet). They're critiquing culture/values.

Further, if they were to single out Flutter, wouldn't the target be evident?

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#696

Post by rr808 »

paxys wrote: post #159

Every bit of innovation in the AI space today originated at Google. The company poured probably tens of billions into its Brain division, sponsored and made public every bit of research, and pretty much created the field of modern AI. So what was the outcome? When the employees realized they had struck gold they figured they'd rather go join startups or found their own companies instead, because regardless of the amo…

> When the employees realized they had struck gold they figured they'd rather go join startups or found their own companies instead

Ironically every AI person I know works on some dumb project with the goal they'll eventually get to work in Google/Meta for the big bucks. Maybe that is just a stepping stone.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#697

Post by jklm »

seraphsf wrote: post #529
teen wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean that incubator was a total waste of money. No one did anything, everyone was a bser from the top, and 95% of the projects were total failures. I think there were maybe 3 "successful" projects.

I ran one of the successful projects in Area 120. I joined Area 120 with huge skepticism. It was hamstrung and inefficient in its own ways. And I agree it didn’t reach its potential - largely because it was encased in Google 2020 instead of Google 2007. But to my surprise almost all of the projects were impressive, well-conceived, promising bets. And the people in Area 120 were among the top 10% of Googlers I worked…

Somewhat spicy take - if the people in Area 120 were among the top 10% of Googlers you worked with, they probably weren't the right builders to start a new vertical.

Most of what makes people effective at large companies is neutral or negative value when applied to very early-stage companies.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#698

Post by ulfw »

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…

Google founders have 51% of voting power. Nothing happens from public shareholders without their consent.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#699

Post by fastball »

makeitdouble wrote: post #677
caskstrength wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 leadership at Google. Makes this targeted attack feel worse. Unless I misunderstood the author she was his manager. It is not like he chose some random "black woman in leadership at Google" to attack.

But then, why point at "her department" when they are both in it ? My read is she's not in author's direct hierarchy line.

The author has worked the last 9 years on Flutter. Banks is the VP of "Developer X", which is the department that "owns" Flutter.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#700

Post by devnullbrain »

teaearlgraycold wrote: post #682
asim wrote: post #239

"...She treats engineers as commodities in a way that is dehumanising, reassigning people against their will in ways that have no relationship to their skill set..." You know, I remember a time I said, management just think of engineers as a resource and refer to us as such. But when the word "dehumanising" is used it strikes me a lot clearer. When this disconnected occurs between different layers of the same corpora…

Engineers at Google are referred to as “headcount”. Managers fight each other for headcount. When someone leaves they are lamented for their net loss of .67 headcount (right now you only get one hire for 3 attritions).

Does that mean managers are incentivised not to let go of underperformers?
Post reply on HN