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

Jobs at Google (1999)

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 133 posts

Re: Jobs at Google (1999)

#71

Post by charmides »

woranl wrote: post #57
sambeau wrote: post #25

Earlier 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.

Google were not as "evil" when Larry Page and Sergey Brin were in charge. Nowadays, the moral standard is very low.

They're still in charge.

Re: Jobs at Google (1999)

#72

Post by urda »

mattlondon wrote: post #37
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.

> fellas Not just men! Men, Women, and everything in between.

> > fellas

> Not just men! Men, Women, and everything in between.

  fella (fel·la) 
  - nonstandard spelling of fellow, used in representing speech in various dialects.
So we follow 'fellow':

  fellow (fel·low)
  - a person in the same position, involved in the same activity, or otherwise associated with another.
And so we can conclude that this is completely fine. It can easily be reasoned that the GP was using it to refer to a generic group of individuals not just a single gender. By you drawing attention to it when it was a proper usage of the word, actually does more harm than good to your cause.

Re: Jobs at Google (1999)

#73

Post by f055 »

sambeau wrote: post #25
f055 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is funny, because actually, their business model was never "really cool", just "evil" ;)

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.

If you think that's when "evil" crept in, you really should think again how "evil" works - or, how would you implement and scale such a business model. Hint: long before they even started taking over the world of ads. The goals were defined at the beginning.

Re: Jobs at Google (1999)

#74

Post by throwaway0255 »

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.

How true is this today?

Re: Jobs at Google (1999)

#75

Post by vkdelta »

skj wrote: post #47
adrianN wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What position? If you want to disclose.

Re: Jobs at Google (1999)

#76

Post by FrojoS »

godelmachine wrote: post #62
inerte wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Its not. There rejection rate is higher, though. Still, a person who gets into Harvard is more likely to also get into Google than vice versa.

Google gets more applications per open position, so they also have to reject more. Lots of people think "Why not give it a shot and apply at Google." Very few think the same about Harvard. Also, I would say it takes more effort to apply to a university. They will require essays, SAT/GRE and letters of recommendations for a valid application.

Re: Jobs at Google (1999)

#77

Post by DanBC »

urda wrote: post #72
mattlondon wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fellas Not just men! Men, Women, and everything in between.

> > fellas > Not just men! Men, Women, and everything in between. fella (fel·la) - nonstandard spelling of fellow, used in representing speech in various dialects. So we follow 'fellow': fellow (fel·low) - a person in the same position, involved in the same activity, or otherwise associated with another. And so we can conclude that this is completely fine . It can easily be reasoned that the GP was using it to refer…

Fella is overwhelmingly used as a gendered term to refer to men.

How many real world examples of fella being used to refer to women can you find?

Re: Jobs at Google (1999)

#79

Post by exoducks »

urda wrote: post #72
mattlondon wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fellas Not just men! Men, Women, and everything in between.

> > fellas > Not just men! Men, Women, and everything in between. fella (fel·la) - nonstandard spelling of fellow, used in representing speech in various dialects. So we follow 'fellow': fellow (fel·low) - a person in the same position, involved in the same activity, or otherwise associated with another. And so we can conclude that this is completely fine . It can easily be reasoned that the GP was using it to refer…

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fella https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fella

Nearly every usage of "fella" I've heard has had a "male" implication. At least in US English.

Re: Jobs at Google (1999)

#80

Post by mbrumlow »

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…

So so so sorry for zero peoof reading. So many typos. I just really wanted to get my thought out .

It's too late to edit and fix the issues :(

Post reply on HN