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

761–770 of 1001 posts

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#761

Post by screye »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #497
screye wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think public, targeted statements like this are ever the right thing to do. As a previous believer in this, I now strongly disagree. (even if I am too chicken to do it myself) Tech nerds are usually nice and non-confrontational people. They get exploited to high heaven by those who are effective at navigating low-visibility & grey-area political spaces. When an org, leader, employee or associate taints ever…

The consequences of naming someone in such a manner, in an article that makes its rounds on the Internet, can be actually quite dire. Public harassment, etc. There are some pretty unhinged people out there, and in particular some rather ugly people who in particular get especially unhinged on the topic of women in tech at Google, etc. I think it's in very bad taste in this case.

This wasn't a twitter tirade. This was on his niche blog post about someone's personal experience and towards someone who was making 10s of millions. Big difference.

With her budget, just her org is effectively bigger than the biggest tech company in most countries of the world. At that point upper leadership is not allowed to differentiate between private and public life. Public criticism is private criticism and vice-versa. It's likely a testament to her achievements that she has earned an enviable? level of success that makes public criticism acceptable.

> in particular some rather ugly people who in particular get especially unhinged on the topic of women in tech at Google, etc.

That being said I do agree with your point. With those risks in mind, I still think it should be socially permissible to make this kind of post.

> I think it's in very bad taste in this case.

I thought it was done as well as one could. I know the west coast prides itself for its 'niceness', but in a lot of parts of USA, plain expression of dislike is considered in better taste than the kind of passive aggressiveness that would result from softening the poster's language. It was meant to be a targeted question at her competence. Just because she is one of many incompetent people at the helm at Google, doesn't invalidate the poster's experience.

The anecdotal optics might be bad. But I for one rely on Occam's razor before jumping to conclusions about racial/gender angles in everything.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#762

Post by havercosine »

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…

`why rock the boat` is spot on! Most large organisations eventually go into a mode of maximising the free cash flow for shareholders. I guess more or less this is by design. Investors, Founders and early employees take risks in short run for the rewards in the long run. A company cannot keep saying the promised green land is delayed by another 5 years.

Some criticism of CEO might be warranted. But remember that CEO compensations tied to profit after tax. I guess the only way to get back old Google is to start one!

Once number of employees hits a certain inflection point (roughly when one can't identify everyone with name), the focus for a lot of people is to keep their manager happy. Because any other goal is too abstract. Safi Bahcall's book Loonshots had some nice discussions on this point.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#763

Post by JSavageOne »

hot_gril wrote: post #65
paxys wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is it's not Sundar's job to be a visionary leader. That's not why the shareholders put him where he is. He is a bean counter and is doing a fantastic job bean counting and increasing Google's share price.

Google has passed up too many great opportunities that don't even take a visionary to see. Biggest examples, we let Zoom, OpenAI, and even Microsoft (Teams) steal our thunder. Microsoft, that company we make fun of as a dinosaur, moves faster than we do! I remember the discussions around the office right when ChatGPT came out. "Bard performs better," "we're more ethical," etc. Nope, they ate our lunch.

Bard is trash. In my experience it's ChatGPT > Bing Chat > Bard.

Shame because Google invented the transformer architecture that enabled the technology.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#766

Post by hinkley »

pas wrote: post #306
hinkley wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once noted that several of my coworkers and I had created a silent conspiracy to get a certain manager to clearly and concisely state her very bad ideas in front of the entire staff. This was not news to one of the other two people. He confessed he was doing it “for sport” and thought we were in on it. Only sort of. I think this statement might have been his little way to entertain himself.

can you give a few examples of what kind of bad ideas? like everyone should do all nighters or let's use email as the only login, no need for password for the first iteration, we will fix it later, or ... ?

It’s been long enough that I’ve successfully blocked a lot out, but it all kind of started because she put some terrible bullshit velocity graph up in a staff meeting that made our good weeks look like bad weeks and bad weeks look good. Derailed the whole meeting as people explained project management to a project manager.

Then the next staff meeting she put up the same graph. We explained five better ways to display the data.

All summer long, same graph, every meeting. At some point the relationship died.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#767

Post by ajkjk »

justin66 wrote: post #576
compiler-guy wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the past, such criticism of a leader would show up internally via Googlegeist and the leader and their reports would all know and possibly adjust. Cutting Googlegeist has knock on effects that create problems like this. The rank and file no longer have a way to communicate back up the chain honestly and things like this come out.

The vast majority of professionals resist the urge to call out their manager on a blog after they quit a job. Even without Googlegeist.

imo, they should not resist it. It is shameful to let bad things bad stay in the world unless you really need the self-preservation, and somebody with 18 years of google money does not.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#768

Post by brandall10 »

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…

The book "The Innovator's Dillemma" is about this concept.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#769

Post by Gigablah »

kuchenbecker wrote: post #679
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Microsoft might end up entrenching themselves the way they did in PCs through the 90s, possibly including a more successful attempt to control the browser/web experience That fear was kind of overblown. In those days of Steve Balmer, Microsoft was far less focused and organized, too high on its success with Windows and Office, for such a slow, large and bloated ship to react quickly and precisely enough on this. Jus…

Your description of msft sounds like current google with generative AI.

There’s always room for a runner-up. What you really don’t want to be in is 3rd place.

Re: Reflecting on 18 Years at Google

#770

Post by ronhews »

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…

Observing how companies evolve and face challenges as they grow is interesting. Priorities, risk tolerance, and organizational structures often change this process. While newcomers may emphasize innovation and disruption, market-dominant companies may prioritize maintaining the status quo to protect what they have achieved. Various factors, including the potential impact on careers and incomes, can influence this shift in mindset. Additionally, due to its uncertainty, established processes and experienced personnel may resist starting from scratch. In some cases, companies that aim to differentiate themselves from traditional models may operate similarly over time, realizing the reasons behind established practices.
Post reply on HN