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

No, I still don't want to work for Google

infotrope.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 410 posts

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#91

Post by illuminate »

michaelochurch wrote: post #35
varelse wrote: post #28

I worked at Google for a short stint. I found the tech interview easy and I wasn't asked anything particularly ridiculous. I received a job offer shortly thereafter and accepted. As someone who regularly interviews prospective engineers at my current gig, I see no problem with expecting candidates to arrive prepared to answer algorithm questions or questions about their strongest programming language. Ditto for someo…

I futilely attempted to get reassigned to something close to field D (really, B, C, E, or F would have been just peachy) and that seemingly got me flagged as trouble internally. "Meets Expectations" ranges from 3.0 to 3.4, and employees in this range have no idea where in that interval they landed, even the career effects of the numbers are dramatically different. 3.4 is above average, while 3.0 is fatal to transfer…

"A lot of Enron employees had nowhere to go (for geographical and specialty reasons) and had to make ethical compromises"

You're not seriously blaming Enron on your average grunt, are you?

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#92

Post by spacemanaki »

bmelton wrote: post #4

I tried, but I found that I can't really identify with the plights of some. Thankfully (for reasons I'd rather not be challenged to justify, except to say that it's apparently good as measured by others) I'm a fairly normal white guy with no marginal traits that might cause me to have different viewpoints than I currently do. This means that I support the notion real names on Google Plus, and I also believe that all…

You wrote in another comment that you think you unintentionally stirred things up with your comment on empathy, but I'm going to pile on anyway. I didn't downvote your comment though, because even though I take serious issue with your comment, your post did foster discussion.

I think you're using the word "empathy" incorrectly. If you really empathize as you claim, you wouldn't dismiss the "possibly very real concerns" as just "perceived fear". I don't need to tell you that the people you've met are just anecdata. It's fine if you can't relate or identify, but the meaning of empathy is putting yourself in someone else's shoes. It doesn't really sound like you're doing that.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#93

Post by Raphael_Amiard »

bmelton wrote: post #44
LaRakel wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pseudonymity for everyone helps the ones who do need it, because then they don't stand out. If you're not part of any minority or have no radical politics, yeah you might not need it. But even then, you would want the comfort of the advertising industry and your future employer not being able to disrespect your privacy. (Public data and privacy? Yes.) Why then is it good to kick people out for using pseudonyms? Why d…

I didn't mean to imply that they don't have the right to anonymity, just that I don't think that Google is any less right for refusing to provide it. It is their platform, and those who feel they require anonymity are free to choose another platform (like Livejournal, Twitter, Identi.ca, etc.) to voice their opinions from. Whether or not the benefit of real names matters, Google has decided that they think it does. I…

> I didn't mean to imply that they don't have the right to anonymity, just that I don't think that Google is any less right for refusing to provide it. It is their platform, and those who feel they require anonymity are free to choose another platform (like Livejournal, Twitter, Identi.ca, etc.) to voice their opinions from.

I try to be free, but because i have a Google account (for GMail), i keep being harassed by Google, around 10 times a week, to join Google+.

I don't want to use Google+ (by principle, because i have no problem using my real name online). But i want to keep my GMail account. And this is getting increasingly difficult.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#94

Post by rachelbythebay »

raldi wrote: post #41

Please don't propagate the myth that Google asks prospective programmers questions like, "How many golf balls could you fit on a bus?" Google interviewers list the questions they asked when they write up their conclusions, and anyone who asked a question like that for an engineering interview would be immediately contacted by the hiring commitee and told not to do it again.

What's actually in the post: "If you are a Google recruiter, and you want me to interview for SWE or SRE or any role that has an algorithm pop quiz as part of the interview, [...]"

I was asked about algorithms for my internal reinterview to transfer from SRE (O ladder) to SWE (T ladder) in 2010. It was the usual sorting algorithm complexity stuff. That's never been my strong suit, and I'm sure I disappointed the interviewer. I sure felt like crap afterwards.

On the other hand, the second interviewer engaged me in practical matters like designing a class which would do some things, and would be thread-safe, and how I'd rig it. Also there was the question of what you could do without a mutex for whatever reason, and when you needed to suck it up and burn the CPU time on it. Then we got into the actual design of a class like Mutex and the helper MutexLock wrapper normally used with it in the depot, and so on, and so forth. I imagine the responses from that individual helped balance out the algorithm drilling I got the day before.

Where are you seeing the "golf balls" question in this post? What you said is true, that it's a crap question, and asking it would probably draw attention to you, but why did you even bring it up? It's like you're blaming the writer for propagating something when it hasn't even been mentioned.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#95

Post by sxp »

>The very day after I blogged about that, my Google+ account was suspended, for using the name I was almost universally known by. Over the next couple of months, I campaigned tirelessly for Google+ to change its policies, working with the EFF and other advocates. My work was covered in Wired, The Atlantic, and a number of other mainstream press outlets. Obviously this was to no avail...

FYI, this policy has changed: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+BradleyHorowitz/posts/SM5RjubbM...

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#96

Post by Maakuth »

Jabbles wrote: post #42
varelse wrote: post #28

I worked at Google for a short stint. I found the tech interview easy and I wasn't asked anything particularly ridiculous. I received a job offer shortly thereafter and accepted. As someone who regularly interviews prospective engineers at my current gig, I see no problem with expecting candidates to arrive prepared to answer algorithm questions or questions about their strongest programming language. Ditto for someo…

What prevented you from moving to a different field? Is Google not the dynamic, chaotic mass of teams that I've been led to believe?

You're thinking Valve.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#97

Post by belorn »

bmelton wrote: post #74
belorn wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This idea that there are no real concerns about losses of anonymity is to me very odd. Its odd, because its obvious that the information is valuable, and the possibility for abuse is almost unlimited. To point to a few of them, what if, if ever time you drive to fast, your car insurance increased in costs? (already happened in sweden). What if, if ever time you took a job interview, the company order up a complete re…

Regarding the car insurance: This is happening to an extent in the US currently. There are several companies who offer discounted rates for attaching 'trackers' to your car that report your driving behavior back to the insurance company. I have very real concerns that this will grow to becoming as mandatory as requiring seat belts while driving. I'm sort of mixed on this point because, while this is obviously a very…

As a publishing forum, I agree that a real name policy has little effect. Sadly, I rarely see people use social network sites as a publishing forum, and more like a social space to hang around at. Its like a bar. technically, a bar is for drinking, but if bars only purpose was drinking, few would go there. An other example would be to compare Google+ and BBC opinion section. Both are technically the same thing, an publication forum. But beyond the technical viewpoint, they share nothing in common. If BBC opinion section would have a real name policy, I would not care that much.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#98

Post by dpritchett »

tptacek wrote: post #67
michaelochurch wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I futilely attempted to get reassigned to something close to field D (really, B, C, E, or F would have been just peachy) and that seemingly got me flagged as trouble internally. "Meets Expectations" ranges from 3.0 to 3.4, and employees in this range have no idea where in that interval they landed, even the career effects of the numbers are dramatically different. 3.4 is above average, while 3.0 is fatal to transfer…

WAT? Enron was a scam from the very highest levels of the corporation. Unless you're suggesting that Kenneth Lay got a 3.0 from his board of directors and reacted accordingly, this is a ridiculous comparison.

Apologies in advance for the Gladwell link, but he's likely referring to Enron's "star system": http://www.gladwell.com/2002/2002_07_22_a_talent.htm

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#99

Post by rmrfrmrf »

timfrietas wrote: post #84
rmrfrmrf wrote: post #24

One thing I can't stand is "recruiters" who invite you to come interview with them. Oh, great, you "invite" me to come torture myself for months on end just so I can have a snowball's chance in hell at getting a job? This is 2012. If you want to learn about me, go on my website and read my blog posts, look at my current projects, and download my resumé. If you think I'm so great, make me an offer. Don't spam my inbox…

As someone who does a fair amount of hiring, I would never hire someone off the strength of their (supposed) work alone. The ability to problem solve under pressure and their ability to communicate effectively with others are really important factors I won't get from looking at their Github account.

I agree in situations where the candidates are the ones doing the outreach. However, what I'm saying is that I don't want to be recruited by a company unless they've actually heard of me before and think my work is on par with what they want. It's bullshit to me to be spammed by a company that claims you'd be great with their team, only to be dumped into the same candidate pool as 800 other applicants.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#100

Post by papsosouid »

potatolicious wrote: post #70
raldi wrote: post #41

Please don't propagate the myth that Google asks prospective programmers questions like, "How many golf balls could you fit on a bus?" Google interviewers list the questions they asked when they write up their conclusions, and anyone who asked a question like that for an engineering interview would be immediately contacted by the hiring commitee and told not to do it again.

Google was well known for logic brain teasers like that in years past - there was a time when Google recruitment was defined by such questions. They've since stopped, and sadly it looks like Microsoft has taken up the mantle for stupid irrelevant logic questions.

Were they well known for it because they did it, or because people assumed they did it? An awful lot of people immediately jump to "stupid brain teasers" when hearing "they ask technical questions". I have people write code and solve actual problems during interviews, and have gotten several "these kinds of riddles are a waste of time" responses from people who are offended by the notion that I want them to be competent.
Post reply on HN