91–100 of 225 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cloudflare is not having any issue, it's just used here as a proxy to help with caching and static files. The real server hosting the application is down. However this comment was a bit useless.
Cached version: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp... (Ironically by Google)
"Nicklas, a simple no thank you I am not interested would have sufficed -Patrick"
"Niklas thank you for kindly sharing your worldview with me. I'm always trying to fill the void of my poor intellect's inability to create its own opinions. Is there any feed I can subscribe to? I'm sure I'm going to need more opinions going forward as I waddle through life."
They stopped saying that, so past tense should be used when mentioning it.
Just out of curiosity, what do you folks see as the difference between looking at text with the intent to correct spelling (like this text box does) versus looking at text to put an advertisement next to it? (If I wanted to go reductio ad absurdum, what about looking at text to change foo into a link?) To be clear: I'm honestly curious, not trying to defend or advocate for one interpretation over another.
dictionary -> fuzzy search -> spelling correction, corrected for every word ever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's what I wrote them last time, more or less: > Thank you for your interest and taking the time to discuss employment opportunities, but at this time I have decided not to pursue a further relationship with Google as an employer. I wish you the best in your future endeavors.
Mine was: "Unfortunately, Google is not a company i have any interest in working for. Thanks for getting in touch, though, and good luck with your hunt." The impression i've formed is that Google is full of people who are quite smart, but think they're really smart, and have decided to build themselves a technical ecosystem that has no interaction with the rest of the world. That doesn't sound like fertile ground for…
That's the main reason I'll never apply to Google. Not that I won't get in, but that I won't have the political klout to actually get to work on some of the fun stuff.
They're employing tens of thousands of very bright people; yet the truly interesting stuff will have been done by a few hundred / thousand of those.
What reason do I have for believing that I'll be in that small percentage rather than the other 90+% doing boring grunt work...
I think this unduly conflates his displeasure at the automated scanning of emails to target advertising and the NSA etc. bulk access to data. The former doesn't make the latter any more likely. All webmail services must hold their customers' emails, and they are therefore open to being read by a government or third party. Users could encrypt their emails, but it's very hard to do this while also making logging in and…
But when you think of it for like 2 seconds, automated scanning does help the NSA. Such software is easy to re-purpose. With the right subpoena, I give Google a week before it gives away a nice social graph of US dissidence to the NSA.
The primary reason I won't work for Google is because I'm nowhere near smart enough. But I like to tell myself that the ethical shortcuts they've taken in pursuit of the almighty dollar are a good secondary reason. It's just that I don't need a secondary reason, so yay, consequence-free ethics!
> The primary reason I won't work for Google is because I'm nowhere near smart enough I think plenty of people tend to vastly overestimate Google's (or Facebook's, ...) hiring bar. I know quite a few people who would be happy to work there and (I believe) can easily beat the hiring process, but they self-eliminate themselves from the game, so I definitely recommend to folks not to make a prejudice about whether they…
Pretty well-written sentiment, only thing is that recruiters cast a pretty wide net and certainly wouldn't read through anyone's life story if presented with the opportunity. However, I'm sure that if every person who gets contacted by a Google recruiter responds with a similar diatribe about their disillusionment with Google's ways, they just might take notice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's what I wrote them last time, more or less: > Thank you for your interest and taking the time to discuss employment opportunities, but at this time I have decided not to pursue a further relationship with Google as an employer. I wish you the best in your future endeavors.
Mine was: "Unfortunately, Google is not a company i have any interest in working for. Thanks for getting in touch, though, and good luck with your hunt." The impression i've formed is that Google is full of people who are quite smart, but think they're really smart, and have decided to build themselves a technical ecosystem that has no interaction with the rest of the world. That doesn't sound like fertile ground for…
The guy in question gave me a bunch of totally idiotic questions about details about filesystem implementations, and clearly didn't like it when I pointed out to him that there wasn't one single answer to the questions he raised the way he'd asked them, and proceeded to give him an outline of the various solutions that applied for a few different filesystems. He wanted specific textbook details about a filesystem that was entirely irrelevant for the position.
My impression was that he was "textbook smart", and would answer questions about the specific stuff he'd studied very well - the questions he asked fit very well with that -, and would probably excel at brainteasers, but his interpersonal skills and broader understanding of the subjects he asked me about appeared to be so weak that had I been on the other side of the table, I'd never have considered hiring him.
I "failed" that interview, only to have the recruiter bring it up in some recruitment committee or something and get it set aside and get me through to the next step on the basis of the notes I sent her of all the issues I saw with the questions. But only after she spent a lot of time lamenting the process (this is a common team with Google recruiters - every one I've spoken to has been incredibly frustrated at their own processes).
But by then I'd lost interest - the guy in question was in the group I'd have managed, and I really did not like the thought of having to deal with him on a daily basis. Or the thought of a team staffed with similar people... Or the thought of working somewhere where the HR processes are so messed up that their recruiters spends half the time they talk to me apologising about how their recruitment works.
I know there are lots of great people at Google, but every interaction I've had with their recruitment process makes me less inclined to want to work there.