5 ms·

> I’ve spent thousands of hours reading books, writing code, and watching computer science lectures, all to prepare for the Google software engineer interview.

> I’ve spent thousands of hours reading books, writing code, and watching computer science lectures, all to prepare for the Google software engineer interview. Shouldn't you just be doing this anyway if you want to be a good computer scientist? That's how you learn. You constantly take in new information and attempt to apply it and Computer Science is one of the most enabling fields of this form of learning since 1) we all love to churn out an "Experiment" every once and a while and have it fall into being a small side project that makes us a few k and 2) almost EVERYTHING is free! All the info is made by basement-dwelling nerds who sit at home and build cool ass shit and as such they put it all on the internet! Being one of these basement dwelling nerds, it's frigin amazing to have a wealth of all of the fields best research at my fingertips just a google away and I love learning this stuff not for an inevitable goal of "Being a Googler (tm)" but instead of furthering what I know about the world. If the author is reading this, good on you for learning but don't worry about being a googler if you can do this then you're better then the average googler because you're in the top 1 maybe 2% of all computer scientists if you continually want to learn more. Google even thinks that way, look at their higher level employees like Rob Pike, people who think programmers must be limited because they aren't able to think as well as him about abstractions. Don't waste your time at google. Start a company, build something amazing for yourself or do contract work for others, write these blog posts to get more clients, and make the world a better place. If you're this smart you don't need to run a hamsterwheel for a huge Google-sized corporation.

stonemetal 10y ago
>Shouldn't you just be doing this anyway if you want to be a good computer scientist? Rather depends on the material. Writing code to learn something new, yes. Writing the same linked list inversion routine over and over, so that you can do it flawlessly on a white board during an interview not so much.
linkregister 10y ago
I agree he's way ahead of the game; being an engineer at Google would be a step back unless: 1. He gets placed as a staff engineer or director. 2. He gets a new shiny project that for some reason he has reasonable autonomy over. Otherwise he'll get tired of the big-company politics. I can't imagine why a self-starter like this would want a set of bosses. He's already at the next level, building his own companies (likely an app here and there). He may not be making millions but he's got the fundamentals down. I would think that most folks on HN would much rather be able to own their own businesses rather than being an employee at a large company. Edit: further down some commenters investigated and figured it out: this blog post is marketing for a Google interview-prep training he intends to run. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13195257 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13195257
- ryandrake 10y ago
  Interesting how you consider "building his own companies" to be the next level. Maybe indeed this is a commonly held HN view. I've always thought doing a start-up (or working for a medium sized company) is what you do early on, in order to gain the skills needed and prep for the end goal: Working for one of the top prestigious companies. Look at all the start-ups that are evidently founded for the sole purpose of being acquired by one of the Big Boys.
  - arglebarnacle 10y ago
    It's definitely true that startups are often founded for the sole purpose of being acquired by one of the Big Boys--but not so that the founders get to work there. It's because they're hoping to get rich--make the perhaps $10M+ so that they can do whatever they want with the rest of their lives. You almost make it sound like the startup is part of their Google interview strategy and acquisition is how they get hired, but I'd venture that most founders probably don't want to spend more than a couple years at the parent company. They want to start the next phase of their lives.
    - ryandrake 10y ago
      I wonder if there is any data showing whether on average starting a startup and running it for a year or so is a more reliable path to employment (through aqui-hiring) at these big companies than firing resumes into their black hole job sites or milking your contacts. I mean, sure, it's a "long game" strategy.
      - thesimpsons1022 10y ago
        these companies hire tens of thousands of engineers and only a very small percent are acquihired
      - morgante 10y ago
        It's by far a worse strategy. The median outcome for a startup is much worse than the median job search.

stonemetal 10y ago

>Shouldn't you just be doing this anyway if you want to be a good computer scientist? Rather depends on the material. Writing code to learn something new, yes. Writing the same linked list inversion routine over and over, so that you can do it flawlessly on a white board during an interview not so much.

linkregister 10y ago

I agree he's way ahead of the game; being an engineer at Google would be a step back unless: 1. He gets placed as a staff engineer or director. 2. He gets a new shiny project that for some reason he has reasonable autonomy over. Otherwise he'll get tired of the big-company politics. I can't imagine why a self-starter like this would want a set of bosses. He's already at the next level, building his own companies (likely an app here and there). He may not be making millions but he's got the fundamentals down. I would think that most folks on HN would much rather be able to own their own businesses rather than being an employee at a large company. Edit: further down some commenters investigated and figured it out: this blog post is marketing for a Google interview-prep training he intends to run. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13195257 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13195257

ryandrake 10y ago
Interesting how you consider "building his own companies" to be the next level. Maybe indeed this is a commonly held HN view. I've always thought doing a start-up (or working for a medium sized company) is what you do early on, in order to gain the skills needed and prep for the end goal: Working for one of the top prestigious companies. Look at all the start-ups that are evidently founded for the sole purpose of being acquired by one of the Big Boys.
- arglebarnacle 10y ago
  It's definitely true that startups are often founded for the sole purpose of being acquired by one of the Big Boys--but not so that the founders get to work there. It's because they're hoping to get rich--make the perhaps $10M+ so that they can do whatever they want with the rest of their lives. You almost make it sound like the startup is part of their Google interview strategy and acquisition is how they get hired, but I'd venture that most founders probably don't want to spend more than a couple years at the parent company. They want to start the next phase of their lives.
  - ryandrake 10y ago
    I wonder if there is any data showing whether on average starting a startup and running it for a year or so is a more reliable path to employment (through aqui-hiring) at these big companies than firing resumes into their black hole job sites or milking your contacts. I mean, sure, it's a "long game" strategy.
    - thesimpsons1022 10y ago
      these companies hire tens of thousands of engineers and only a very small percent are acquihired
    - morgante 10y ago
      It's by far a worse strategy. The median outcome for a startup is much worse than the median job search.