5 ms·

Perhaps more interestingly, the author does not appear to understand engineering. This guy gets it. It's a deep temptation to abstract engineering away from h

Perhaps more interestingly, the author does not appear to understand engineering. This guy gets it. It's a deep temptation to abstract engineering away from humanism, but the idea that code can solve problems is an immature understanding of software. People have the problems; people provide the solutions. Code is a tool & intermediary, and hardly essential to the act of problem-solving.

searealist 9y ago
Then Google itself doesn't "get it", given how their interview process values technical qualities above all else.
- yongjik 9y ago
  Google's interview process is to guarantee basic technical competency. However you cannot reliably gauge social competency in a 4-hour interview: that's why Google will later look at the evaluation by your coworkers to determine your promotion. Before joining armchair HR quarterbacking, it might help you to consider that Google is one of the most successful IT companies and the post you read is by a successful and well-respected ex-Googler. If you can think up something in 30 seconds, they've thought about that.
  - searealist 9y ago
    This is the opposite of what Google looks for in an engineer. They look for basic social competency but technical excellence. I think you got the wrong impression from my post. I am not criticizing Google's HR department here. I am simply pointing out that it is in opposition to the medium article's assertions.
    - diegs 9y ago
      What Yonatan and the parent are saying is that what Google "looks for in an engineer" applies to what is possible to screen for during hiring, which is only the very start of your career at Google. In your actual career at Google pure technical ability it is very little of what Google "looks for"; that's necessary but not sufficient at all. Very few engineers are promoted for pure technical prowess; more often it's a combination of technical ability and EQ, or even just EQ. Mostly it's a function of impact, which requires getting shit done, which requires working well with others. The top engineers at Google (Jeff Dean, Sanjay, Yonatan, etc.) are known for being phenomenal mentors, managers, and leaders--not just phenomenal engineers. It's easy to be cynical and focus on instances where this is not true, but in my experience I agree with the parent that on the whole Google is quite good at managing its engineering org. In a XX,XXX person engineering org you're going to have some anomalies. And those are the ones that make these sorts of manifestos that are picked up by the media. Remember that Michael O. Church also worked at Google for a while and had a similarly controversial impact during his time there (look it up if you're unfamiliar). Source: I'm a xoogler.
smsm42 9y ago
Yet, if we look at Google's track record, they have much better luck with technical problems than with people-interaction problems. Search driven by algorithms - excellent. Social networks - epic fail. Advertising backend - money juggernaut, mostly driven by clever algorithms, as I understand? Mobile OS backend - great (well, ok, not too bad). Mobile OS frontend - meh. Chrome is kinda borderline, but I think technology has much more to do with its success then it having the best UX on the market. Shopping experience (outside of captive market of mobile users) - not too hot. Goggles - a flop. In general, I feel if I am talking about a product from Google, I could expect a lot of very clever technology, but kinda basic UX. Sometimes it works - e.g. search works with basic UX just fine, that's what most people need. Sometimes people would just take the technology and add their own UX and that'd work fine too. But I personally get a feeling that Google's core competence is exactly in places that you are calling "hardly essential". Am I wrong?
- letalvoj 9y ago
  First of all failure of the Google+ shows absolutely nothing important for this discussion. Secondly it's just your personal opinion that the Android is ugly. Anyway, how can you even compare UX/UI design decisions with the companies ability to handle work-place environment and stuff diversity? So yes... You are wrong like lightyears away wrong.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    > First of all failure of the Google+ shows absolutely nothing important for this discussion. Depends on what you mean by "this discussion". The manifesto which originated it - certainly not. The broader point raised about interaction between technology and sociological/humanitarian aspect of technology - I think yes. > Secondly it's just your personal opinion that the Android is ugly. It's not about "ugly", it's about... being very engineer-like in it's UI? As for my personal opinion, I don't mind it that much - I live in command line, after all. But I kinda learned that UI that engineer is comfortable with and UI that end-user is comfortable with are somewhat different things... > Anyway, how can you even compare UX/UI design decisions with the companies ability to handle work-place environment and stuff diversity? I don't and I think you completely misunderstood my point. Or, more precisely, you completely understood nothing about my point. I'm sorry I couldn't explain it better.
s_kilk 9y ago
Another choice quote from a little further down: > If someone told you that engineering was a field where you could get away with not dealing with people or feelings, then I’m very sorry to tell you that you have been lied to. This industry seems to have a problem with socially maladjusted young men who actually believe this. Then when the reality of their careers doesn't match the tech-shut-in fantasia, they lash out, like the manifesto author has done.
- koonsolo 9y ago
  I came across a lot of socially maladjusted geniuses. If you try to put them in the wrong environment with the wrong assignments, bad stuff happens. If you are able to manage them well, and let them do low level technical stuff, you can get amazing things out of them.
  - MartinCron 9y ago
    It seems like a disservice to society to isolate and protect antisocial software geniuses just because you might be able to get good work out of them.
    - Udik 9y ago
      Why?
      - MartinCron 9y ago
        Well, presumably other people in the organization would have to work with them, and that is hardly fair to those other people.
        koonsolo 9y ago
        Depends on those other people. I've worked with plenty of those people, and most of the time they can get along really well with other technical people, but not at all with all kinds of project managers, functional analysts, sales people, etc. If you make sure they only need to interface with other technical people, they can work pretty well in such an environment. And the technical colleagues sometimes like working with geniuses where they can learn a lot from.

searealist 9y ago

Then Google itself doesn't "get it", given how their interview process values technical qualities above all else.

yongjik 9y ago
Google's interview process is to guarantee basic technical competency. However you cannot reliably gauge social competency in a 4-hour interview: that's why Google will later look at the evaluation by your coworkers to determine your promotion. Before joining armchair HR quarterbacking, it might help you to consider that Google is one of the most successful IT companies and the post you read is by a successful and well-respected ex-Googler. If you can think up something in 30 seconds, they've thought about that.
- searealist 9y ago
  This is the opposite of what Google looks for in an engineer. They look for basic social competency but technical excellence. I think you got the wrong impression from my post. I am not criticizing Google's HR department here. I am simply pointing out that it is in opposition to the medium article's assertions.
  - diegs 9y ago
    What Yonatan and the parent are saying is that what Google "looks for in an engineer" applies to what is possible to screen for during hiring, which is only the very start of your career at Google. In your actual career at Google pure technical ability it is very little of what Google "looks for"; that's necessary but not sufficient at all. Very few engineers are promoted for pure technical prowess; more often it's a combination of technical ability and EQ, or even just EQ. Mostly it's a function of impact, which requires getting shit done, which requires working well with others. The top engineers at Google (Jeff Dean, Sanjay, Yonatan, etc.) are known for being phenomenal mentors, managers, and leaders--not just phenomenal engineers. It's easy to be cynical and focus on instances where this is not true, but in my experience I agree with the parent that on the whole Google is quite good at managing its engineering org. In a XX,XXX person engineering org you're going to have some anomalies. And those are the ones that make these sorts of manifestos that are picked up by the media. Remember that Michael O. Church also worked at Google for a while and had a similarly controversial impact during his time there (look it up if you're unfamiliar). Source: I'm a xoogler.

smsm42 9y ago

Yet, if we look at Google's track record, they have much better luck with technical problems than with people-interaction problems. Search driven by algorithms - excellent. Social networks - epic fail. Advertising backend - money juggernaut, mostly driven by clever algorithms, as I understand? Mobile OS backend - great (well, ok, not too bad). Mobile OS frontend - meh. Chrome is kinda borderline, but I think technology has much more to do with its success then it having the best UX on the market. Shopping experience (outside of captive market of mobile users) - not too hot. Goggles - a flop. In general, I feel if I am talking about a product from Google, I could expect a lot of very clever technology, but kinda basic UX. Sometimes it works - e.g. search works with basic UX just fine, that's what most people need. Sometimes people would just take the technology and add their own UX and that'd work fine too. But I personally get a feeling that Google's core competence is exactly in places that you are calling "hardly essential". Am I wrong?

letalvoj 9y ago
First of all failure of the Google+ shows absolutely nothing important for this discussion. Secondly it's just your personal opinion that the Android is ugly. Anyway, how can you even compare UX/UI design decisions with the companies ability to handle work-place environment and stuff diversity? So yes... You are wrong like lightyears away wrong.
- smsm42 9y ago
  > First of all failure of the Google+ shows absolutely nothing important for this discussion. Depends on what you mean by "this discussion". The manifesto which originated it - certainly not. The broader point raised about interaction between technology and sociological/humanitarian aspect of technology - I think yes. > Secondly it's just your personal opinion that the Android is ugly. It's not about "ugly", it's about... being very engineer-like in it's UI? As for my personal opinion, I don't mind it that much - I live in command line, after all. But I kinda learned that UI that engineer is comfortable with and UI that end-user is comfortable with are somewhat different things... > Anyway, how can you even compare UX/UI design decisions with the companies ability to handle work-place environment and stuff diversity? I don't and I think you completely misunderstood my point. Or, more precisely, you completely understood nothing about my point. I'm sorry I couldn't explain it better.

s_kilk 9y ago

Another choice quote from a little further down: > If someone told you that engineering was a field where you could get away with not dealing with people or feelings, then I’m very sorry to tell you that you have been lied to. This industry seems to have a problem with socially maladjusted young men who actually believe this. Then when the reality of their careers doesn't match the tech-shut-in fantasia, they lash out, like the manifesto author has done.

koonsolo 9y ago
I came across a lot of socially maladjusted geniuses. If you try to put them in the wrong environment with the wrong assignments, bad stuff happens. If you are able to manage them well, and let them do low level technical stuff, you can get amazing things out of them.
- MartinCron 9y ago
  It seems like a disservice to society to isolate and protect antisocial software geniuses just because you might be able to get good work out of them.
  - Udik 9y ago
    Why?
    - MartinCron 9y ago
      Well, presumably other people in the organization would have to work with them, and that is hardly fair to those other people.
      - koonsolo 9y ago
        Depends on those other people. I've worked with plenty of those people, and most of the time they can get along really well with other technical people, but not at all with all kinds of project managers, functional analysts, sales people, etc. If you make sure they only need to interface with other technical people, they can work pretty well in such an environment. And the technical colleagues sometimes like working with geniuses where they can learn a lot from.