12 ms·

> Overall, the job wasn't exciting to me. I didn't have to work that hard, and one day I had this realization while sitting in my gray cubicle (I was in a sea o

> Overall, the job wasn't exciting to me. I didn't have to work that hard, and one day I had this realization while sitting in my gray cubicle (I was in a sea of gray cubicles surrounded by gray walls, listening to white noise and all alone): I'm like, “Man I am so tired. I need to go home and take a nap.” I went home, but as soon as I got there I realized, “I'm not tired anymore.” Working at Intel was a draining environment, and I knew I wanted to leave. Ironic that's exactly how I felt at Google (minus the cubicle). So did a friend of mine quitting with me.

sjf 8y ago
Yeah, me too. But Google has more in common with Intel now than when it had 23 employees.
- mehrdada 8y ago
  True. I have a new catchphrase that I use: Google does everything at scale. They waste talent at scale.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    And it’s such an utter shame with their resources; they could be the next Bell Labs or Xerox PARC.
    - sanxiyn 8y ago
      That's like saying Microsoft could be the next Bell Labs. In reality, Microsoft is the next Bell, and Microsoft Research IS the next Bell Labs.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - nl 8y ago
      They've already done so much more than either of those. Bell Labs delivered a fair bit of tech, but Xerox PARC did great demos. Xerox PARC == Magic Leap or something like that.
      - bsaul 8y ago
        Don’t know why you were downvoted. Xerox parc did in fact release nothing to the general public iirc. But they got great tech which got ripped off, unlike magic leap maybe ?
        pvarangot 8y ago
        The Learning Group at PARK did release Smalltalk, but guess that's not "for the general public". I was under the idea they never really wanted to release a product for mass consumption.
        a7776f88862 8y ago
        > Xerox parc did in fact release nothing to the general public iirc. Right, just because you haven't bothered to look it up, it doesn't exist. Here are just the Xerox PARC work that was commercialized by Xerox I can think of off the top of my head: Ethernet, XNS, Interpress, the Star and D-series workstations, Mesa, Smalltalk, Cedar.
        scroot 8y ago
        Don't forget the laser printer, postscript, etc
    - nostrademons 8y ago
      They probably are. There's a ton of interesting research going on at Google that is not being capitalized on economically. They just need a few ambitious visitors or ex-employees to "liberate" it, the way Steve Jobs and Bill Gates did to Xerox. In some cases (eg. TensorFlow, Chromium, protobufs, or LevelDB) it's already been open-sourced. Note that neither AT&T nor Xerox were the prime beneficiaries of technologies developed at Bell Labs or PARC, respectively.
waterhouse 8y ago
He talks about that later: > On Leaving Google [...] But when I went in the next day, the energy drained out of me. I suddenly felt like I used to feel working at Intel. Partially I think Google had grown so much in my absence, but it was also partly a “boiling the frog” effect: before I spent time away, I hadn't noticed things slowly changing, but when I got back I realized, “Oh wow, here I am in a meeting with a bunch of people I don't know who are telling me to do stuff that I don't care about.”
ilovecaching 8y ago
I think it's highly dependent on your role, and at its current size your chances of getting lost in some piece of noise is quite high. Of course endless performance reviews also suck. Google is still a great place to work, but it's a corporation now, and there are just some things that don't scale.
- mehrdada 8y ago
  I suspect it'd mostly depend on your personal standards and ambitions than your role. I can't imagine many below-VP positions being much different on this dimension. Even many VPs and up are getting stuck in life-sucking unimportant activities.
  - ilovecaching 8y ago
    You're not wrong. It's definitely personal ambition. I think we all know that getting in != good reviews, moving up, etc.
  - hsaliak 8y ago
    Autonomy is harder and harder to get at larger corporations and play a big role in self identifying work as satisfying or valuable. Even if you manage to get it, it can be taken away by an outsider in a large corp at any point. Startups are safer bets from this perspective.
rococode 8y ago
I was at a talk last week given by a startup founder and he said something similar that went along these lines: The bigger the company, the smaller your role's coverage. You get well-compensated and aren't worked too hard, but your job might effectively be "you're responsible for these two screens of this one component of this particular application". The conflict is that the bigger the company, the higher the bar for entry. So you end up with a bunch of really bright, challenge-loving people cooped up working day in day out on very specific cogs of the giant machine, and that's not an ideal lifestyle for all of those people.
- shanghaiaway 8y ago
  "Product Manager, Friend List at Facebook"
- ilovecaching 8y ago
  That's not what's incentivized though. Getting in to a FAANG is just the first step. The next step is to actually show that you can affect more than just your two screens. That's why they work in constant review cycles. People who get frustrated are often the people who don't know how to affect more than their two screens. It's hard, because you're competing with other people who are equally or more brilliant. Although Google is big enough now that we can demote brilliant to fairly intelligent I think.
  - basejumping 8y ago
    From what I hear it's turning fairly intelligent to asshole
    - baccheion 8y ago
      Google has been riddled with a--holes since at least 2010.
      - tonyedgecombe 8y ago
        To be honest our whole industry has more than its fair share.
vadym909 8y ago
So, who's the new 'Google' now?
- mehrdada 8y ago
  One should start their own if they can't identify one, I'd say...
- ilovecaching 8y ago
  Facebook, Google, Apple, and Netflix still have some of the best talent in the bay. They also push out a lot of amazing projects (PyTorch, React, Go, Chromium, Tensorflow), although Netflix much less so. At the end of the day they have the money, and they do provide ridiculous perks.
  - ronilan 8y ago
    > They also push out a lot of amazing projects ... although Netflix much less so. Actually Netflix much more so, only their projects are not in software. Just sayin.
    - arbie 8y ago
      Where can I find such non-software projects?
      - curuinor 8y ago
        think they mean the movies and things
  - onion2k 8y ago
    But you will only ever be a tiny part of those big projects. If you want big challenges or big recognition perhaps a smaller startup will make you happier...
    - baccheion 8y ago
baccheion 8y ago
I also felt the same. The place was draining, distracting, chaotic, cramped, and noisy (in 2010). A complete waste of time in hindsight that's still with me today (haven't been able to work again since leaving at the end of 2010). Everyone still says Google is so great. Enough that I still wonder what happened. I also couldn't settle in, didn't like anyone, and was continually interrupted/harassed/followed.
- sigi45 8y ago
  oO you didn't like anyone there? Sounds like a problem with yourself. Can't imagine that you were sourrounded by assholes.
  - baccheion 8y ago
    It didn't matter if they had an off-putting personality or were "OK." Either way, I just wasn't feeling it. On the other hand, the same happens wherever I go. Maybe Google's reputation of attracting certain personalities led me to believe there would be others that were similar or like-minded. Instead, they were mostly unhealthy judger types (though I'm not sure if the source is reliable, a few years ago 23.6% were said to be INTJ and 12.5% ENTJ: https://www.quora.com/Do-most-software-engineers-have-an-INTP-personality-type/answer/Steven-D-LePire https://www.quora.com/Do-most-software-engineers-have-an-INT...).
    - joyeuse6701 8y ago
      You seem to mention the Myers Briggs a lot in your posts... I’m not sure how useful it is. The reduction of individuals to acronyms sounds to me like unhealthy judgment, so maybe Google did a better job than you realized in attracting “like minded” individuals!
      - baccheion 8y ago
        It's not that useful, but is another way to help illustrate what I'm trying to say.
    - 8y ago
netcan 8y ago
This is apropos but, what I wouldn't give for a cubicle....
tootime 8y ago
If you feel this way at the most elite and prestigious employer in the world then I'm afraid for what you would you would think about working at a "average" company like Amazon, Cisco, or IBM these days. Isn't it easy to change teams at Google?
- mehrdada 8y ago
  Haha, "the most elite and prestigious employer in the world" has around 100k current full-time employees (and many more if you count the de facto employees hired as contractors). That fact alone contradicts the dictionary definition of elite. The world does not begin and end with mega-cap companies you listed. There are many many many more companies at far smaller scale.

sjf 8y ago

Yeah, me too. But Google has more in common with Intel now than when it had 23 employees.

mehrdada 8y ago
True. I have a new catchphrase that I use: Google does everything at scale. They waste talent at scale.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  And it’s such an utter shame with their resources; they could be the next Bell Labs or Xerox PARC.
  - sanxiyn 8y ago
    That's like saying Microsoft could be the next Bell Labs. In reality, Microsoft is the next Bell, and Microsoft Research IS the next Bell Labs.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - nl 8y ago
    They've already done so much more than either of those. Bell Labs delivered a fair bit of tech, but Xerox PARC did great demos. Xerox PARC == Magic Leap or something like that.
    - bsaul 8y ago
      Don’t know why you were downvoted. Xerox parc did in fact release nothing to the general public iirc. But they got great tech which got ripped off, unlike magic leap maybe ?
      - pvarangot 8y ago
        The Learning Group at PARK did release Smalltalk, but guess that's not "for the general public". I was under the idea they never really wanted to release a product for mass consumption.
      - a7776f88862 8y ago
        > Xerox parc did in fact release nothing to the general public iirc. Right, just because you haven't bothered to look it up, it doesn't exist. Here are just the Xerox PARC work that was commercialized by Xerox I can think of off the top of my head: Ethernet, XNS, Interpress, the Star and D-series workstations, Mesa, Smalltalk, Cedar.
        scroot 8y ago
        Don't forget the laser printer, postscript, etc
  - nostrademons 8y ago
    They probably are. There's a ton of interesting research going on at Google that is not being capitalized on economically. They just need a few ambitious visitors or ex-employees to "liberate" it, the way Steve Jobs and Bill Gates did to Xerox. In some cases (eg. TensorFlow, Chromium, protobufs, or LevelDB) it's already been open-sourced. Note that neither AT&T nor Xerox were the prime beneficiaries of technologies developed at Bell Labs or PARC, respectively.

waterhouse 8y ago

He talks about that later: > On Leaving Google [...] But when I went in the next day, the energy drained out of me. I suddenly felt like I used to feel working at Intel. Partially I think Google had grown so much in my absence, but it was also partly a “boiling the frog” effect: before I spent time away, I hadn't noticed things slowly changing, but when I got back I realized, “Oh wow, here I am in a meeting with a bunch of people I don't know who are telling me to do stuff that I don't care about.”

ilovecaching 8y ago

I think it's highly dependent on your role, and at its current size your chances of getting lost in some piece of noise is quite high. Of course endless performance reviews also suck. Google is still a great place to work, but it's a corporation now, and there are just some things that don't scale.

mehrdada 8y ago
I suspect it'd mostly depend on your personal standards and ambitions than your role. I can't imagine many below-VP positions being much different on this dimension. Even many VPs and up are getting stuck in life-sucking unimportant activities.
- ilovecaching 8y ago
  You're not wrong. It's definitely personal ambition. I think we all know that getting in != good reviews, moving up, etc.
- hsaliak 8y ago
  Autonomy is harder and harder to get at larger corporations and play a big role in self identifying work as satisfying or valuable. Even if you manage to get it, it can be taken away by an outsider in a large corp at any point. Startups are safer bets from this perspective.

rococode 8y ago

I was at a talk last week given by a startup founder and he said something similar that went along these lines: The bigger the company, the smaller your role's coverage. You get well-compensated and aren't worked too hard, but your job might effectively be "you're responsible for these two screens of this one component of this particular application". The conflict is that the bigger the company, the higher the bar for entry. So you end up with a bunch of really bright, challenge-loving people cooped up working day in day out on very specific cogs of the giant machine, and that's not an ideal lifestyle for all of those people.

shanghaiaway 8y ago
"Product Manager, Friend List at Facebook"
ilovecaching 8y ago
That's not what's incentivized though. Getting in to a FAANG is just the first step. The next step is to actually show that you can affect more than just your two screens. That's why they work in constant review cycles. People who get frustrated are often the people who don't know how to affect more than their two screens. It's hard, because you're competing with other people who are equally or more brilliant. Although Google is big enough now that we can demote brilliant to fairly intelligent I think.
- basejumping 8y ago
  From what I hear it's turning fairly intelligent to asshole
  - baccheion 8y ago
    Google has been riddled with a--holes since at least 2010.
    - tonyedgecombe 8y ago
      To be honest our whole industry has more than its fair share.

vadym909 8y ago

So, who's the new 'Google' now?

mehrdada 8y ago
One should start their own if they can't identify one, I'd say...
ilovecaching 8y ago
Facebook, Google, Apple, and Netflix still have some of the best talent in the bay. They also push out a lot of amazing projects (PyTorch, React, Go, Chromium, Tensorflow), although Netflix much less so. At the end of the day they have the money, and they do provide ridiculous perks.
- ronilan 8y ago
  > They also push out a lot of amazing projects ... although Netflix much less so. Actually Netflix much more so, only their projects are not in software. Just sayin.
  - arbie 8y ago
    Where can I find such non-software projects?
    - curuinor 8y ago
      think they mean the movies and things
- onion2k 8y ago
  But you will only ever be a tiny part of those big projects. If you want big challenges or big recognition perhaps a smaller startup will make you happier...
  - baccheion 8y ago

baccheion 8y ago

I also felt the same. The place was draining, distracting, chaotic, cramped, and noisy (in 2010). A complete waste of time in hindsight that's still with me today (haven't been able to work again since leaving at the end of 2010). Everyone still says Google is so great. Enough that I still wonder what happened. I also couldn't settle in, didn't like anyone, and was continually interrupted/harassed/followed.

sigi45 8y ago
oO you didn't like anyone there? Sounds like a problem with yourself. Can't imagine that you were sourrounded by assholes.
- baccheion 8y ago
  It didn't matter if they had an off-putting personality or were "OK." Either way, I just wasn't feeling it. On the other hand, the same happens wherever I go. Maybe Google's reputation of attracting certain personalities led me to believe there would be others that were similar or like-minded. Instead, they were mostly unhealthy judger types (though I'm not sure if the source is reliable, a few years ago 23.6% were said to be INTJ and 12.5% ENTJ: https://www.quora.com/Do-most-software-engineers-have-an-INTP-personality-type/answer/Steven-D-LePire https://www.quora.com/Do-most-software-engineers-have-an-INT...).
  - joyeuse6701 8y ago
    You seem to mention the Myers Briggs a lot in your posts... I’m not sure how useful it is. The reduction of individuals to acronyms sounds to me like unhealthy judgment, so maybe Google did a better job than you realized in attracting “like minded” individuals!
    - baccheion 8y ago
      It's not that useful, but is another way to help illustrate what I'm trying to say.
  - 8y ago

netcan 8y ago

This is apropos but, what I wouldn't give for a cubicle....

tootime 8y ago

If you feel this way at the most elite and prestigious employer in the world then I'm afraid for what you would you would think about working at a "average" company like Amazon, Cisco, or IBM these days. Isn't it easy to change teams at Google?

mehrdada 8y ago
Haha, "the most elite and prestigious employer in the world" has around 100k current full-time employees (and many more if you count the de facto employees hired as contractors). That fact alone contradicts the dictionary definition of elite. The world does not begin and end with mega-cap companies you listed. There are many many many more companies at far smaller scale.