> Interesting that you mention Google, since it has a reputation for being more engineering-focused that most companies. From what I read on HN (perhaps not a r

> Interesting that you mention Google, since it has a reputation for being more engineering-focused that most companies. From what I read on HN (perhaps not a representative sample, but...), it seems like Google has a culture of "build something cool to get promoted and then stop caring about what you built because maintenance doesn't get you promoted any further". If true, I think that very easily explains Google's "hot messes". Countering my Gell-Mann amnesia here (many times I read about my area of expertise I see snappy criticisms trickle into the mainstream when the reality on the ground has long moved ahead and the supposedly insightful HN criticisms are cliches being routinely addressed within the expert circles, think "deep learning is just X, it doesn't address Y!" or "physicists are obviously boneheaded and got stuck at assumption Z!"). So, with the above in mind, I wonder if Google is actively countering this. If random people know this as a stereotype (and I read this often, and hear it as a stereotype of Google also in real life), then perhaps leadership is even more aware and either decides not to change or has already implemented things they think would help. Any current Googlers to chip in?