5 ms·

Done, and Gets Things Smart (2008)

82 points by luu 6y ago

the_arun 6y ago
I this post is still relevant! >The best we can do is find people who we think are smart because they're a bit like us. This shows up in every interview. Everyone wants to hire a clone of themselves - though they know they are not perfect!
- agumonkey 6y ago
  And a lot of society revolves around that. We seek compatibility.
  - jmeister 6y ago
    Conversely, if you are willing to look past the surface-level compatibility and personality issues, you are going to find some under-priced, rough gems in the market. Wall st. hedge funds do this well from my experience, not sure about SV.
    - agumonkey 6y ago
      What pushed Wall st. to operate so differently ? My shallow experience of IT interviews is that there's no depth. None.
      - jmeister 6y ago
        1. Wall st has always had very diverse group/roles of people: fratty traders, posh bankers, nerdy quants, slick salespeople etc. I’ve sat on trading desks with such people sitting next to each other. 2. Ruthless money-making mentality that necessitates meritocracy and focus on individual performance over “fit”, “team-spirit” etc. 3. NYC vs. SF: NYC has been a commercial centre and an immigration hub for centuries. They say that “commerce is like oil that smooths human-relations”. People are just more open to doing business with others who are “not like them” 4. NYC’s “leave me alone, I’ll leave you alone” spirit: it’s a meme that NYCers can easily ignore weird characters and events in public spaces, that would unnerve most others. The freaks on the subway, at the parks, the weirdo neighbours. “You do you” is baked in from the density and diversity. People are a LOT more tolerant of deviance than any other place in the world, I’d say.
vulcan01 6y ago
This is probably my third time reading this... but how does one actually become a Done and Gets Things Smart person?
- wwweston 6y ago
  I'm definitely no expert, but what I'm shooting for is: - Set minimum effective goals in a well-dialed manner (somewhere in the sweet spot between big enough to make an impact and small enough to do on a reasonable cycle) - Get the goal done. Quickly if at all possible. - Figure out what isn't optimal from there and iterate Honestly my intuition for #1 is... among the non-optimal things, and I may well have some shortcomings on #2. (I'm really good at part of #3, though.)
  - vulcan01 6y ago
    > Figure out what isn't optimal from there and iterate I am inclined to be a perfectionist. So... I would modify #3 to guard against that: Figure out what isn't optimal, prioritise, and then iterate.
- exmadscientist 6y ago
  I don't believe it is possible to cultivate. You've either got the right mentality, or you don't. This comment [0] from an earlier discussion always sticks in my head during these conversations, though its context is somewhat different. I also believe that self-improvement should focus on being the best possible version of yourself, not striving to be something you are not and cannot be. We are not angels (okay, I'm not -- I'll let you speak for yourself) and so we cannot expect to hold ourselves to the ideals of angels and get a worthwhile result. And, even further, I believe that the worst sin in hiring is to hire someone toxic. Almost any other deficiency can be tolerated. Toxic people drag down everyone around them, and that's not acceptable. There are surprisingly many toxic people out there, they interview surprisingly well, and they're always in the interview pool, because they keep losing their jobs. Don't be toxic and don't hire toxic... or the team/company is completely doomed. Compared to that, choosing between "very good" and "outstandingly excellent" starts to look a bit less critical! [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19579047 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19579047
arolihas 6y ago
So who do we think is the super genius at Google that Steve was referring to? My first thought was Jeff Dean.
- dpritchett 6y ago
  Urs Hölzle or Paul Buchheit, maybe?
- verma7 6y ago
  My guess is Craig Silverstein, as he mentioned that Larry and Sergey might have worked with him at Stanford.
  - dilyevsky 6y ago
    Yeah from description def sounds like him. He was on the way out when i joined but he was probably more active when this was written
- pk2200 6y ago
  Possibly Craig Silverstein, but my guess is Urs Hölzle. He was Google's first VP of engineering and a huge advocate for everything mentioned in the article: "design docs, audited code reviews, early design reviews, readability reviews, resisting introduction of new languages, unit testing and code coverage, profiling and performance testing". Early Google had more than its fair share of genius engineers with giant egos. Urs was brilliant and tough - a perfect combination for keeping everybody in check and shaping the engineering culture.
kuharich 6y ago
Past comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=219425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=219425

82 points by luu 6y ago

I this post is still relevant! >The best we can do is find people who we think are smart because they're a bit like us. This shows up in every interview. Everyone wants to hire a clone of themselves - though they know they are not perfect!

agumonkey 6y ago
And a lot of society revolves around that. We seek compatibility.
- jmeister 6y ago
  Conversely, if you are willing to look past the surface-level compatibility and personality issues, you are going to find some under-priced, rough gems in the market. Wall st. hedge funds do this well from my experience, not sure about SV.
  - agumonkey 6y ago
    What pushed Wall st. to operate so differently ? My shallow experience of IT interviews is that there's no depth. None.
    - jmeister 6y ago
      1. Wall st has always had very diverse group/roles of people: fratty traders, posh bankers, nerdy quants, slick salespeople etc. I’ve sat on trading desks with such people sitting next to each other. 2. Ruthless money-making mentality that necessitates meritocracy and focus on individual performance over “fit”, “team-spirit” etc. 3. NYC vs. SF: NYC has been a commercial centre and an immigration hub for centuries. They say that “commerce is like oil that smooths human-relations”. People are just more open to doing business with others who are “not like them” 4. NYC’s “leave me alone, I’ll leave you alone” spirit: it’s a meme that NYCers can easily ignore weird characters and events in public spaces, that would unnerve most others. The freaks on the subway, at the parks, the weirdo neighbours. “You do you” is baked in from the density and diversity. People are a LOT more tolerant of deviance than any other place in the world, I’d say.

vulcan01 6y ago

This is probably my third time reading this... but how does one actually become a Done and Gets Things Smart person?

wwweston 6y ago
I'm definitely no expert, but what I'm shooting for is: - Set minimum effective goals in a well-dialed manner (somewhere in the sweet spot between big enough to make an impact and small enough to do on a reasonable cycle) - Get the goal done. Quickly if at all possible. - Figure out what isn't optimal from there and iterate Honestly my intuition for #1 is... among the non-optimal things, and I may well have some shortcomings on #2. (I'm really good at part of #3, though.)
- vulcan01 6y ago
  > Figure out what isn't optimal from there and iterate I am inclined to be a perfectionist. So... I would modify #3 to guard against that: Figure out what isn't optimal, prioritise, and then iterate.
exmadscientist 6y ago
I don't believe it is possible to cultivate. You've either got the right mentality, or you don't. This comment [0] from an earlier discussion always sticks in my head during these conversations, though its context is somewhat different. I also believe that self-improvement should focus on being the best possible version of yourself, not striving to be something you are not and cannot be. We are not angels (okay, I'm not -- I'll let you speak for yourself) and so we cannot expect to hold ourselves to the ideals of angels and get a worthwhile result. And, even further, I believe that the worst sin in hiring is to hire someone toxic. Almost any other deficiency can be tolerated. Toxic people drag down everyone around them, and that's not acceptable. There are surprisingly many toxic people out there, they interview surprisingly well, and they're always in the interview pool, because they keep losing their jobs. Don't be toxic and don't hire toxic... or the team/company is completely doomed. Compared to that, choosing between "very good" and "outstandingly excellent" starts to look a bit less critical! [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19579047 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19579047

arolihas 6y ago

So who do we think is the super genius at Google that Steve was referring to? My first thought was Jeff Dean.

dpritchett 6y ago
Urs Hölzle or Paul Buchheit, maybe?
verma7 6y ago
My guess is Craig Silverstein, as he mentioned that Larry and Sergey might have worked with him at Stanford.
- dilyevsky 6y ago
  Yeah from description def sounds like him. He was on the way out when i joined but he was probably more active when this was written
pk2200 6y ago
Possibly Craig Silverstein, but my guess is Urs Hölzle. He was Google's first VP of engineering and a huge advocate for everything mentioned in the article: "design docs, audited code reviews, early design reviews, readability reviews, resisting introduction of new languages, unit testing and code coverage, profiling and performance testing". Early Google had more than its fair share of genius engineers with giant egos. Urs was brilliant and tough - a perfect combination for keeping everybody in check and shaping the engineering culture.

kuharich 6y ago

Past comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=219425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=219425