4 ms·

Reread a) and b) from another perspective because never did I say they were lying to themselves.

Jensson 4y ago
I agree with b) and c). A is a bit forced though as tobacco companies faked studies to show that what they sell is healthy even though they knew it was horribly bad for you, I don't see how Google is anything like that with respect to hiring processes. If they talked about ads or search then the likeness would make sense, but I don't see it for hiring. But I agree that Google is different than most companies. There the main thing is ads and search and infrastructure to run both of those. They can always use more developers to help optimize the profits of those algorithms or reduce runtime costs, the ROI on that is extremely high so that is what their hiring process is optimized for. Some of their other projects might have done better with a different process, but they don't have much weight compared to the revenue generating projects.
- nowherebeen 4y ago
  > But I agree that Google is different than most companies. There the main thing is ads and search and infrastructure to run both of those. One of the Marques Brownlee videos mentions that when he met Eric Schmidt, Schmidt mentions that every problem Google have were scaling. If you look at it from his perspective, it would make a lot of sense why algo is so important for Google interviews. He applied it not only in tech, but with hiring as well.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    "CEO Eric Eric Schmidt stood out because he 'was the only candidate who had been to Burning Man.'" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt#cite_note-31 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt#cite_note-31 Funny how the "objective tests" that leaders apply to grunts never get applied to the leaders themselves.
    - nowherebeen 4y ago
      It's the whole "Do as I say, not as I do" motto. In their eyes, you are workers, and they are employers, so these objective tests don't apply to them. They hire based on their need and not your wants. They don't need another Eric Schmidt, they need more lemmings to do lemmings work. Ultimately, that's how I think these companies eventually mature. The people that know how to steer the cargo ship retires and you are left with workers that only know how to do the work assigned. Bureaucracy ensues and no one dares to steer for fear it would sink it or get fired for causing unneeded risk. And plus, they don't know how to.

I agree with b) and c). A is a bit forced though as tobacco companies faked studies to show that what they sell is healthy even though they knew it was horribly bad for you, I don't see how Google is anything like that with respect to hiring processes. If they talked about ads or search then the likeness would make sense, but I don't see it for hiring. But I agree that Google is different than most companies. There the main thing is ads and search and infrastructure to run both of those. They can always use more developers to help optimize the profits of those algorithms or reduce runtime costs, the ROI on that is extremely high so that is what their hiring process is optimized for. Some of their other projects might have done better with a different process, but they don't have much weight compared to the revenue generating projects.

nowherebeen 4y ago
> But I agree that Google is different than most companies. There the main thing is ads and search and infrastructure to run both of those. One of the Marques Brownlee videos mentions that when he met Eric Schmidt, Schmidt mentions that every problem Google have were scaling. If you look at it from his perspective, it would make a lot of sense why algo is so important for Google interviews. He applied it not only in tech, but with hiring as well.
- lapcat 4y ago
  "CEO Eric Eric Schmidt stood out because he 'was the only candidate who had been to Burning Man.'" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt#cite_note-31 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt#cite_note-31 Funny how the "objective tests" that leaders apply to grunts never get applied to the leaders themselves.
  - nowherebeen 4y ago
    It's the whole "Do as I say, not as I do" motto. In their eyes, you are workers, and they are employers, so these objective tests don't apply to them. They hire based on their need and not your wants. They don't need another Eric Schmidt, they need more lemmings to do lemmings work. Ultimately, that's how I think these companies eventually mature. The people that know how to steer the cargo ship retires and you are left with workers that only know how to do the work assigned. Bureaucracy ensues and no one dares to steer for fear it would sink it or get fired for causing unneeded risk. And plus, they don't know how to.