3 ms·

Are you saying that google’s engineers aren’t above average in the industry? I certainly know they don’t have a monopoly on rock stars, but in aggregate do you

Are you saying that google’s engineers aren’t above average in the industry? I certainly know they don’t have a monopoly on rock stars, but in aggregate do you think they have the same hiring bar as a boring f500 company or even Microsoft or oracle?

marcus_holmes 3y ago
Define the standard you're averaging. Quality of code? Speed of development? CS knowledge? Ability to interpret arcane customer requirements correctly? What does Google's recruitment process optimise for? The ability to whiteboard an algorithm and complete difficult HackerRank puzzles from what I've heard. Is this a good set of criteria for recruiting "the best"? Once in Google, are they learning more than their peers outside Google? Or are they learning how to survive the internal politics? Which helps them not get made redundant more? I would expect "the best engineers" to be in small tech companies where they can make a huge difference and really contribute to the company and see the things they build get used by customers every day. Not in a vast organisation drowning in bureaucracy and politics. As the article says, Googlers tend to think of themselves as special without any real justification.
- tsunamifury 3y ago
  My experience says otherwise because of Googles unique mix of 1) giving engineers experience at scale with sophisticated systems 2) solid mentorship opportunities 3) training them with the social skills that show them their code matters as much as their ability to work with their team and execute 4) resources to execute and learn about how to execute fast 5) the reality of pokitics In general, when I’m hiring for a startup, I see snr+ google engineers as great hires. I find that other startups CEOs that try to complain are actually really saying, honestly, they are less talented than their prospective google alumn and they don’t understand the value.
- VirusNewbie 3y ago
  Google’s interview process puts immense emphasis on doing thorough system design. Additionally, in contrast with companies who do ask hacker rank questions, Google only asks novel, unique questions that are not on leetcode or hackkerrank, prizing creativity in problem solving over memorizing. Finally, since everything is reviewed by a hiring committee, there’s almost no chance of nepotism or someone playing favorites for whatever reason. When I interviewed at Microsoft, I was asked to implement numerous classic CS algorithms, not disguised even remotely. With google, none of the coding questions were anywhere to be found on the internet. Big organizations tend to follow regression of the mean, but at FAANG i’ve yet to see see the absolute bottom of the barrel that have often snuck in at the various small companies i’ve worked for. Certainly small companies have top tier talent as well as google and other FAANGs, but there’s remarkably little bureaucracy at FAANGs as well. It sounds like you’ve developed your opinion from a vocal minority that have left in anger rather than first hand experience.
  - marcus_holmes 3y ago
    So the article that the article mentions [0] has the bureaucracy as a problem - risk minimisation is the main organisational criteria, so any change is overwhelmed with bureaucratic processes to ensure it doesn't cause risk (my paraphrase). Is this true in your experience? How much bureaucracy is "remarkable little"? [0] https://medium.com/@pravse/the-maze-is-in-the-mouse-980c57cfd61a https://medium.com/@pravse/the-maze-is-in-the-mouse-980c57cf...
    - VirusNewbie 3y ago
      The changes they are talking about are consumer visible changes to the large money makers. I'm in infrastructure so I don't have first hand knowledge of the former, but that tracks from what I've heard. Making large changes to search or ads sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare. However, making changes to infrastructure, to technical products, to workspaces, to cloud products, and to APIs seem to strike a nice balance between quality and velocity. You need code reviews, there are tests and static analysis and all that jazz but otherwise ship it. There are very few MBAs around to stall things or create unnecessary process.

marcus_holmes 3y ago

Define the standard you're averaging. Quality of code? Speed of development? CS knowledge? Ability to interpret arcane customer requirements correctly? What does Google's recruitment process optimise for? The ability to whiteboard an algorithm and complete difficult HackerRank puzzles from what I've heard. Is this a good set of criteria for recruiting "the best"? Once in Google, are they learning more than their peers outside Google? Or are they learning how to survive the internal politics? Which helps them not get made redundant more? I would expect "the best engineers" to be in small tech companies where they can make a huge difference and really contribute to the company and see the things they build get used by customers every day. Not in a vast organisation drowning in bureaucracy and politics. As the article says, Googlers tend to think of themselves as special without any real justification.

tsunamifury 3y ago
My experience says otherwise because of Googles unique mix of 1) giving engineers experience at scale with sophisticated systems 2) solid mentorship opportunities 3) training them with the social skills that show them their code matters as much as their ability to work with their team and execute 4) resources to execute and learn about how to execute fast 5) the reality of pokitics In general, when I’m hiring for a startup, I see snr+ google engineers as great hires. I find that other startups CEOs that try to complain are actually really saying, honestly, they are less talented than their prospective google alumn and they don’t understand the value.
VirusNewbie 3y ago
Google’s interview process puts immense emphasis on doing thorough system design. Additionally, in contrast with companies who do ask hacker rank questions, Google only asks novel, unique questions that are not on leetcode or hackkerrank, prizing creativity in problem solving over memorizing. Finally, since everything is reviewed by a hiring committee, there’s almost no chance of nepotism or someone playing favorites for whatever reason. When I interviewed at Microsoft, I was asked to implement numerous classic CS algorithms, not disguised even remotely. With google, none of the coding questions were anywhere to be found on the internet. Big organizations tend to follow regression of the mean, but at FAANG i’ve yet to see see the absolute bottom of the barrel that have often snuck in at the various small companies i’ve worked for. Certainly small companies have top tier talent as well as google and other FAANGs, but there’s remarkably little bureaucracy at FAANGs as well. It sounds like you’ve developed your opinion from a vocal minority that have left in anger rather than first hand experience.
- marcus_holmes 3y ago
  So the article that the article mentions [0] has the bureaucracy as a problem - risk minimisation is the main organisational criteria, so any change is overwhelmed with bureaucratic processes to ensure it doesn't cause risk (my paraphrase). Is this true in your experience? How much bureaucracy is "remarkable little"? [0] https://medium.com/@pravse/the-maze-is-in-the-mouse-980c57cfd61a https://medium.com/@pravse/the-maze-is-in-the-mouse-980c57cf...
  - VirusNewbie 3y ago
    The changes they are talking about are consumer visible changes to the large money makers. I'm in infrastructure so I don't have first hand knowledge of the former, but that tracks from what I've heard. Making large changes to search or ads sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare. However, making changes to infrastructure, to technical products, to workspaces, to cloud products, and to APIs seem to strike a nice balance between quality and velocity. You need code reviews, there are tests and static analysis and all that jazz but otherwise ship it. There are very few MBAs around to stall things or create unnecessary process.