4 ms·

OK, that's enough of that. I was an intern during this bullshit. To anyone not "in the know" on this: there's nothing to know. There was a big pointless flame

OK, that's enough of that. I was an intern during this bullshit. To anyone not "in the know" on this: there's nothing to know. There was a big pointless flame war on an internal listserv at Google over some objections that Michael had to how Google runs certain things. Googlers disagreed. I'll say that I disagreed with Michael, but the people on the other side are almost as responsible for letting themselves be sucked into such a stupid flame war. There is nothing interesting here. This is a Google soap opera. The rest of HN can comfortably go on with their lives without worrying.

jspthrowaway2 14y ago
I think this sort of thing repeats itself because Michael consistently blames Google for his departure, and has a tendency to show up "when summoned" (i.e, when Google is ever mentioned on Hacker News). If I worked somewhere and an ex-employee shit all over my employer at every opportunity, I'd be a little rankled as well. It's demoralizing! If he told a significant audience things that sound plausible but aren't remotely true -- an accusation leveled by several Googlers in the past -- I'd have to fight the urge not to respond. It'd be one thing if he never spoke about Google again and people still gave him shit for it, but Michael likes to sneak in bits about his drama into comments that have nothing to do with his drama, as he has done here. I've half suspected for months that Michael is, as he even says here, just trolling Google employees into responding. Either way, the entire thing just reflects negatively upon him. That's the sort of thing that follows you in a career, and I'd hate to have the tide of a bunch of people turned against me because I made an ass out of myself on a Google mailing list. If I were doing due diligence on hiring him, the Hacker News threads would give me serious pause. I've read HN comments in the past wherein the point has been made that it reflects negatively on both sides, and I can't see that, particularly hearing the story from Xooglers that I know.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  Actually, I've been misunderstood. It's not Google that I tear to pieces at every opportunity, but the comically awful managers who watch terrorist attacks on TV and then think, "I'd like to do that to a company!" If Google cleaned house, it could be a great company and a cultural leader again. There are a lot of things I admire about Google, and I think highly of most of the engineers. 95% of the engineers I met there I would gladly work with again. In fact, I would recommend most people I know, if they get a Google offer, to take it. I would give them the gory details so they are prepared for what may happen, but if you join Google and end up on a good project that gives you visibility, it's a great place to work. Sure, there are unethical managers, but they aren't all bad. Why shouldn't they give the place a try? The whistleblowing that I engaged in was in response to (a) incidents of management doing things it knew were counterproductive, to costs in the millions of dollars, just to keep rank, and (b) upper management refusing to discipline people for doing things that were immensely unethical. What's amazing to me is that people will go to the mat to defend a huge company, when what they're actually doing is defending its rather abysmal management, which wouldn't do a thing for them. Let me say it like this: Google is a fine company in most ways. It has built some excellent products, and the internal engineering tools are great. There's an incredible amount of talent. However, becoming an Argentina for disgraced technical managers who think constructs like "calibration scores" are a good idea is not a good business move. If anyone is a friend of Google, it's me, because I've drawn light upon the managerial bloodsuckers that have been working to destroy the place.
  - untog 14y ago
    the comically awful managers who watch terrorist attacks on TV and then think, "I'd like to do that to a company!" Sigh. Adding inflammatory rhetoric like this really doesn't help in painting you as a reliable commenter, either.
    - michaelochurch 14y ago
      That was an aggressive dysphemism and perhaps I should retract it. They're more like black-hat trolls than terrorists. They push bad ideas into implementation for amusement, but not out of hatred or coercive intent. Yes, I do believe that "calibration scores" were injected into Google out of a malicious schadenfreude. These people were not trying to do good for their company. They were trying to hurt Google for their own amusement. When a company has a reputation of a cultural leader as Google did throughout the 2000s, there are people out there who want nothing more than to "hack" it and make it destroy itself.
  - tjic 14y ago
    > comically awful managers who watch terrorist attacks on TV and then think, "I'd like to do that to a company!" I didn't know which side of this argument to give credence to, but that quote just helped me make up my mind.
  - popee 14y ago
    One person once said that engineers are slaves of 21.century.
  - goatforce5 14y ago
    > but the comically awful managers who watch terrorist attacks on TV and then think, "I'd like to do that to a company!" What's that mean? They'll fly planes in to buildings? Strap bombs to themselves and blow up their buses? > I would give them the gory details so they are prepared for what may happen It sounds like you discovered office politics. It doesn't sound particularly unique to Google.
    - michaelochurch 14y ago
yuhong 14y ago
I think michaelochurch did have real points. For example, look up Google+ nymwars.
- bad_user 14y ago
  Facts have value irregardless of whom communicates them. For opinions on the other hand reputation matters a lot. You can't seriously give credibility to somebody with an obvious ax to grind, with an agenda and with a certain history. Even if that opinion seems valid, you may just be suffering from confirmation bias and at the very least you should seek out that confirmation from people you can trust.
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    I don't think you can trust any of the vocal Googlers who come out on these threads. Nor do I think they should be considered representative of Google. There are a lot of good people at Google-- probably most of them-- but they aren't especially active on Google-centric threads. What you get on these are people who see any acknowledgment of Google's imperfections as a personal attack on them. There's a lot of good, and there's some bad, to Google. Whenever I post honestly about the place, there are 3 or 4 people who consistently come out for a fight. I don't mind that they exist and do what they do, because it's free entertainment for me, but regarding "people you can trust"... anyone who trusts them over me is too stupid to live. Trust me or trust none of us. I am not claiming to be unbiased, and my experience at Google is rather limited. (I was there in what I've been told were the worst 6 months for the company's culture.) However, I learned an incredible amount in that time (more than most people learn in 10 years) about what happens to make good companies go bad.
- jmillikin 14y ago
  If you're interested in ex-Googlers' opinions on the nymwars, then Rachel Kroll or Skud would both provide more thoughtful commentary.
- Locke1689 14y ago
  I never touched on the validity of the points he was making, only the god-awful nature of the discussion.

jspthrowaway2 14y ago

I think this sort of thing repeats itself because Michael consistently blames Google for his departure, and has a tendency to show up "when summoned" (i.e, when Google is ever mentioned on Hacker News). If I worked somewhere and an ex-employee shit all over my employer at every opportunity, I'd be a little rankled as well. It's demoralizing! If he told a significant audience things that sound plausible but aren't remotely true -- an accusation leveled by several Googlers in the past -- I'd have to fight the urge not to respond. It'd be one thing if he never spoke about Google again and people still gave him shit for it, but Michael likes to sneak in bits about his drama into comments that have nothing to do with his drama, as he has done here. I've half suspected for months that Michael is, as he even says here, just trolling Google employees into responding. Either way, the entire thing just reflects negatively upon him. That's the sort of thing that follows you in a career, and I'd hate to have the tide of a bunch of people turned against me because I made an ass out of myself on a Google mailing list. If I were doing due diligence on hiring him, the Hacker News threads would give me serious pause. I've read HN comments in the past wherein the point has been made that it reflects negatively on both sides, and I can't see that, particularly hearing the story from Xooglers that I know.

michaelochurch 14y ago
Actually, I've been misunderstood. It's not Google that I tear to pieces at every opportunity, but the comically awful managers who watch terrorist attacks on TV and then think, "I'd like to do that to a company!" If Google cleaned house, it could be a great company and a cultural leader again. There are a lot of things I admire about Google, and I think highly of most of the engineers. 95% of the engineers I met there I would gladly work with again. In fact, I would recommend most people I know, if they get a Google offer, to take it. I would give them the gory details so they are prepared for what may happen, but if you join Google and end up on a good project that gives you visibility, it's a great place to work. Sure, there are unethical managers, but they aren't all bad. Why shouldn't they give the place a try? The whistleblowing that I engaged in was in response to (a) incidents of management doing things it knew were counterproductive, to costs in the millions of dollars, just to keep rank, and (b) upper management refusing to discipline people for doing things that were immensely unethical. What's amazing to me is that people will go to the mat to defend a huge company, when what they're actually doing is defending its rather abysmal management, which wouldn't do a thing for them. Let me say it like this: Google is a fine company in most ways. It has built some excellent products, and the internal engineering tools are great. There's an incredible amount of talent. However, becoming an Argentina for disgraced technical managers who think constructs like "calibration scores" are a good idea is not a good business move. If anyone is a friend of Google, it's me, because I've drawn light upon the managerial bloodsuckers that have been working to destroy the place.
- untog 14y ago
  the comically awful managers who watch terrorist attacks on TV and then think, "I'd like to do that to a company!" Sigh. Adding inflammatory rhetoric like this really doesn't help in painting you as a reliable commenter, either.
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    That was an aggressive dysphemism and perhaps I should retract it. They're more like black-hat trolls than terrorists. They push bad ideas into implementation for amusement, but not out of hatred or coercive intent. Yes, I do believe that "calibration scores" were injected into Google out of a malicious schadenfreude. These people were not trying to do good for their company. They were trying to hurt Google for their own amusement. When a company has a reputation of a cultural leader as Google did throughout the 2000s, there are people out there who want nothing more than to "hack" it and make it destroy itself.
- tjic 14y ago
  > comically awful managers who watch terrorist attacks on TV and then think, "I'd like to do that to a company!" I didn't know which side of this argument to give credence to, but that quote just helped me make up my mind.
- popee 14y ago
  One person once said that engineers are slaves of 21.century.
- goatforce5 14y ago
  > but the comically awful managers who watch terrorist attacks on TV and then think, "I'd like to do that to a company!" What's that mean? They'll fly planes in to buildings? Strap bombs to themselves and blow up their buses? > I would give them the gory details so they are prepared for what may happen It sounds like you discovered office politics. It doesn't sound particularly unique to Google.
  - michaelochurch 14y ago

yuhong 14y ago

I think michaelochurch did have real points. For example, look up Google+ nymwars.

bad_user 14y ago
Facts have value irregardless of whom communicates them. For opinions on the other hand reputation matters a lot. You can't seriously give credibility to somebody with an obvious ax to grind, with an agenda and with a certain history. Even if that opinion seems valid, you may just be suffering from confirmation bias and at the very least you should seek out that confirmation from people you can trust.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  I don't think you can trust any of the vocal Googlers who come out on these threads. Nor do I think they should be considered representative of Google. There are a lot of good people at Google-- probably most of them-- but they aren't especially active on Google-centric threads. What you get on these are people who see any acknowledgment of Google's imperfections as a personal attack on them. There's a lot of good, and there's some bad, to Google. Whenever I post honestly about the place, there are 3 or 4 people who consistently come out for a fight. I don't mind that they exist and do what they do, because it's free entertainment for me, but regarding "people you can trust"... anyone who trusts them over me is too stupid to live. Trust me or trust none of us. I am not claiming to be unbiased, and my experience at Google is rather limited. (I was there in what I've been told were the worst 6 months for the company's culture.) However, I learned an incredible amount in that time (more than most people learn in 10 years) about what happens to make good companies go bad.
jmillikin 14y ago
If you're interested in ex-Googlers' opinions on the nymwars, then Rachel Kroll or Skud would both provide more thoughtful commentary.
Locke1689 14y ago
I never touched on the validity of the points he was making, only the god-awful nature of the discussion.