←back to thread

FAQ on Leaving Google

(social.clawhammer.net)
462 points mrled | 7 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
thrtythreeforty ◴[] No.39035233[source]
The author also published [1] an email he wrote at the beginning of his tenure. It is amazing how alien and out of place early Google sounds in today's corporate environment. They have completely eroded the perception that Google is this kind of place:

> Google is the opposite: it's like a giant grad-school. Half the programmers have PhD's, and everyone treats the place like a giant research playground [...] Every once in a while, a manager skims over the bubbling activity, looking for products to "reap" from the creative harvest. The programmers completely drive the company, it's really amazing. I kept waiting for people to walk up to me and ask me if I had declared my major yet. They not only encourage personal experimentation and innovation, they demand it. Every programmer is required to spend 20% of their time working on random personal projects. If you get overloaded by a crisis, then that 20% personal time accrues anyway. Nearly every Google technology you know (maps, earth, gmail) started out as somebody's 20% project, I think.

Even if this was only half-true back then, there's very little you could do to convince me that it's true at all now. This culture and the public perception of it has been squandered.

[1]: https://social.clawhammer.net/blog/posts/2005-09-25-FirstWee...

replies(6): >>39035428 #>>39035523 #>>39035569 #>>39035617 #>>39035738 #>>39046460 #
dekhn ◴[] No.39035428[source]
That was an absolutely spot-on description of what it was like when I joined in 2007 or 2008. Within 2 year of joining, I had approval to use all the idle cycles in prod for protein design, folding, and drug discovery, and I had a front-row seat with some of the best programmers in the industry. By and large, employees were fun people to interact with, and the management was generally understanding of our hijinx. The main struggle I had was to convince the leadership to move faster into the cloud ("But we have appengine!" and "But profits aren't as good as ads", until MSFT ate their lunch). As soon as it was possible, I built and launched the cloud product I had wanted Google to make even before I joined!

It really did just feel like grad school with better funding. For me it lasted until around 2014 (wow, 10 years ago) when a director stole my ideas and bad-mouthed me to a bunch of senior folks. I hung on a bit longer (working for a close friend of the author of this FAQ on 3d printing and making stuff) and then a couple stints with ML hardware, before I finally concluded that the company was well on its way to enhittifying everything it did.

Sundar is sort of the complete opposite of this. He wants a large pool of completely anonymous programmers and a small number of directors who know how to turn those programmers into growth products, but those directors don't have a clue. For example, with gChat, one day the head of chat told TGIF that chat was changing, that japanese teen girls were the primary target, and they wanted emojis. He didn't even get that there was this enormous number of professional workers using gmail/gchat/gcal/gdocs and that by fucking up the product, he lost their trust.

Oh well. Sundar is why we can't have nice things.

replies(8): >>39035473 #>>39035618 #>>39035687 #>>39036936 #>>39037783 #>>39037889 #>>39043334 #>>39044029 #
dboreham[dead post] ◴[] No.39035618[source]
[flagged]
1. dekhn ◴[] No.39035787[source]
Sundar is not a psychopath. You're making a common error, ascribing humanity to Sundar. Sundar is a growth robot with no moral system. See Bryan Cantrill's description of Larry Ellison: "You need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower hates me' -- lawnmower doesn't give a shit about you, lawnmower can't hate you. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower. Don't fall into that trap about Oracle."

The difference is that Sundar is a industrial scale trash compactor, not a lawnmower.

replies(4): >>39036268 #>>39036527 #>>39036678 #>>39037320 #
2. tsunamifury ◴[] No.39036268[source]
Yea but if you have ever met Larry Ellison he’s a total psychopath.

Agree on Sundar.

replies(2): >>39036904 #>>39036939 #
3. rdtsc ◴[] No.39036527[source]
For some reason I always think of him as Hans Gruber from Die Hard. I find they look very much alike.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Gruber

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Ellison#/media/File%3A...

4. phs318u ◴[] No.39036678[source]
Wow, I hadn’t heard that quote before but is is scary accurate and broadly applicable (think ‘psychopathic’ executives and politicians). I often wonder about those type of folks whether some transformation of mind occurs that turns a previously reasonable human being into a ‘lawnmower’, or whether they were born that way and directed their appetites into channels where they could maximise the expression of their ‘lawnmower-mess’.

EDIT: “ broadly applicable”

5. jckahn ◴[] No.39036904[source]
Something tells me there’s an Ellison story here!
6. hyggetrold ◴[] No.39036939[source]
“The difference between God and Larry Ellison is that God doesn’t think he’s Larry Ellison.”
7. throwaway5211 ◴[] No.39037320[source]
(throwaway for obvious reasons)

The comparison to Oracle is pretty good. Working for Sundar's Google feels like working for a company whose only product is quarterly earnings reports. I have no idea what the company's mission is anymore besides Number Go Up. The old descriptions of Google's creative, disruptive, academic culture seem very foreign at this point. Our raw materials are the brains of new Comp Sci graduates, and our product is money.