←back to thread

FAQ on Leaving Google

(social.clawhammer.net)
462 points mrled | 5 comments | 17 Jan 24 22:12 UTC | HN request time: 1.196s | source
Show context
thrtythreeforty ◴[17 Jan 24 23:40 UTC] 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 ◴[17 Jan 24 23:58 UTC] 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 #
eldavido ◴[18 Jan 24 00:25 UTC] No.39035687[source]▶
Grad school...with all the politics to match.
replies(1): >>39037491 #
1. cmrdporcupine ◴[18 Jan 24 03:41 UTC] No.39037491[source]▶
Exactly, and for someone like myself who hated academia, the internals of Google when I was there (2011-2021) were awful for the same reasons.

It's hard enough to be motivated to work on things in a Big Company. It's even harder when you have to consciously play a game to advertise and promote your success and work -- spending almost as much time doing that as actually doing work. ... and then have others come along and take credit for your work, etc.

replies(2): >>39037895 #>>39038773 #
2. throwaway2037 ◴[18 Jan 24 04:35 UTC] No.39037895[source]▶
Why is this downvoted? It seems relevant to the conversation.
3. gofreddygo ◴[18 Jan 24 06:50 UTC] No.39038773[source]▶
I've always despised the higher echelons of academia, the top 1%, the Ivy leagues et. al. for a similar reason.

Success in academia comes to those who pick the right people to work with, pick the right things to work on at the right time and say the right things at the right times to the right people, all to push yourself ahead of others guised under veils and veneers of goodness. Truth, morality and the quest for knowledge be damned.

"Picking" is more than what the word suggests. It involves shutting others out, stealing ideas and actual work, propagandizing, giving out freebies but keeping the kickbacks hidden, buttering people for favors, building and fostering inner circles etc. All this is the politics.

No surprise that the ones who are left and thrive are self driven narcissists and ruthless cold blooded creatures painted in playful colors.

Google is the equivalent of the Ivy league. Hopeless, clueless and on a path to irrelevance fostered by a thousand leeches.

Some argue, the world is better because of what Google produced and hence entitled to such inner workings. Same argument as the Ivy's. That's missing the forest for the trees. The real loss isn't what Google or the Ivys have become, but the opportunity loss comparing to what they could have been, with all their resources, had they not gone down this path. This isn't the only possible outcome in this game.

replies(2): >>39038947 #>>39038955 #
4. Eisenstein ◴[18 Jan 24 07:21 UTC] No.39038947[source]▶
> Success in academia comes to those who pick the right people to work with, pick the right things to work on at the right time and say the right things at the right times to the right people, all to push yourself ahead of others guised under veils and veneers of goodness. Truth, morality and the quest for knowledge be damned.

Do you have a proposal to repair this? It seems any organizational effort is going to end up in a similar situation, because the people who desire to be at the top are the people willing to do the things required to get there, and that leaves little room for people who just want to pursue 'truth, morality and the quest for knowledge'.

It seems to me that the only solution to resolving this problem is to either (a) rely on a benevolent, genius, moral autocrat; (b) completely purge the leadership regularly; or (c) delegate authority to some future un-corruptible intelligence.

5. ponderings ◴[18 Jan 24 07:22 UTC] No.39038955[source]▶
Something new will have to be made. You wont get credit for that effort, no riches, not even a thank you. Fooling around with the puzzle is the only reward and it should be good enough even if it amounts to nothing.

What is even the real question? How should we do politics?