Google Internal Comics(goomics.net)
goomics.net
Google Internal Comics
https://goomics.net/
226 comments
Counterpoint: At a top company like Google, full of some of the most talented people in the world, there simply won't be enough promotions to go around.
And yet, an "average" performer who is happy to build, scale, maintain, and not re-launch a new chat product every 5 years should be rewarded and encouraged to stay and not leave to a competitor.
How do you do it? You have to create intrinsic motivation. Twist: You can't give someone intrinsic motivation. They have to choose it themselves. But you have to give them the space and the options to find it.
"Don't focus too much on promotion" is still bad advice - like "Don't be angry" to someone who is angry. But the sentiment is correct. If you're focusing too much on promotion it means you don't have intrinsic motivation and are focusing on the extrinsic.
If you are well paid, well respected, well supplemented with additional benefits, and well challenged with hard problems (and at Google all of these should all have been YES by all accounts), then it's true - you SHOULDN'T focus too much on promotion.
I welcome counter-counterpoints.
And yet, an "average" performer who is happy to build, scale, maintain, and not re-launch a new chat product every 5 years should be rewarded and encouraged to stay and not leave to a competitor.
How do you do it? You have to create intrinsic motivation. Twist: You can't give someone intrinsic motivation. They have to choose it themselves. But you have to give them the space and the options to find it.
"Don't focus too much on promotion" is still bad advice - like "Don't be angry" to someone who is angry. But the sentiment is correct. If you're focusing too much on promotion it means you don't have intrinsic motivation and are focusing on the extrinsic.
If you are well paid, well respected, well supplemented with additional benefits, and well challenged with hard problems (and at Google all of these should all have been YES by all accounts), then it's true - you SHOULDN'T focus too much on promotion.
I welcome counter-counterpoints.
IIRC (don't work at Google myself, but friends do) - you start out of college as an L3 and are expected to make promo twice to L4 and then L5.
Once at L5 it's okay to just stay there and do good work, the pay is still really good and you're not expected to go beyond that unless you want to (and you're capable of it).
The main issue I've heard is that to go from L3 -> L5 there are incentives around 'impact' and launching products (or leaving for another company/startup and getting hired back).
This means people are incentivized to ship something to get promo, but working on an already shipped thing is bad for career progress.
An oversimplification, but seen through this lens Google's many chat apps make sense.
Once at L5 it's okay to just stay there and do good work, the pay is still really good and you're not expected to go beyond that unless you want to (and you're capable of it).
The main issue I've heard is that to go from L3 -> L5 there are incentives around 'impact' and launching products (or leaving for another company/startup and getting hired back).
This means people are incentivized to ship something to get promo, but working on an already shipped thing is bad for career progress.
An oversimplification, but seen through this lens Google's many chat apps make sense.
Some years ago, the official ladder descriptions changed to reflect what was already unofficially the case in (most of?) the company. Roughly: you can hang at L4 pretty much forever, as long as you're willing to keep learning new things as required for your role.
That leaves the pressure of getting from L3 to L4, which, admittedly, people do feel. But L3->L4 is also a much more straightforward promotion. It's not nearly as sensitive to finding the right project/right team/right boss, and the promo comes more from your impact on the project than your project's impact on the product/company.
That leaves the pressure of getting from L3 to L4, which, admittedly, people do feel. But L3->L4 is also a much more straightforward promotion. It's not nearly as sensitive to finding the right project/right team/right boss, and the promo comes more from your impact on the project than your project's impact on the product/company.
I work with many brilliant engineers who have been in Google for 5-10 years and are at L4. The pay is good enough if you don't have a large family to support and they simply can't be arsed to play that game.
Complaining at a high level. People with 3 kids make do with jobs at Walmart and McD.
"Pay is good enough" yeah sure.
"Pay is good enough" yeah sure.
> People with 3 kids make do with jobs at Walmart and McD.
Very difficult in the Bay Area given the housing costs. I guess it's possible if you lucked into a below market rate apartment and qualify for government assistance like Medicaid and food stamps.
Very difficult in the Bay Area given the housing costs. I guess it's possible if you lucked into a below market rate apartment and qualify for government assistance like Medicaid and food stamps.
You are saying that all Walmarts and McDs in the Bay Area are staffed with people who have a 3 hour commute?
'BAY AREA LEADS NATION IN COMMUTERS TRAVELING AT LEAST 3 HOURS EVERY DAY, STUDY SAYS' https://abc7news.com/super-commuters-bay-area-traffic-3-hour...
Yes I'm sorry to tell you that this area is much much worse in term of human respect than you think.
How much more is “good enough” when you’re already in the top 1% of the world?
You're top 1% in the world working in a SF McDonald. You're in the top 1% in the US when you're about L7-8 in Google, according to https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-incom... and levels.fyi.
McD SF is paying you $35k[0]. For 2018 figures: «A $35,000 income in the United States has enough buying power to put you in the 82nd percentile globally for per-person income. Within the United States, your income falls around the 20th percentile.»[1]
0: https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/Mcdonalds-Crew-Salary-...
1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/business/global...
0: https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/Mcdonalds-Crew-Salary-...
1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/business/global...
Your source is paywalled, but it's in line with my intuition. It doesn't state the global percentile in absolute money, does it?
It’s pulling data from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/global_...
If you look at age adjusted percentiles, 1% income is much lower than $750K/yr. 30 yr olds making $350k/ are 1%ers, and when they reach 40 or 50 they have substantial investment gains bolstering their compensation.
There's a difference between "make sense" and "can be explained".
A promotion isn't always good. It comes with responsibilities and you might suddenly spend a lot more time at the company. And not all work is high reaching technical work, much of it is pure interpersonal shit, adhering to formal processes that drive you crazy and justifying yourself against your superiors.
If you like to face hard technical problems, don't rise too high...
If you like to face hard technical problems, don't rise too high...
At Sun, they would promote privileged executive losers they wanted to get rid of up to "Vice President In Charge of Looking for a New Job".
I think they got that technique from Apple, but optimized it by promoting them directly, instead of giving them a task force to head:
https://books.google.nl/books?id=0DHnCxjX_t8C&pg=PA85&lpg=PA...
>West of Eden: The End of Innocence at Apple Computer, by By Frank Rose, page 85, Package Goods
>[...] Who knew what any of it meant? Certainly not Sculley; this stuff had about as much to do with the prehistoric electronics he'd dabbled in as a kid as it did with soft drinks and potato chips. But he was running a computer company, so he'd better know. He spent hour after hour with Steve going over the basics. By the end of April his speech was peppered with jargon. Convincing people he knew what he was saying took longer.
>On organizational issues, he was able to look more decisive, in part because Markkula had left him so much to do. He didn't say much -- he wasn't warm or friendly or outgoing -- but he did listen, silently, and when he made a move it was invariably a quick one. His first move was to fire John Vennard -- no great shock, since Steve had been demanding his head since February. Vennard was in Japan, working with Alps to fix a problem on a new disk drive for the Apple III, when Scully summoned him back to get the ax. Then he got rid of Wil Houde, who'd been running the Apple II division until the previous fall, when Markkula had decided to replace him and, unable to decide between the division's marketing director and its engineering director, had put them both in charge. Houde had been named to head a special task force to look into ways of streamlining the company. His task force was already streamlined: He was the only one on it. Everyone knew that heading a task force at Apple was like being named vice-president in charge of looking for a new job. Sculley was merely completing the process.
I think they got that technique from Apple, but optimized it by promoting them directly, instead of giving them a task force to head:
https://books.google.nl/books?id=0DHnCxjX_t8C&pg=PA85&lpg=PA...
>West of Eden: The End of Innocence at Apple Computer, by By Frank Rose, page 85, Package Goods
>[...] Who knew what any of it meant? Certainly not Sculley; this stuff had about as much to do with the prehistoric electronics he'd dabbled in as a kid as it did with soft drinks and potato chips. But he was running a computer company, so he'd better know. He spent hour after hour with Steve going over the basics. By the end of April his speech was peppered with jargon. Convincing people he knew what he was saying took longer.
>On organizational issues, he was able to look more decisive, in part because Markkula had left him so much to do. He didn't say much -- he wasn't warm or friendly or outgoing -- but he did listen, silently, and when he made a move it was invariably a quick one. His first move was to fire John Vennard -- no great shock, since Steve had been demanding his head since February. Vennard was in Japan, working with Alps to fix a problem on a new disk drive for the Apple III, when Scully summoned him back to get the ax. Then he got rid of Wil Houde, who'd been running the Apple II division until the previous fall, when Markkula had decided to replace him and, unable to decide between the division's marketing director and its engineering director, had put them both in charge. Houde had been named to head a special task force to look into ways of streamlining the company. His task force was already streamlined: He was the only one on it. Everyone knew that heading a task force at Apple was like being named vice-president in charge of looking for a new job. Sculley was merely completing the process.
Tech companies have IC promotions.
> How do you do it?
By breaking the bond between responsibility/authority, and remuneration.
Promotions could be increased autonomy (which intrinsically includes responsibility, but it is personal responsibility, not responsibility of others) and/or remuneration without the need for increased responsibility or even seniority.
In yesteryear payrises were to be given on a length of service basis. You got extra bonuses after X years, you were given an (extra, significantly above inflation) raise on your Nth jubilee, Etc.
I think this bond between promotion and "climbing the ladder(s)" is problematic and is a means of wage suppression.
By breaking the bond between responsibility/authority, and remuneration.
Promotions could be increased autonomy (which intrinsically includes responsibility, but it is personal responsibility, not responsibility of others) and/or remuneration without the need for increased responsibility or even seniority.
In yesteryear payrises were to be given on a length of service basis. You got extra bonuses after X years, you were given an (extra, significantly above inflation) raise on your Nth jubilee, Etc.
I think this bond between promotion and "climbing the ladder(s)" is problematic and is a means of wage suppression.
> Counterpoint: At a top company like Google, full of some of the most talented people in the world, there simply won't be enough promotions to go around.
I don't know anything about google specifically, but generally it's not the size or the talent level of a company, but the growth rate. If you want to be promoted, the most important question is whether or not the company is growing. Else the only way to go up is if someone else leaves.
High turnover can also accomplish this effect but is limited to a very small number of industries.
I don't know anything about google specifically, but generally it's not the size or the talent level of a company, but the growth rate. If you want to be promoted, the most important question is whether or not the company is growing. Else the only way to go up is if someone else leaves.
High turnover can also accomplish this effect but is limited to a very small number of industries.
"Exercise sheets to practice quickly spotting other contributor names and easing them"
If the place looks like a Paranoia game, is it evidence that an AI has already took over the place?
If the place looks like a Paranoia game, is it evidence that an AI has already took over the place?
As the other respondent said, that's not my generalized experience at Google. I am aware of one situation where I heard that someone who was planning to go up for promo was recreating important documents with only their name on it and then soliciting feedback from people in leadership to beef up their packet. It was not great, but it was successful.
But that was the only one of those that I've seen - after 14 years, I would imagine I would have seen more. In general, the big weakness in Google's promo process is that projects that are visible to leadership get more attention than those who are grinding it out behind the scenes. There's been genuine attempts to address that, but it's hard from a practical standpoint.
(Obligatory: opinion is my own)
But that was the only one of those that I've seen - after 14 years, I would imagine I would have seen more. In general, the big weakness in Google's promo process is that projects that are visible to leadership get more attention than those who are grinding it out behind the scenes. There's been genuine attempts to address that, but it's hard from a practical standpoint.
(Obligatory: opinion is my own)
(Opinion is my own)
It's very different between teams. My personal experience: everyone I've worked with is trying really hard to put me in a position where I can succeed. I've been put on very visible projects (from day one) and I'm getting constant help from my TL to keep me on a track to get promoted. Everyone I work with directly is amazing.
Google is a magical place but the standard deviation in experiences are large.
I've personally been very happy with my experience/team.
It's very different between teams. My personal experience: everyone I've worked with is trying really hard to put me in a position where I can succeed. I've been put on very visible projects (from day one) and I'm getting constant help from my TL to keep me on a track to get promoted. Everyone I work with directly is amazing.
Google is a magical place but the standard deviation in experiences are large.
I've personally been very happy with my experience/team.
Agreed. I never got the sense Google knows how to train managers... It favors a very self-organizing approach, and the feedback loops seem structured to deal with under-performing management by freezing them out of promotion (and hoping they either fix the problem or quit), not replacing them.
The consequence is that teams are fiefdoms, and the experience varies wildly based on whether a manager knows what the hell they're doing.
The consequence is that teams are fiefdoms, and the experience varies wildly based on whether a manager knows what the hell they're doing.
This is more or less the norm at every FAANG. New hires are trained by their managers to pee and mark their territory.
This is how you pee
1. Don't verbally discuss project ideas with peers
2. Write up a nice beefy document even if the core idea can be expressed in 2 paragraphs
3. Do some vaguely relevant data analysis etc.
4. Circulate among leadership
Doing the above only protects you from theft within your team. Even if you do all of the above your ideas are liable to be stolen, by someone from other teams. Typically, some one else will prepare a document with a very different title that for the first 2 paragraphs might look like something different. The details will be virtually identical except for some subsections where some arbitrary changes will be made. They will be very eager to not discuss the timelines of when each document was prepared.
Why do they do this? Aren't they paid enough to do the decent thing? The problem is that most FAANG hires are career climber high GPA folks who can't accept the idea that they got into FAANG by grinding on leetcode, not because of any depth in CS knowledge and understanding. Their brain is programmed to ladder climb at all costs. For the untalented hacks that end up at a FAANG, eventually stealing becomes the only option.
This is how you pee
1. Don't verbally discuss project ideas with peers
2. Write up a nice beefy document even if the core idea can be expressed in 2 paragraphs
3. Do some vaguely relevant data analysis etc.
4. Circulate among leadership
Doing the above only protects you from theft within your team. Even if you do all of the above your ideas are liable to be stolen, by someone from other teams. Typically, some one else will prepare a document with a very different title that for the first 2 paragraphs might look like something different. The details will be virtually identical except for some subsections where some arbitrary changes will be made. They will be very eager to not discuss the timelines of when each document was prepared.
Why do they do this? Aren't they paid enough to do the decent thing? The problem is that most FAANG hires are career climber high GPA folks who can't accept the idea that they got into FAANG by grinding on leetcode, not because of any depth in CS knowledge and understanding. Their brain is programmed to ladder climb at all costs. For the untalented hacks that end up at a FAANG, eventually stealing becomes the only option.
One more way things get stolen. Someone quickly implements the key idea in your document and plays dumb about the plagiarization. To be "fair", the project might get split into 2 parts or be completely handed over to the one who "executed".
I have no problem interpreting that as both humor/irony and also completely serious advice. It's potentially like saying "Make sure your priorities are in order. If you aren't actually adding value, you won't be a success. You can always be fired if you manage to get promoted and then can't actually deliver after tooting your own horn enough to get there."
It may be important to set a goal of getting promoted but you also need to qualify for the promotion and that's, at least in theory, about actually doing good work, not buttonholing the right people and having the perfect resume.
It may be important to set a goal of getting promoted but you also need to qualify for the promotion and that's, at least in theory, about actually doing good work, not buttonholing the right people and having the perfect resume.
"appearing very visibly to add value"
I occasionally wonder if Google exists primarily to herd smart-ish people towards mostly useless make work.
I occasionally wonder if Google exists primarily to herd smart-ish people towards mostly useless make work.
Focus on succeeding not winning, rip coach(https://www.ted.com/talks/john_wooden_the_difference_between...). One can win by chance but success is a more profound, long term thing which is less susceptible to chance.
Haha.. I like "move to competitor then back at L+1 route". And that's not just a Google thing.
Related: Google's “court jester” quits, releases 14 years of previously-internal comics https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27773253
Ah, I now understand the latest comic.
That comic can be read as Sundar finally getting rid of the pain in his shoe. This is not what happened. Manu described in his goodbye the reasons he left (mostly being tired by all the things he's complaining about in his comics and wanting to go somewhere that is remote-friendly) and I have not noticed being pressured out among them.
Makes me wonder if awsgeek has drawn any scathingly brutal internal cartoons about Amazon.
https://www.awsgeek.com/
https://www.awsgeek.com/
Seems he's now at Twitter. Looking forward to Twitcomics.
I'm not saying this with the intent of harshly criticizing the author, but I admit it's surprising to me that someone (who had other options) would work for 14 years at a company they clearly came to believe was making the world a worse place.
I think Google has a culture problem (they're massive, doesn't apply everywhere, etc. etc.).
There's a weird sense of internal entitlement where some (likely a small, but still substantial) number of people work there, are well paid, and yet act internally as if it's some terrible place doing terrible things (yet stay working there). Whatever way they rationalize this to themselves - it's odd. I don't have first hand exposure, have only heard things through friends that were employees.
Some of the most coddled/well compensated employees in human history acting as if they're in some sort of oppressive sweat shop.
Reminds me of this: https://paygo.ghost.io/why-did-i-leave-google-or-why-did-i-s...
The employees also pushed to avoid working for the USG, pushed to avoid the JEDI contract (though they likely would have lost it anyway) while at the same time trying to work within China (while Deep Mind may or may not be indirectly assisting in Uighur camps [0]). I think this is morally wrong and the arguments are often simple/naive.
[0]: ">>Peter Thiel: ...But somehow it’s very difficult to talk about this stuff coherently. I had a set of conversations with some of the Google people in the deep mind AI technology, “is your AI being used to run the concentration camps in Xinjiang?” and “Well, We don’t know and don’t ask any questions.” You have this almost magical thinking that by pretending that everything is fine, that’s how you engage and have a conversation. And you make the world better. And it’s some combination of wishful thinking. It’s useful idiots, you know, it’s CCP fifth columnist collaborators. So it’s some super position of all these things. But I think if you think of it ideologically or in terms of human rights or something like that, I’m tempted to say it’s just profoundly racist. It’s like saying that because they look different, they’re not white people, they don’t have the same rights. It’s something super wrong. But I don’t quite know how you unlock that."
https://nixonseminar.com/2021/04/the-nixon-seminar-april-6-2...
There's a weird sense of internal entitlement where some (likely a small, but still substantial) number of people work there, are well paid, and yet act internally as if it's some terrible place doing terrible things (yet stay working there). Whatever way they rationalize this to themselves - it's odd. I don't have first hand exposure, have only heard things through friends that were employees.
Some of the most coddled/well compensated employees in human history acting as if they're in some sort of oppressive sweat shop.
Reminds me of this: https://paygo.ghost.io/why-did-i-leave-google-or-why-did-i-s...
The employees also pushed to avoid working for the USG, pushed to avoid the JEDI contract (though they likely would have lost it anyway) while at the same time trying to work within China (while Deep Mind may or may not be indirectly assisting in Uighur camps [0]). I think this is morally wrong and the arguments are often simple/naive.
[0]: ">>Peter Thiel: ...But somehow it’s very difficult to talk about this stuff coherently. I had a set of conversations with some of the Google people in the deep mind AI technology, “is your AI being used to run the concentration camps in Xinjiang?” and “Well, We don’t know and don’t ask any questions.” You have this almost magical thinking that by pretending that everything is fine, that’s how you engage and have a conversation. And you make the world better. And it’s some combination of wishful thinking. It’s useful idiots, you know, it’s CCP fifth columnist collaborators. So it’s some super position of all these things. But I think if you think of it ideologically or in terms of human rights or something like that, I’m tempted to say it’s just profoundly racist. It’s like saying that because they look different, they’re not white people, they don’t have the same rights. It’s something super wrong. But I don’t quite know how you unlock that."
https://nixonseminar.com/2021/04/the-nixon-seminar-april-6-2...
> There's a weird sense of internal entitlement where some (likely a small, but still substantial) number of people work there, are well paid, and yet act internally as if it's some terrible place doing terrible things (yet stay working there). Whatever way they rationalize this to themselves - it's odd.
So far in my career I've worked for a government contractor, doing basically good things that benefit the government and the public, a large service exclusively serving gambling companies some of whom were committing obvious crimes including automatically gender detecting players and rate limiting anyone with a woman's name (under the assumption that any women on their service are men who've been banned or rate limited themselves using their wive's credit cards), and a supermarket, and honestly, the hardest place to leave was the gambling company that I thought constantly about how I should leave.
It took suddenly being made redundant due to the pandemic for me to really try hard to find another job, I'd applied to plenty but I never really pushed myself properly, or took them seriously enough because stability at the cost of bitterness and feeling like the smallest cog in a meat grinder of human misery is a weird sort of comfortable, it's leaving a splinter in because pulling it out is scary, it's not ripping off a bandaid, a "childish" failure of character, but ultimately relatable and human.
And I _wasn't_ making 6 figures. I _didn't_ spend years of my life building up to getting into that position, it was just the first job out of university paying slightly more than the average, I can't imagine if I had got into Google and realised what these people must've realised about themselves and the system and how they are really no exits that aren't steps down unless you're entrepreneurial and willing to take a big risk, you think Facebook/Apple/Amazon/Netflix/Uber don't make some big moral compromises to sell and produce in China?
I'm not (trying to) justify their decisions, just rather painfully admit that I can relate.
So far in my career I've worked for a government contractor, doing basically good things that benefit the government and the public, a large service exclusively serving gambling companies some of whom were committing obvious crimes including automatically gender detecting players and rate limiting anyone with a woman's name (under the assumption that any women on their service are men who've been banned or rate limited themselves using their wive's credit cards), and a supermarket, and honestly, the hardest place to leave was the gambling company that I thought constantly about how I should leave.
It took suddenly being made redundant due to the pandemic for me to really try hard to find another job, I'd applied to plenty but I never really pushed myself properly, or took them seriously enough because stability at the cost of bitterness and feeling like the smallest cog in a meat grinder of human misery is a weird sort of comfortable, it's leaving a splinter in because pulling it out is scary, it's not ripping off a bandaid, a "childish" failure of character, but ultimately relatable and human.
And I _wasn't_ making 6 figures. I _didn't_ spend years of my life building up to getting into that position, it was just the first job out of university paying slightly more than the average, I can't imagine if I had got into Google and realised what these people must've realised about themselves and the system and how they are really no exits that aren't steps down unless you're entrepreneurial and willing to take a big risk, you think Facebook/Apple/Amazon/Netflix/Uber don't make some big moral compromises to sell and produce in China?
I'm not (trying to) justify their decisions, just rather painfully admit that I can relate.
You make it sound as if Joe wants Google to stop working with the US and start working with China. The truth is that it's Frank who doesn't want to work with USG, Henry that organizes against Jedi and Sarah that tries to get back into the Chinese market. The three likely never met.
I think what Thiel is referring to is that advances in computer vision which are published in scientific papers enable others to build better surveillance systems.
This criticism doesn't just apply to DeepMind. The reason that he is mentioning them specifically is because was an early investor so he has access to their team.
This criticism doesn't just apply to DeepMind. The reason that he is mentioning them specifically is because was an early investor so he has access to their team.
>yet act internally as if it's some terrible place doing terrible things
>Some of the most coddled/well compensated employees in human history acting as if tthey're in some sort of oppressive sweat shop.
Does the existence of people worse off than you eliminate your right to complain?
It kind of sounds like that's what you're saying. If you're coddled (by some metric) you should... shut up?
>Some of the most coddled/well compensated employees in human history acting as if tthey're in some sort of oppressive sweat shop.
Does the existence of people worse off than you eliminate your right to complain?
It kind of sounds like that's what you're saying. If you're coddled (by some metric) you should... shut up?
You should have some perspective.
If your complaint is “what? Sushi again?!” then you should shut up (imo).
That’s just a subset, others take an overly adversarial stance to drive attention to themselves as activists - rather than have in-good-faith discussions about stuff.
If your complaint is “what? Sushi again?!” then you should shut up (imo).
That’s just a subset, others take an overly adversarial stance to drive attention to themselves as activists - rather than have in-good-faith discussions about stuff.
>If your complaint is “what? Sushi again?!”
None of the cartoons were saying that though, were they?
>You should have some perspective.
Should my perspective expand to include straw men?
None of the cartoons were saying that though, were they?
>You should have some perspective.
Should my perspective expand to include straw men?
In comic #6, from 2010-07-27 ( https://goomics.net/6/ ) two street demonstrations -- one of Google employees -- run into each other, and the following conversation takes place:
> Hi there. Why are you demonstrating?
> They're laying off one in four workers in the hospital. You?
> They're taking away our M&Ms from building 42's microkitchen.
> Wow, that's harsh.
So apparently the author of TFA didn't think a scenario like this was all that much of a strawman... Either.
Honestly, you're really bending over backwards in defense of privilege here. Why?
> Hi there. Why are you demonstrating?
> They're laying off one in four workers in the hospital. You?
> They're taking away our M&Ms from building 42's microkitchen.
> Wow, that's harsh.
So apparently the author of TFA didn't think a scenario like this was all that much of a strawman... Either.
Honestly, you're really bending over backwards in defense of privilege here. Why?
You inadvertently stumbled on precisely the point. TFA isnt exhibiting a sense of entitlement the OP complained he was. TFA is instead making fun of it.
OP thinks complaining about the company's terrible behavior and complaining about the lack of M&Ms are more or less the same thing and that if you are bothered about the former you should quietly quit coz hey, not everybody gets sushi twice a week.
I'm not defending privilege. I'm attacking the notion that you should STFU and fuck off when you see injustice because YOU personally happen to be comfortable.
To port it to another context, for instance, Oscar Schindler could have given up his privilege (he was quite privileged!), quit his job and begged on the street for scraps of food and many would have honestly argued that if he was that bothered by what he saw that he should have.
Should he though?
OP thinks complaining about the company's terrible behavior and complaining about the lack of M&Ms are more or less the same thing and that if you are bothered about the former you should quietly quit coz hey, not everybody gets sushi twice a week.
I'm not defending privilege. I'm attacking the notion that you should STFU and fuck off when you see injustice because YOU personally happen to be comfortable.
To port it to another context, for instance, Oscar Schindler could have given up his privilege (he was quite privileged!), quit his job and begged on the street for scraps of food and many would have honestly argued that if he was that bothered by what he saw that he should have.
Should he though?
Huh? At no point did I read OP as claiming the comic "exhibits" privilege; of fucking course it exposes (by ridiculing) it.
You now appear to be in violent agreement with them, and the misunderstanding seems to be mainly on your side.
You now appear to be in violent agreement with them, and the misunderstanding seems to be mainly on your side.
It was a direct quote from the article I linked: https://paygo.ghost.io/why-did-i-leave-google-or-why-did-i-s... - not a straw man I made up [0].
The 'You' wasn't you personally, but the general 'you' (similar to what you used in "you should... shut up?")
I'm sensing snark, but I'm genuinely not being snarky and I'm not really interested in fighting over this.
[0]: "After being acquired by Google, we had a “fun day” at the Google campus where we were shown around, wide eyed, to see the facilities. We had lunch in the cafeteria and while on line, a Googler ahead of us was overheard saying “What? Sushi again???” which became our inside joke around entitlement."
The 'You' wasn't you personally, but the general 'you' (similar to what you used in "you should... shut up?")
I'm sensing snark, but I'm genuinely not being snarky and I'm not really interested in fighting over this.
[0]: "After being acquired by Google, we had a “fun day” at the Google campus where we were shown around, wide eyed, to see the facilities. We had lunch in the cafeteria and while on line, a Googler ahead of us was overheard saying “What? Sushi again???” which became our inside joke around entitlement."
I had an initial reaction when reading this comics of, "Man, this guy has become very cynical about the company!" I remember reading some of the earliest comics and having a little laugh, but I kind of lost track of it and hadn't checked up on his stuff for a while.
But then I looked back to the earliest comics and even most of those come off as fairly critical of the company. There doesn't seem to be so much of an attitudinal shift as this guy has been focused on criticism from day 1. (Which is not necessarily a bad thing. Every big organization can benefit from reasonable criticism.)
But then I looked back to the earliest comics and even most of those come off as fairly critical of the company. There doesn't seem to be so much of an attitudinal shift as this guy has been focused on criticism from day 1. (Which is not necessarily a bad thing. Every big organization can benefit from reasonable criticism.)
This isn't the only possibility, but bald cynicism might just be the only creative tool he's got in his quiver.
Makes you appreciate the likes of Scott Adams, XKCD and Norman Rockwell, who use parody, irony, and soul respectively, each with skilled nuance that shifts the viewer from their same old place to open the possibilities for some new take.
Makes you appreciate the likes of Scott Adams, XKCD and Norman Rockwell, who use parody, irony, and soul respectively, each with skilled nuance that shifts the viewer from their same old place to open the possibilities for some new take.
The alternatives aren't really all that better on the topics that he criticized. If you work at big tech, at that scale, it's inevitable there will be parts of the company you disagree with. From my experience there, as long as your criticism is legitimate and constructive, it'll be well received by Googlers/company, heck some of his criticism pales in comparison to the ones done with memes.
You can simply choose to not work at that scale if they're all making the world worse.
Part of an aspect of sticking to your guns ethically and morally is making choices that leave you worse off. If your ethics align with what is best for you, personally, it's not much of an ethical code
Part of an aspect of sticking to your guns ethically and morally is making choices that leave you worse off. If your ethics align with what is best for you, personally, it's not much of an ethical code
I don't have as thick a skin as you, and I get really dispirited when this sort of criticism is adopted as a personality trait / cause internally. It's barely criticism rather than hyperbolic rancor, and while every good community needs people pointing out the bad, as you note, people know they're working at a big company and should value how we avoid things like JEDI, etc. thanks to leadership.
I tend to agree. There are enough problem alerters without solutions in most organizations that it’s not necessary to amplify one’s lack of solutions or influence with comics.
Alerting is meaningless if it doesn't motivate people enough to organize. You're way underestimating the influence of media like this.
No one is motivated by snark. They are motivated by ideals which, by their very nature, cannot be expressed as a negative.
No one is motivated by snark.
I can agree with that.
They are motivated by ideals which, by their very nature, cannot be expressed as a negative.
Not so much on this one, one person's ideals could be another's hate speech.
I can agree with that.
They are motivated by ideals which, by their very nature, cannot be expressed as a negative.
Not so much on this one, one person's ideals could be another's hate speech.
Have you conducted a study, or did you just mean to type "I am not motivated by snark."
Personally, I find a complete lack of snark to be alienating. I'm not motivated by pure positivity, just creeped out.
Personally, I find a complete lack of snark to be alienating. I'm not motivated by pure positivity, just creeped out.
Believe it or not, there’s people who just want to write code and get paid well. In fact I know more people like that, than those who are lofty about their goals.
He hints that’s the way he feels in this comic: https://goomics.net/309/
He hints that’s the way he feels in this comic: https://goomics.net/309/
Isn't what he hints at here actually more that even he does have a limit where "the price of his soul" will exceed his compensation, and the job won't be worth it any more?
(And squinting at the dotted continuations of the red and green lines, looks like he even estimated when that time would come pretty well. EDIT: But yeah, maybe not all that amazing, since it was only a year or so in advance.)
(And squinting at the dotted continuations of the red and green lines, looks like he even estimated when that time would come pretty well. EDIT: But yeah, maybe not all that amazing, since it was only a year or so in advance.)
(Opinions are my own)
An alternate way of looking at it:
When you work at a place you can help influence the culture to move it in the right direction. When you aren't working there you can't.
An alternate way of looking at it:
When you work at a place you can help influence the culture to move it in the right direction. When you aren't working there you can't.
If you are good, the best thing you can do is go leave and go work for a company doing things a better way. If you are not good the best thing you can do is stay and incrementally dilute their talent pool.
If you actually want to have more impact than that as an IC you could try your hand at internal activism, but I'd say you have a dramatically higher chance of damaging your career than creating any real change at a company that scale.
If you actually want to have more impact than that as an IC you could try your hand at internal activism, but I'd say you have a dramatically higher chance of damaging your career than creating any real change at a company that scale.
Internal activism has demonstrably achieved a noticeable amount in steering the company to act a bit more morally.
As far as I can tell all of the people quitting have achieved precisely fuck all. Not a single example to the contrary I can think of. Not at a big tech company (at a startup maybe).
Interestingly every time this topic crops up there's a chorus of "just quit if you feel that way about it" as if the exact opposite was true although in reality I think everybody kind of knows it's really not.
From a non American perspective it's really strange watching this play out. Like looking at a culture that cant see the color blue or something.
As far as I can tell all of the people quitting have achieved precisely fuck all. Not a single example to the contrary I can think of. Not at a big tech company (at a startup maybe).
Interestingly every time this topic crops up there's a chorus of "just quit if you feel that way about it" as if the exact opposite was true although in reality I think everybody kind of knows it's really not.
From a non American perspective it's really strange watching this play out. Like looking at a culture that cant see the color blue or something.
> As far as I can tell all of the people quitting have achieved precisely fuck all. Not a single example to the contrary I can think of. Not at a big tech company (at a startup maybe).
The idea is that you leave and go work on something else that makes the world better versus contributing to the borg.
The idea is that you leave and go work on something else that makes the world better versus contributing to the borg.
Still a good chance it'll come to nothing and your efforts to help reform the borg if you stayed (even by a tiny amount) would have been more effective in making the world a better place.
It's definitely a trade off thats quite personal.
Unlike other personal trade offs people seem quite comfortable making this one on your behalf.
It's definitely a trade off thats quite personal.
Unlike other personal trade offs people seem quite comfortable making this one on your behalf.
> As far as I can tell all of the people quitting have achieved precisely fuck all. Not a single example to the contrary I can think of. Not at a big tech company (at a startup maybe).
The thesis being, AIUI, that then they weren't good enough. Because if they had been, the competitor they started after leaving would have buried their original employer.
The thesis being, AIUI, that then they weren't good enough. Because if they had been, the competitor they started after leaving would have buried their original employer.
> If you are good, the best thing you can do is go leave and go work for a company doing things a better way
Assuming that the new company will displace the old one.
However at a large monopoly like google/facebook/amazon, if you want to change the world, you need to first change the company.
The vague thing about "damaging my career" is a bit nebulous.
I was bought out, so most of my remuneration is in stocks. There is almost no incentive for me to "build out my career" year. So I have no issue with calling out obvious bullshit/stuff that goes against publicly stated principles.
Assuming that the new company will displace the old one.
However at a large monopoly like google/facebook/amazon, if you want to change the world, you need to first change the company.
The vague thing about "damaging my career" is a bit nebulous.
I was bought out, so most of my remuneration is in stocks. There is almost no incentive for me to "build out my career" year. So I have no issue with calling out obvious bullshit/stuff that goes against publicly stated principles.
An employee cannot realistically hope to change the morality of a publicly traded corporation.
ocdtrekkie(1)
From another HN linked article [1]:
> Since starting at Google in 2007, Cornet's use of art to critique the company has become prolific, with ex-Google manager Claire Stapleton describing him to The Information as the tech firm's "moral bellweather." Cornet published a collection of his work, "Goomics", in 2018.
Having someone with first hand experience and knowledge about your organization and making "fun" of some of the sore points it can actually be good for the Org itself, because you have one more data point about how employees are feeling.
[1] https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/google-carto...
> Since starting at Google in 2007, Cornet's use of art to critique the company has become prolific, with ex-Google manager Claire Stapleton describing him to The Information as the tech firm's "moral bellweather." Cornet published a collection of his work, "Goomics", in 2018.
Having someone with first hand experience and knowledge about your organization and making "fun" of some of the sore points it can actually be good for the Org itself, because you have one more data point about how employees are feeling.
[1] https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/google-carto...
> bellweather
For anyone wondering, that words makes a whole lot more sense when written correctly(?) as: bellwether (the sheep carrying the bell).
For anyone wondering, that words makes a whole lot more sense when written correctly(?) as: bellwether (the sheep carrying the bell).
The comics suffer selection bias because "this thing is great" doesn't have as much humor potential as "this thing is broken".
Talking about how awesome Google's main search page is? Not very funny. Making fun of Google's endless list of failed chat apps? Much funnier.
Talking about how awesome Google's main search page is? Not very funny. Making fun of Google's endless list of failed chat apps? Much funnier.
I find this funny:
https://rodgersnotes.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/google-and-app...
https://rodgersnotes.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/google-and-app...
I think that still counts as a "this thing is broken" joke though.
[deleted]
Honestly, I don't find it that surprising. I mean the whole advertising industry does exist and will continue to do so. Plus, if they didn't directly hate doing the work itself I could see someone tolerating it especially knowing that google's compensation is pretty good.
Most of Google is not dedicated towards building Ads, surfaces where ads are displayed, or collecting data for ads, despite popular perception.
All that other stuff is a loss leader for selling ads.
Sorry, but that's not correct. As a counterexample, Google Cloud is not a "loss leader for ads". The hardware division is not a loss leader for ads. There are a myriad of counterexamples.
A loss leader is a product which is used to acquire revenue through a different channel, such as game consoles which often sell at a loss on hardware to encourage game sales.
A loss leader is a product which is used to acquire revenue through a different channel, such as game consoles which often sell at a loss on hardware to encourage game sales.
Doesn't the hardware produced by Google direct users towards Google services that contain advertising? Or are they producing non-consumer hardware?
My Nest devices don't have even tenuous links to advertising.
This is incorrect. You were correct with Google Cloud: While it's a market follower that can't even break the top three, it's definitely a non-ad-based business unit.
But Nest is, when viewed in a context that understands why most Google products exist. It should be obvious that Search exists to serve Ads. The first result of every search is generally an ad. That one's easy. Android and Chrome both exist to protect Google Search: They ensure that most people's default experience is to search Google for everything, so they get ads.
Nest is about ads, but you have to look at the competitive context. Apple, Microsoft, Google, are all shipping ecosystems. Large catalogs of products which interoperate best with each other. It's absolutely anticompetitive and most likely illegal, but that's a digression: The issue is that for Android and Chrome to protect Search to serve Ads is that people have to pick Google's ecosystem over other ecosystems. Sure, you can pick Apple's, and Google has paid Apple eleventy-billion dollars to still send you to Google Search, but they can change their minds at any time, and it's more beneficial for Google if they don't have to pay another company for your attention. Also sometimes Apple gets on a privacy kick and makes tracking users harder, which Google wants to do to sell ads better, so they gotta fight that too.
So the issue here is that Apple has iOS and then it has Siri, and then it has HomeKit, which all works very well together and provides a very clean unified experience. If Google didn't have an experience comparable to Apple's experience, people might leave Android for Apple, and that's bad. So products like Nest are entirely there to provide a Google ecosystem that is competitive to other tech companies' ecosystems, so that you view ads.
But Nest is, when viewed in a context that understands why most Google products exist. It should be obvious that Search exists to serve Ads. The first result of every search is generally an ad. That one's easy. Android and Chrome both exist to protect Google Search: They ensure that most people's default experience is to search Google for everything, so they get ads.
Nest is about ads, but you have to look at the competitive context. Apple, Microsoft, Google, are all shipping ecosystems. Large catalogs of products which interoperate best with each other. It's absolutely anticompetitive and most likely illegal, but that's a digression: The issue is that for Android and Chrome to protect Search to serve Ads is that people have to pick Google's ecosystem over other ecosystems. Sure, you can pick Apple's, and Google has paid Apple eleventy-billion dollars to still send you to Google Search, but they can change their minds at any time, and it's more beneficial for Google if they don't have to pay another company for your attention. Also sometimes Apple gets on a privacy kick and makes tracking users harder, which Google wants to do to sell ads better, so they gotta fight that too.
So the issue here is that Apple has iOS and then it has Siri, and then it has HomeKit, which all works very well together and provides a very clean unified experience. If Google didn't have an experience comparable to Apple's experience, people might leave Android for Apple, and that's bad. So products like Nest are entirely there to provide a Google ecosystem that is competitive to other tech companies' ecosystems, so that you view ads.
Do you work for Google?
If not, how do you know that data from Nest isn't used to enhance your profile?
I mean: knowing the sounds or patterns of sounds (I'm trying to be generous here and not accuse them of actually using every word spoken near a listening device as input) or just the general pattern of temperature etc could be useful in figuring out what ads to show.
... on a less generous note they mostly don't need that data: their AI has already calculated that if you are a male at least you need to see even more ads for scammy dating sites or - lately - ads for pay-to-win games - possibly with female narrators that could also have been in the aforementioned ads.
If not, how do you know that data from Nest isn't used to enhance your profile?
I mean: knowing the sounds or patterns of sounds (I'm trying to be generous here and not accuse them of actually using every word spoken near a listening device as input) or just the general pattern of temperature etc could be useful in figuring out what ads to show.
... on a less generous note they mostly don't need that data: their AI has already calculated that if you are a male at least you need to see even more ads for scammy dating sites or - lately - ads for pay-to-win games - possibly with female narrators that could also have been in the aforementioned ads.
Nest isn't exactly a profit center for Google though. Presumably it makes sense as a foothold into the smarthome/IOT industry which might become a big surface for ads and they wouldn't want to lose that opportunity (like how some companies have been late to web or late to smartphones to their detriment).
That's some very generous speculation. I'll grant you that ads is quite obviously (based on our public filings) profitable, but that doesn't mean every venture seeks to insert ads.
I don't think it's speculation at this point. It used to be about who could control the family room TV experience. Now it's about who can control not only the family TV, but also the whole ecosystem of smart devices in the home that you will interact constantly with such as voice assistants and those tablet/hub things. It's all for ads, they're already doing it.
There is a comic for that too.
https://goomics.net/70/
https://goomics.net/70/
It used to be that way. Now there are several businesses that aren't just surfaces for ads. The productivity suite, cloud, etc
Every google product exists to encourage people to see more ads, even if he product isn't showing the ads.
I encourage anyone to point to a google product that isn't either selling ads or trying to get people to spend more time on the internet so google can sell them more ads.
I encourage anyone to point to a google product that isn't either selling ads or trying to get people to spend more time on the internet so google can sell them more ads.
Drive/Docs/Meet. Cloud. Nest. These are a few examples of (though far from the only) products completely orthogonal to ads.
Drive/docs absolutely contributes to google selling ads since it brings you to their home site.
I'll give you cloud and nest though.
I'll give you cloud and nest though.
How do you figure? There's no offramps from Drive or Docs into Search as far as I know. Are you saying that because they're subdomains, it somehow works to get you to ads?
Docs and Drive want to sell you storage and collaboration capabilities. Not ads.
Docs and Drive want to sell you storage and collaboration capabilities. Not ads.
Any product that leads to people spending more time on the internet increases the number of ads google sells.
All of Verily, Calico, and Google Health, and Fit/FitBit.
The work I do on AI-based medical device infrastructure has nothing to do with ads.
The work I do on AI-based medical device infrastructure has nothing to do with ads.
[deleted]
Is there any human organization that is not making the world worse in one way or another? Its pretty much relative in any case, hardly purely evil or purely good unless you are very naive or very young.
Most food banks are pretty easily in the "unequivocally good" category, unless you're a Malthusian. Charity Navigator is a great way to find the best-managed and highest-impact food banks.
I volunteer all the time at a food bank.
A lot of the work is sorting the incoming goods. Much of this work is done by volunteers. As a result it isn't uncommon for spoiled food to accidentally be stocked and distributed to people. It is a rare but not infrequent occurrence to have someone get sick and report back to the food bank.
Not unequivocally good! :]
A lot of the work is sorting the incoming goods. Much of this work is done by volunteers. As a result it isn't uncommon for spoiled food to accidentally be stocked and distributed to people. It is a rare but not infrequent occurrence to have someone get sick and report back to the food bank.
Not unequivocally good! :]
Fine. I'll settle for a net social good
Public broadcasting/public radio seems like a pure public good. Along with the people working on disaster.radio [0]
[0] https://disaster.radio/
[0] https://disaster.radio/
public broadcasting? you mean state sanctionned propaganda disguised as news?
I'm curious what country you're from to have that point of view. In the US the public radio is extremely clearly not a state sanctioned propaganda; some of the corresponding private news corps are much more.
Not the person you're responding to, but...
I live in the UK, and the BBC is definitely propaganda.
I also agree with you that private broadcasters can definitely be worse.
OTOH, it's a vicious circle: you cannot fix society without fixing propaganda, and if the propaganda is any good, you cannot fix propaganda without fixing society (most people will lend an ear to it, believe it, parrot it, support it, work for it, etc.)... so we just have to learn to live with it :/
I live in the UK, and the BBC is definitely propaganda.
I also agree with you that private broadcasters can definitely be worse.
OTOH, it's a vicious circle: you cannot fix society without fixing propaganda, and if the propaganda is any good, you cannot fix propaganda without fixing society (most people will lend an ear to it, believe it, parrot it, support it, work for it, etc.)... so we just have to learn to live with it :/
Are you sure you know what "public broadcasting" is? It's broadcasting funded by the public, mostly through private donations and some funding through competitive grants.
EDIT: I see from your profile you're not in the US, which is probably the source of the confusion. Examples of Public Broadcasting are https://www.npr.org and https://www.pbs.org.
EDIT: I see from your profile you're not in the US, which is probably the source of the confusion. Examples of Public Broadcasting are https://www.npr.org and https://www.pbs.org.
As a US citizen who used to listen to NPR daily, it may not be state-sanctioned, but it definitely had a propagandistic narrative tying together the reporting.
Maybe not quite as strongly so as the NYT, but it was definitely there.
Maybe not quite as strongly so as the NYT, but it was definitely there.
Always seems like it's the people doing the worst things that pull out this line. They also like "well, if I didn't do it, someone else would've, so it might as well be me."
There are plenty of organizations that mostly do good. To pick the first example that comes to mind, Partners in Health.
There are plenty of organizations that mostly do good. To pick the first example that comes to mind, Partners in Health.
Or if you’re very Apple. They didn’t start out as that organization per se, but there’s lots of things to be said about how they’re committing to being at least carbon neutral to the planet over the whole lifecycle of their products. They set 2030 as that goal, but I believe they’ll get there much earlier than that. Google just went from one extreme to the other, and it’s seen by many as driven by a focus on Ads.
Edit: the FOSS Community with Linus at its helm could be seen as an organization that’s focused on making the software world a better place.
The assertion was that companies aren't unequivocally good. Apple are better than most, but still support Foxconn and terrible factory conditions, use their ecosystem to crush open competitors, and push planned obsolescence via software updates.
Money.
That's pretty normal for the advertising industry.
The only disappointing part of Google, for this former Apple aficionado, is how self-flagellating the internal and external culture are. (ex. we see other Googlers/ex-Googlers in this thread noting how funny these are)
Thank you for sharing that, I was uncertain if it was my own bias that was making me think similar things
Thank you for sharing that, I was uncertain if it was my own bias that was making me think similar things
Who knows about bias? Im largely pro Google, and laughed anyway.
A non-Googler replying with the same take I was worried that was biased simply by being a Googler, rules out that the take can only be had if you have bias due to being a Googler (as does your take: we're both Googlers and have different opinions!)
The ability Google has to make the world better is significant, and folks like Manu were (are) excited to be a part of that. For example, Google came up with a privacy-conscious way to surface enough data to track and address the COVID-19 spread, which was huge for US state governments trying to handle the disease by giving them signal to shape outbreak mitigation strategy (https://fpf.org/press-releases/fpf-issues-2021-award-for-res...).
But there have been a lot of changes in recent years, and Google is playing with fire in its military and government support projects (as well as struggling with the increased union consciousness that is permeating white-collar Silicon Valley culture at the FAANGs). I'm not profoundly surprised he finally decided the balance had swung too far.
But there have been a lot of changes in recent years, and Google is playing with fire in its military and government support projects (as well as struggling with the increased union consciousness that is permeating white-collar Silicon Valley culture at the FAANGs). I'm not profoundly surprised he finally decided the balance had swung too far.
If Google didn't exist, then Baidu, Tencent or Alibaba would be mining your data instead. Is that what you would prefer?
I’d prefer that they all take their place in history next to the cigarette and trans fat corporations. Thanks for asking.
I would rather compare them with Bonzi Buddy, but OK.
Using Google Maps won't give you lung cancer (unless you are using it to find smoke shops that is). It erodes your privacy, sure, but it won't deteriorate your health...
Using Google Maps won't give you lung cancer (unless you are using it to find smoke shops that is). It erodes your privacy, sure, but it won't deteriorate your health...
Cigarettes and trans fats are both still hugely popular.
Quietly continuing to make profits for decades after a brief period of major blowback?
Baidu, Tencent, and Alibaba wouldn't exist in their current form without companies like Google and Amazon to take heavy inspiration/copy from.
Let's be real here, China's tech industry revolves around mimicking American/European/Japanese/Korean tech, they rarely ever innovate and create first of their kind things.
Let's be real here, China's tech industry revolves around mimicking American/European/Japanese/Korean tech, they rarely ever innovate and create first of their kind things.
Some fun here but wow do these get negative. I can relate to a lot of this stuff and I hope the artist is ok.
If a relationship is bringing you sadness and negativity all the time then it either needs some nurturing or a nuclear option.
The nice thing with employer relationships is you can literally walk away. Relationships with people are worth fixing but no job is worth the sadness, even if it’s with someone as prestigious as Google.com.
If a relationship is bringing you sadness and negativity all the time then it either needs some nurturing or a nuclear option.
The nice thing with employer relationships is you can literally walk away. Relationships with people are worth fixing but no job is worth the sadness, even if it’s with someone as prestigious as Google.com.
US’s culture has a lot of focus on one’s self and the steps one should take to get themselves better. Little focus on how awful systems or companies coughlike Googlecough are the one’s with the issues, not us.
This is not my experience working for Bay Area tech companies at all. A significant number of employees seem to think criticizing their employer is their primary job function.
If there’s nothing to complain about at the moment, they’ll manufacture it. They need a constant outlet to express how awful and oppressive their employer is, and if they don’t get enough attention internally, they’ll turn to Twitter and try to drum up outrage externally.
If a company has crossed an ethical (not political) line, I’m all for taking a stand. But this goes far beyond that.
If there’s nothing to complain about at the moment, they’ll manufacture it. They need a constant outlet to express how awful and oppressive their employer is, and if they don’t get enough attention internally, they’ll turn to Twitter and try to drum up outrage externally.
If a company has crossed an ethical (not political) line, I’m all for taking a stand. But this goes far beyond that.
Certainly a somewhat limited audience but as a xoogler I found a lot of those hilarious.
I worked at another FAANG and some of it just read incredibly true.
Lots of good comics in there. A few I haven't seen highlighted yet:
https://goomics.net/127/ - poor, poor Google Plus. Somehow it wasn't a warning sign that the big executive-supported project to Win Social was a laughingstock internally.
https://goomics.net/202/ followed years later by https://goomics.net/294/ - everybody expected TGIF to get worse over time, and apparently it did.
https://goomics.net/118/ - the last of three TailGator comics. A more innocent time.
And last, https://goomics.net/106/ - not Google-specific at all, but an instant classic of the industry.
https://goomics.net/127/ - poor, poor Google Plus. Somehow it wasn't a warning sign that the big executive-supported project to Win Social was a laughingstock internally.
https://goomics.net/202/ followed years later by https://goomics.net/294/ - everybody expected TGIF to get worse over time, and apparently it did.
https://goomics.net/118/ - the last of three TailGator comics. A more innocent time.
And last, https://goomics.net/106/ - not Google-specific at all, but an instant classic of the industry.
What's TGIF at Google? Is it a weekly event where you can ask exec questions in an open forum?
Bit like that. After hard questions starting being asked the execs locked that shit right down. Not much of substance goes on there anymore. Just fake shit and platitudes.
Well that doesn't sound very Google-y.
Hard to know without being there - but honest/nuanced answers require in-good-faith questions and not political posturing or using the opportunity to attack/leak.
Though I think Zuckerberg has done a good job continuing this despite the leaks (at least that's what it seems like externally).
It might not be just the company that changed, but the employees too (which may have forced Google to change policy as a result).
Though I think Zuckerberg has done a good job continuing this despite the leaks (at least that's what it seems like externally).
It might not be just the company that changed, but the employees too (which may have forced Google to change policy as a result).
There once was a day, long ago in the before time, when the leadership at Google was held to a higher ethical standard than Mark Zuckerberg.
They're in the same business - not sure why you'd expect them to have different incentives.
Both are trying to do things at massive scale and dealing with the problems associated with that.
I think both do things I don't agree with, but are generally unfairly vilified most of the time by their failing competition (the press mostly) and weirdly some of their employees. The sense I get from this is it's mostly political tribalism (affects both far left and far right with different grievances for each).
I don't personally like the ad-driven model, so with the exception of YouTube I avoid their products where possible.
Both are trying to do things at massive scale and dealing with the problems associated with that.
I think both do things I don't agree with, but are generally unfairly vilified most of the time by their failing competition (the press mostly) and weirdly some of their employees. The sense I get from this is it's mostly political tribalism (affects both far left and far right with different grievances for each).
I don't personally like the ad-driven model, so with the exception of YouTube I avoid their products where possible.
Well, a large part of the difference in how they are treated is probably down to how Facebook didn't spend their first decade or so claiming to live by a motto like "Don't be evil".
yeah pretty much. larry and sergey would take the stage and you could ask them anything. there were also company updates. some folks asked them some really tough questions (cost of housing relative to salaries was a big one, the compensation Google Sheet leak was another), and all of it was fair game.
That was the original intent
It was, yes.
holy shit i didn't know that he was the one behind the tailgator. So cool!
https://goomics.net/17/
> Size of the pool of candidates for a position at Google <image of the world here>
Yea, no. It's kind of funny that the image of the world is centered at North America. That's how I feel about Google (and a lot of other big tech) hiring practices.
I'm not saying you can't work for Google from the UK, Germany, India, or other places, but it gets a lot harder.
> Size of the pool of candidates for a position at Google <image of the world here>
Yea, no. It's kind of funny that the image of the world is centered at North America. That's how I feel about Google (and a lot of other big tech) hiring practices.
I'm not saying you can't work for Google from the UK, Germany, India, or other places, but it gets a lot harder.
Isn’t this true of most companies?
[deleted]
I don't know to be honest. Realistically speaking, the bigger the company the easier it should be to hire elsewhere.
Google has legal representation pretty much everywhere in the world, yet when I see engineering positions, they are mostly "anywhere in the US".
For example, I feel like Oracle, IBM, or Accenture will be happy to hire you in a country like Slovenia, while companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc. are more likely to force you to relocate to a place where they've got a large office.
All of the above is my subjective perspective of course, I haven't worked for Google, MS, nor Apple.
I'd love to know which big tech companies are happy to hire a remote-only engineer and let them work from their own country.
Google has legal representation pretty much everywhere in the world, yet when I see engineering positions, they are mostly "anywhere in the US".
For example, I feel like Oracle, IBM, or Accenture will be happy to hire you in a country like Slovenia, while companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc. are more likely to force you to relocate to a place where they've got a large office.
All of the above is my subjective perspective of course, I haven't worked for Google, MS, nor Apple.
I'd love to know which big tech companies are happy to hire a remote-only engineer and let them work from their own country.
D̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶e̶v̶i̶l̶
D̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶
Pray that nobody notices
https://goomics.net/314/
D̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶
Pray that nobody notices
https://goomics.net/314/
[The entire Internet notices]
https://goomics.net/329/
This one has a lot of meme opportunity. Imagine a third pane ("Oracle" or something) with guns pointed both inward and outward!
This one has a lot of meme opportunity. Imagine a third pane ("Oracle" or something) with guns pointed both inward and outward!
Related: https://goomics.net/62/ (probably his best-known one).
FYI: the author of that comic has just left Google: https://twitter.com/bysarahkrouse/status/1412771753466732545...
Wow, that was his? I had no idea. Saw it way back, never knew it was a Google comic.
Considering number of chat apps by Google, they should adopt former MS's one.
https://readwrite.com/2013/07/11/microsoft-reorganziation-tr...
edit: (I failed to realize this was in the same archive ;P. I now see someone else posted that link)
edit: (I failed to realize this was in the same archive ;P. I now see someone else posted that link)
I think Oracle would still have a bouquet of roses, but they'd only go to Larry Ellison.
not sure how accurate it is these days either
https://goomics.net/366/
some much about I what dislike about google these days can be traced backed to this comic
some much about I what dislike about google these days can be traced backed to this comic
> https://goomics.net/347/
Rules for thee, not for me.
Rules for thee, not for me.
A lot of these comics are self-explanatory, but I'm curious about the story behind this one: https://goomics.net/308/
Google used to give away phones as part of the "holiday gift". Basically the suggestion is to give the phones away if they're not sold.
[deleted]
Guess. Ruth Porat + Google employee count.
Dude was done with Google at around comic 280 and didn't notice for almost 100 more comics.
That's right around the time the sexual misconduct allegations at Google became public (well, the second set regarding Andy Ruben... The ones regarding Vivek Gundotra's behavior came out in 2015).
It was a tough pill to swallow for quite a few Googlers that the higher-ups knew about Ruben's behavior and golden-parachuted him instead of cutting him loose (especially because the story broke on the heels of the Damore memo fallout). Questions at All Hands became a lot more pointed, leadership responded by becoming significantly less welcoming to open discussion... It got ugly. Or, if you will, "normal corporate-y."
It was a tough pill to swallow for quite a few Googlers that the higher-ups knew about Ruben's behavior and golden-parachuted him instead of cutting him loose (especially because the story broke on the heels of the Damore memo fallout). Questions at All Hands became a lot more pointed, leadership responded by becoming significantly less welcoming to open discussion... It got ugly. Or, if you will, "normal corporate-y."
[deleted]
They are great! But some (most?) could really benefit from a creation date/year being visible, especially when referencing years that are made out to be "far in the future" but are in the past now
If you right click and click View Image, you can then zoom in.... helpful for https://goomics.net/img/2018-01-25_mk_cookbook.png
You can also click on an image to open it in a larger viewer and then use the arrow keys to navigate through the gallery.
You can use the 'j' and 'k' keys to navigate between comics.
Other work from the same author (has been a public site for a while): https://bonkersworld.net/
Good one:
https://goomics.net/361/
I know it's poking fun at the amount of SCREAMING_SNAKE annotations and checkers and overhead to submit a simple CL... but man oh man do I miss Critique.
Xoogler here, I loved these too... I wish I could find the internal comic about Intellij and Eclipse both as big floating messes -- similar in style to https://goomics.net/364/. It might have been an internal meme.
https://goomics.net/348/
This one is fantastic. Seems a little strange that they're wearing an apple shirt when google does the same thing though and its a google comic that seems generally self-scathing.
This one is fantastic. Seems a little strange that they're wearing an apple shirt when google does the same thing though and its a google comic that seems generally self-scathing.
The fact that you could rebrand at least 70% of these as Facemics or about a hundred other Xyzmics says a lot about how much Google drives tech-industry culture. Worth pondering whether that's a good thing.
https://goomics.net/239/ needs a few more darts ;)
pity the RSS feed is dead: https://goomics.net/feed.xml
There's https://bonkersworld.net/ with a working feed. Last entry Nov 2020.
I made a comic book archive out of it for easier reading on phones/tablets/e-inks: https://store.lisk.in/tmp/goomics.cbz
[deleted]
Hopefully someday this will have a companion site, like https://www.explainxkcd.com/
Tons of these are relevant to tech industry in general.
Braised https://goomics.net/347/
https://goomics.net/237/
Haha, so true.
Haha, so true.
Pretty strong collection in the aggregate.
Looks like Dilbert is now working for a real company...
And there are 30 thousands of him.
And there are 30 thousands of him.
It is interesting to see people complaining about google getting into military and immigration. And not complaining about universities doing the exact same thing. I don't see much opposition in the academic and they work on the same kind of "problems".
[deleted]
Launch and run warrants the brag. Shipping is hard.
These are great!! Thank you for sharing. :)
Is it me or the site navigation makes it really annoying to go through the comics?
Comic sites (e.g. xkcd) usually allow users to navigate sequentially without having to go back a page after each comic.
Comic sites (e.g. xkcd) usually allow users to navigate sequentially without having to go back a page after each comic.
There are arrows on each side of the comic. They're transparent, but they're there.
try j and k
365. Oof.
[deleted]
echelon(5)
https://goomics.net/228/