Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 1:45 PM
Mon Nov 16
30 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/30/09
That being said, people who score 1's, or at least, the 99% who do, many of them wouldn't be able to hack it. If you don't have the social skills you need to have the technical skills. If you don't have either, makes sense that you'd get bounced.
Also, word on the street is that Google is pretty widely hiring right now--not laying off.
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/30/09
10/29/09
I've got 20 years on the little snot-nosed recent PhD interviewing me and he starts throwing these lame-ass puzzles at me. He speaks, throughout, in the most condescending imaginable tones. Some of them are trivial as in "why are you wasting my time with this, I've already offered to send you code samples and some of my algorithm work". Some of them are so poorly phrased as to have no good answer. A final one was an old saw of a problem - one I'd seen decades ago, once knew the "trick", but that would take more more than 1m to remember the trick. It wasn't even a very practical problem or trick to know for any utilitarian purpose - just one of those old puzzles that geeks trade around as useless toys. Since it was taking me more than about a minute to reconstruct the answer he grew impatient and started talking to me like I was a three year old. The interviewer said several other idiotic things in the course of discussion (not rude, I mean -- technically stupid (although he was also rude)). Our mutual disrespect was mutually clear, I think, by the end of the interview.
A serious problem with Google's culture, I learned that day, is that their declaration of owning "the world's best engineers" has the very bad side effect of giving every loser hired into engineering there the unsubstantiated belief that they are a member of that species.
What I've learned, over the years, is that you have to pretty much (not absolutely, but close) *never* trust an engineer who regards himself as anything other than an average plodder, prone to mistakes, who might be *slightly* better than most at this or that specialty. Those are the only honest engineers you'll find, for the most part. They are the only ones who are appropriately skeptical of their own brilliance. And they do the best work.
The founders of Google set a really bogus tone, from the outset.
10/29/09
10/29/09
10/29/09
First, they come up with a battery of ridiculous questions, then they look at the people that do the worst at answering them and then hire one of those people they just REALLY LIKED.
Wow. That makes a lot of sense. #google
10/29/09
I remember there was an article about a Google (?) HR person (?) who had ridiculously strict ideas of who would make a good employee.
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
Google has invested in Wojcicki's company at the behest of a founder. Google is not subject to the marriage contract and because 23andMe is still in the startup phase, it hasn't produced any value for Google's shareholders. Any future investments would be subject to the whim of Sergey;
So, what does NOW think of this power dynamic?
10/07/09
10/07/09
... until they don't
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/08/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/13/09
08/12/09