When I worked at Google I had the chance to interact with many of the leadership including the founders and CEOs, as well as many SVPs. I have to say, both Larry and Sundar have the personality and motivational skills of limp noodles. When I met Eric Schmidt, he immediately quizzed me about every detail about my product and product plans and further goals and was encouraging, like an actual leader. It was a wonderful discussion and I left the room feeling like I had actually been listened to by a leader who wanted the company to grow in new directions (like cloud and machine learning for health research).
I also got to meet people like Urs Hoezle and Luiz Barroso who are responsible for Google's technical position in computing today; they were both also great leaders who really deserve to have their own sub-company to run (TI and Core).
I was truly lucky to be able to have coffee with Jeff Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat almost every morning for a year, which led to some great research collaborations. I was extremely disappointed to see Jeff defend Megan Kacholia's firing of Timnit (yes, I read the paper) and call it a resignation. That pretty much killed the reputation of Google Research's leader.
I have a long history. I started out as a Biophysics PhD doing MD simulations and applying machine learning to biology (search for 'David Konerding' in Google Scholar).
Since Google is very much like academia, my research training prepared me to be successful inside. Getting inside was the hardest part!
When I joined google, the only way I could get hired was as a test engineer on an SRE team, which I then converted into an SRE via mission control and wrote docs and shared them internally with folks until the principal engineers read them, and then they gave me infinite resources (Google Exacycle) to do everything I described above. I used that to get promoted to Staff SWE, and used that to launch a product (Google Cloud Genomics) and do some interesting machine learning for drug discovery (BTW, at this point mny career was effectively complete- I had set out to do everything I wanted, and was interested in what to do next).
The above happened because (beyond a wide range of boosts provided by parents and country) I have an intense drive, wanted to work at Google more than anything, and exploited the internal structure of the company to maximize my power. I kept networking to meet more and more people, and by meeting those people I got more access and support. I helped build up a team- Google Accelerated Sciences- which does basically what I thought Google should be doing all along.
unfortunately, at that point Google politics and personalities intervened and I was kicked out of the cool kid's club.
> I have an intense drive, wanted to work at Google more than anything, and exploited the internal structure of the company to maximize my power
> at that point Google politics and personalities intervened and I was kicked out of the cool kid's club.
It sounds like a power struggle gone the other way from reading this. And it certainly doesn't seem like either of the sides are more noble than the other.
But props for you for doing what you loved best, if only one day any of these can be decoupled from politics.
Wow, very impressive! Turns out I've followed your work for a while and never knew your HN username. Makes me wish I had the innate ability to be able to achieve even a fraction of this or have a scrap of the prestige - instead, I'm stuck on a lower rung for good (I blame heritability of intelligence via my parents).
Huh, OK, I didn't know anybody followed my work! Note that I am not particularly intelligent- I always struggled in school, and had a ton of imposter syndrome. I tried and failed to become a successful scientist and instead pivoted to what I'm actually good at (scientific computing). Most of my drive came from fear of not being able to make enough money to live in the bay area, or from being thought unintelligent.
Never underestimate the power of imposter syndrome!
Where would you go now if you wanted to do such things? I have people in UW CS tell me a physics PhD in CMT is no proof I can learn how to analyze RNASeq data quickly enough for them and they want a postdoc with the experience already to teach DL to (I would have thought the other way around would be easier)
The other way around is definitely easier. RNA-seq analysis is a mostly solved problem with DESeq2 (or edgeR/limma). The tutorials are very detailed. The most difficult part is experimental design, which you probably know already.
Deep learning, on the other hand, is so fraught with pitfalls and traps. Even if you can code up a model successfully, it's very easy to trick yourself that you're doing very well (see a previous discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27376839). In my opinion, most of the work should be spent on making sure that you're not tricking yourself.
literally the first 5 years of training in any large scale data analysis should be "how not to trick yourself into thinking you found something significant that generalizes"
> I was extremely disappointed to see Jeff defend Megan Kacholia's firing of Timnit
Jeff had 2 options: pick a safe leader, or a corrosive person. Timnit has shown incredible tone-deafness and arrogance; just view her Twitter exchange with Yann LeCun. She was clearly out of her league, and doubling down every day with newer and newer antics. She needed to go.
Are you objecting to Google's refusal to let her "unresign" then?
Btw plenty of us ex Googlers think Jeff Dean's reputation was enhanced still further by that move. Gebru was acting in crazy ways, she really should have been fired much earlier, but taking the opportunity when she so helpfully presented it seems like a no brainer. Sad that the rest of Google lacks that approach.
I don't think Google should unresign her. I think it should admit it fired her (technically speaking), and pay her a bunch of money (to make up for the bad handling of the firing).
I agree, she should have been fired earlier. However, she was just promoted, which meant she must have had several quarters of excellent perf.
I think one thing that would be truly excellent, but won't happen, would be to have Megan Kacholia defend herself by explaining her actions to the wider Google community. In particular:
Why was Megan, a person with effectively no research experience, a VP in Google Research and making decisions about research papers being withdrawn? Her lack of experience in the area seems to have led to an exacerbation of tensions.
Why did Megan convert an offer to have a discussion about a resignation into an interpretation that Timnit resigned voluntarily, coupled with an accelerated departure (immediate, with termination of all Google services)?
Why was Megan pushing so hard to have the paper withdrawn, given that the paper wouldn't be that impactful on Google's reputation, made some useful (if obvious and a bit overstated) points, and wasn't being published in a prominent venue?
To Jeff and Megan: to what extent did Jeff support Megan's decision to fire Timnit over a refusal to withdraw a paper, or did his support come after learning Megan had fired Timnit? To what extent did Timnit's previous tweets calling out her employees and mentioning confidential Google Research activities play a role in her firing? Was her discouraging email really a reasonable justification for accelerating her termination?
My guess about all of this is that Megan and Jeff decided to fire timnit when timnit posted several negative tweets attacking Jeff and google Research, and used the paper and the email (and vague offer to resign) to justify the firing and they didn't think through the implications of firing a twitterati like Timnit in a roughshod manner. This seems most consistent with all the evidence I've seen.
Given the statement: "A || B" (where A is "take this course of action" and B is "I will quit"), if A is false (i.e., !A is true) then logically B has to be true.
The moment an employee says "Do this or I quit", and the company refuses to "do this", then the company is correct in assuming that the "I quit" part will apply.
Gebru said "do this or I resign". The company accepted her resignation. She then attempted to "unresign" by claiming her statement she would resign wasn't an actual resignation. Clearly you support this kind of meritless word games from her.
As for Megan, why is a non engineer running YouTube? Why did someone at lightweight as Gebru end up being paid as a researcher at all given that her research had no real validity? Why was she allowed to behave in such toxic ways for so long? Google is neck deep in identity politics, that's why.
Yes, Timnit definitely pushed the boundaries of what is considered acceptable discourse at work. But, speaking both as an ex-manager, and an engineer who worked there (and resigned twice), it definitely wasn't a resignation.
To resign at Google you tell your manager you're resigning and then fill out a form (that's the process that makes it an official resignation). What Megan did to Timnit was immediate termination, combined with an advanced exit date, which only happens if you're truly and deeply violating Google rules or your country's laws.
When I brought up the Timnit firing situation my VP literally said: "It takes me a year and a half to fire a bad employee, I don't know how Megan did it so fast".
COVID-19 and consciousness about complications from WFH, new stresses or demands on employees in their family/home lives also ended up resetting the clock on a lot of PIPs or plans to set those PIPs in place ...
Also, managers/directors/etc often have to overcome the issue of reversing momentum on past praise or ratings given to these individuals.
In the Google perf (performance review) process, many individuals that probably should have gotten PIPs and/or counseled out also got high performance ratings in past reviews (for other reasons) from the very same managers and directors.
Generally to initiate a PIP, there needs to be a rating to justify the action (i.e. "Needs Improvement" - lowest rating). Giving a rating two levels or more above or below the last rating also requires justification in the rating process.
Google also cancelled/deferred its mid-year perf cycle during 2020 due to WFH/COVID challenges, which delayed opportunities for managers to give such ratings or feedback through the formal process. (for context: Google traditionally does "perf" twice per year, which are the formal opportunities for employees to receive performance ratings as well as nominations for promotion); this may or may not be correlated with interesting product launches or changes you might see as an end user during the year).
I've seen lots of those before, but never anything that could remotely approach 18 months (I typically see them last only 1 month). I cannot imagine the frustrating bureaucracy that is Google.
Wait, you're seriously claiming that a SV corporation (where, as I understand it, most people have 2 weeks of notice) can't fire a person sooner than in a year and a half?
Even to my socialist EU mind this sounds untrue and pretty crazy.
The US is insanely litigious and most large companies are very aware of the cost of unlawful termination litigation. That means to actually fire somebody you need cause, and that means having an airtight paper trail which takes time to generate OR having the employee do something that directly violates something you've explicitly told them in writing they can be terminated for. You're not generally dealing with stupid people, and if they're obeying the letter of the law/policy even while defiling the spirit of it you really can't do much to terminate them.
There are other things you can do to make it clear they need to move on but it's usually way easier and more efficient to just directly negotiate a severance and have them resign.
I didn't say that. It's a complicated situation, right?
If an employee threatens to kill another, they can be terminated immediately (with security escort).
i'm talking about employees who are in good standing, like Timnit was at the time. She had just been previously promoted. A person like this, even if they are annoying many coworkers through emails or papers, can't just be terminated because the manager doesn't like them (huge liability risk). Instead, Google (or IBM, or whomever) wants a paper record showing that somebody is unable to do their job, is put on a performance improvement program, cannot improve performance. At that point, Google can terminate the employee and if there is a lawsuit or mediation, Google has the paperwork required.
I think there are complexities with firing some people... If a manager just walks round firing people with little evidence, all other employees will live in fear of being fired. That isn't good for morale, productivity or creativity.
Instead, the problems of the to-be-fired employee needs to be abundantly clear to everyone nearby, so that when that person is fired, it doesn't have deep social impacts.
Combine that with desiring to fire someone when a replacement is trained up (often many months), and at the end of a big project (sometimes a year), and not just as management is reshuffling... And suddenly a firing takes 1.5 years.
1. Google wanted her gone, ranging from good reasons (she was too abrasive) to possibly suspect (in this instance she was being abrasive about a paper with ethical questions on Google's practices being stopped from publication with no explanation given)
2. Her ultimatum email can reasonably be construed as a resignation. It roughly said "Do this or I'm quiting", and Google responded with roughly "We're not doing that, thanks for telling us you quit, we accept".
3. This does not follow the typical resignation process used at Google, but that doesn't mean it isn't a valid resignation. It's unreasonable to assume a lawyer didn't look this over before they went ahead with it. The lack of Timnit suing Google for wrongful termination (from what I've seen) agrees with this.
4. Googlers were angry about this situation, because they disagreed with leadership's actions.
5. The leadership's response is legally bound to stick strictly to saying she resigned. This only inflamed #4 more.
6. They were ethically bound to not disclose all details of a situation involving an employee (where as Timnit could paint whatever story she wanted). Even if Timnit gave a full go-head, there were others involved and doxing is a real threat when names are exposed.
7. They were bound by business interests (at its root legal and ethical obligation to the shareholders) to not expose all of the details of the paper, the objection to the paper, and the processes involved.
So was Google in the right here? The situation obviously wasn't handled well. There were clear problems with Timnit, and she did give an ultimatum. However there are reasonable concerns related to "our ethics person gave an ultimatum and we called them on it" - but without the details it's hard to form a nuanced opinion.
I mostly agree with your logic chain with the exception of (3) in that it was a valid resignation (it wasn't). I also wouldn't read too much into Timnit not suing Google (she does not seem to be treating this situation strategically).
I don't know if a lawyer didn't look at the firing, but Megan has a tight relationship with HR, and if she told HR to resignate the employee because they were damaging to the company, it would be done immediately as a special-case override. I'm 100% certain Megan has had to terminate employees for cause in the past (think: ads engineer who threatens to steal money from google) so I think she has an expedited path.
If Timnit sued, what could she recover? Money? To do what with?
Timnit’s goal is likely closer to that of effecting reform. A lawsuit isn’t necessarily the best tool for that unless it’s so big it establishes new precedent. Even the Andy Rubin / breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit was largely ineffective.. While Timnit has a strong case here, it’s not really as strong as the evidence of the General Counsel of Google openly engaging in and protecting the sexual misconduct of himself and others.
Timnit was a bully, the definition of 'toxic employee', so glad Google had the balls to let her go, PR hit be damned, it means they still have true leaders
my complaint is merely that they continue to insist she resigned. She didn't- she was terminated without cause.
I personally think Timnit shouldn't have been hired in the first place, but if they were going to fire her, they needed to follow the path, which takes about 1-2 years, of establishing that she was not a good employee for Google.
Thank you for following up with some nuance. I did read her email, and do disagree with your stance that she did not quit, and presumably Googles legal team did as well. But I appreciate your thoughts.
According to her, she was recruited by Jeff at a conference specifically to work on improving Google's machine learning equity. As part of hiring somebody, I don't just meet them at a conference and read their papers. I interact with their prior employment network and read their social media. I think if Jeff had paid any attention to her tweets before she was hired, he would have thought twice about bringing her on.
I wonder if anyone's compared Timnit's firing to Apple's firing of Antonio García Martínez. It sounds like both are politically opposite versions of the same mishire situation.
I agree, even if she was in the right - she was and is still a bully. Just go on Twitter and examine her feed which gets updated literally every 5 mins everyday for 10 hours a day. Toxic, fuming and deeply disrespectful to others. She spews so much hatred on Twitter, it is unimaginable why anyone would hire such a personality. She wanted to become martyr and she indeed has.
no, my goal was to use google to revolutionize science. It's not my problem that Sundar cares more about showing ads to the next billion users and getting good press for DeepMind "solving protein folding" when they did nothing of the sort. I cared about long-term scientific research advances that would be shared with the world to reduce overall health expenditures.
At the time I joined it seemed like it would be pretty easy given that Larry Page greenlit Google Health (a terrible idea).
> Larry Page greenlit Google Health (a terrible idea)
I'm curious why you think Google Health was a terrible idea. I'm not disagreeing, just wondering your opinions on the matter from a more inside point of view.
It's pretty simple. There was not and will not be a market for Personal Health Records. Google Health was designed to be a store of PHRs where users had significant ownership over their health records, and they would allocate access to service providers.
That's not how health records work in the US where Google tried to start the product. HRs are effectively owned by the companies that provide health care, while patients have access to the records. There is a multibillion industry dedicated to keeping things that way (Cerner, Epic, the hospitals themselves) and even with Google's ostensible ability to change the world (at that time), they would never have been able to build a product that sustained itself because there wasn't a market for the product.
In short Google tried to compete with EPIC and Cerner without a market for their alternative product.
Individuals in the US (present company excepted) aren't interested in owning and managing their own health records; they want their HRs to be managed conveniently for them.
Today, Google (and AWS and Azure) makes deals with EPIC and the Hospitals (to host infra in their cloud) and also makes research deals (to help build their health research projects). This is a much more realistic approach given the constraints.
Can you expand on why the the role didn't work out for you? Was it lack of direction on how to bring the research advances as a product or was it the lack of support for the research itself?
Everything worked fine but I was stuck in application development when I wanted to be a research scientist (IE I wanted somebody else to build product so i could do the research on top of it). During that time, I managed to make a team member unhappy with my criticism of their work, and that led to an HR interaction where transfers into all the research parts of the company were blocked.
In the case above, it was really about a pivot of Google Cloud Genomics- my market research suggested that people wanted to store large amounts of BAM files cheaply and access them via an API, when they really wanted Spark for Genomics. I brought that up with our leadership and they declined to make that pivot early.
Here's what the Cloud Genomics product eventually evolved into, which actually is pretty good: https://verily.com/solutions/terra/
(I was the person who set up the original Google/Broad relationship that led to all of this).
> Everything worked fine but I was stuck in application development when I wanted to be a research scientist
This seems to be a fairly common thing at Google. I hear Google "hoards" a lot of PhDs who are just "refactoring APIs and doing migrations". Is this not seen as a problem there wrt retaining talent?
Sure, I knew a ton of PhDs who were workign on random unrelated stuff (like, protein folding genius -> building next gen music UI). You can retain a lot of talent in SV by paying more than other people so that those employees can buy a house here.
Based on what I read of dekhn's internal Google+ posts when he was at Google, that couldn't be further from the truth. This is someone who cares greatly about both good engineering and making a positive impact on the world.
It feels like a second order name drop (perhaps a prestige drop?) by immediately indicating your access to internal posts and identification of him by his username. I've been aware of him before but not enough to know his HN or common username!
I'm not actually cynical, I'm just being straightforward in the sense that there aren't enough famous figures in my line of work for me to namedrop any of them.
Lots of people here on HN have contact with "famous" people. It's not usually a big deal.
It shouldn't really be surprising that an article about Google (a company with 145K full-time-employees) might attract a few people who know people. Isn't that why we read HN?
I think the idea is that as a member of the HN community in good standing who has met the individuals involved, it helps support the legitimacy of the article. If the VPs and SVPs are complaining anonymously to NYTimes, you know there's something up with leadership at Google.
Do you think Jeff Dean defended the firing because he really understood the circumstances and the consequences of taking the position, or do you think he was naive? Was Jeff involved in the firing of people like Michael Church?
Understanding the circumstances and consequences of taking a position, and not being naive, is almost definitionally the job of a leader. Technical wizards who are clueless n00bs should be individual contributors, not the head of Google Brain.
And I actually mean the question seriously and thoughtfully, although the downvote barrage wants to take it as flame bait. Jeff’s calibration towards firings is unquestionably different than the rest of industry, but how different? And how much training / preparation did he really have? Important questions for any org head. The thing here is a lot of current and past Googlers seem to agree Jeff messed up. I’d like to understand why through the lens of evaluating what bar we set for the people-managing skills for engineering leaders industry-wide.
In 2020 if you can't figure out that a white man firing a black woman for something related to race and AI is going to be a big problem for you as the head of AI for perhaps the world's most potent AI juggernaut facing increasing calls for regulatory scrutiny you really have no fucking clue what you are doing. Overall the entire situation needed to be handled far more carefully even if the outcomes were the same. He thought that because he was the boss he could do whatever the hell he wanted to, and the fact of the matter is that there are forces more powerful than him.
> Larry and Sundar have the personality and motivational skills of limp noodles
And yet they were still more motivating than Sundar, who is so flat he sounds like he's bored to death, even when he's talking about super cool tech like AI and quantum computing.
Page wasn't polished, but he could energize teams about building the future in a way Sundar hasn't been able to.
I think you misread- Sergey has lots of personality and motivational skill (he's a brilliant natural leader with an amazing sense of humor). The main problem with Sergey (told to me by several SVPs) is that he's so smart (but not wise) , 10 minutes into your well-prepared presentation he'll ask "well, why didn't you do it this other way? It's faster and simpler?". This will cause your presentation to halt, you have to waste a bunch of time epxlaning why that is a cool academic idea that won't actually work in the real world, and then everybody on the team is amotivated.
Anecdotal, but I've talked to a few people at Google who are happy with the pay and perks but absolutely hate the product management culture.
Basically, performance reviews and incentives are structured around doing something with "big impact," so there are a lot of needlessly "ambitious" (quotes intentional) reboots, revamps, redesigns, repackaging, etc. of existing products, mostly so that teams and PM's can say they went big and get a good performance review.
The flip side of that is that there's no incentive to fix bugs (and usability issues) in existing stable products, because unless the bug is losing tens of millions of dollars for Google it's considered wasted time from a performance review perspective.
This is why Google is constantly relaunching and rebranding products, even making them worse, while neglecting long-running problems in, for example, Gmail.
Recently, my main Gmail account was upgraded to the new Chat interface. It actually looks worse (subjectively the new font seems less readable) and has removed the "Pop out to separate window" feature that I used to use all the time. But hey, now the interface has animated transitions and I can forward individual parts of a conversation to an email with one click! Wow!
People say this all the time, but I've really not seen it. I'm in an org with one of the highest promotion rates in the company, and it is focused primarily on what you describe as missing. I've personally seen people promoted to senior staff for literally fixing problems and buried risks in existing stable systems.
I don't know how to address this meme, since it is very clear that managers are telling their reports that this is how things work and leading to this widespread belief, but when I actually go into the promo sessions I don't see this at all.
Those are indeed the two possibilities. But L6->L7 is not done within a single org but instead is a set of company-wide committees, so if it was just our org being supportive of this sort of work then we'd see people hit a wall at L6. But they don't. This is what makes me convinced that committees actually do care about this stuff.
I find that there are two problems that contribute to this belief system.
1. People believe that doing the same work for more time should get them promoted. "Doing maintenance" can mean a variety of things and simply clearing minor issues until the end of time is not necessarily actually changing the landscape of technical debt. Something about the state of the world needs to change or the work is just large scale bikeshedding.
2. People are often truly terrible at measuring the results of their work. This introduces a bias towards launches and new products because their impact is often very easy to measure (there have been processes put in place to resist this force with various degrees of success). But I have seen cases where somebody's work on debt and maintenance is measured by "total number of changes" with zero evidence that the changes are actually useful or valuable. Even just getting some leaders to write down "trust me, this is important" would go a long way and people still fail to do this. Then people complain that their work isn't being valued when that was never the problem.
I do think this is one space where my org has an advantage. Because we do this sort of work so frequently, managers are good at helping their reports measure the actual quality changes in the codebase and build an argument that the work was meaningful.
I also agree that UncleMeat is definitely not one of Zappa's best but I didn't think too carefully about the nic when I created it.
#2 does indeed sound like a huge potential source of problems. "Total number of changes" is a terrible metric.
It blows my mind that there are some major issues with Gmail that haven't been fixed - for instance, if I find a message in my Spam folder that isn't spam and mark it as such from inside the message, it instantly disappears from my spam box and the view returns to the spam folder view instead of staying on the message. The message is now marked as Read so I can't find it by going to my inbox and viewing unread messages, and I can't use the browser's back button to navigate back to it because when it's out of spam it gets a different URL. So I have to remember exactly what I was looking at if I want to go back and find it. It's a hugely inconvenient UX made even worse by the fact that Gmail flat-out IGNORES my whitelisting certain email addresses from people I work with, so I'm always digging around my Spam folder looking for stuff they say they sent me that didn't land in my inbox.
Uncle Meat may not be Zappa's best albums, but it's definitely one of his best and most catchy album names.
I have little sentiment for Google, but this article seems to be arranged as part of a campaign. The statements of a small number of x-Googlers is taken as a generalization of the company’s sentiment as a whole and is used to seed doubt, while acknowledging very little specific mistakes.
Unfortunately it feels like this is pretty common for the NYT today: they decide on a conclusion they want to make, and then interview enough people so they can cherry-pick the comments that support their conclusion, and don't bother to present any dissenting viewpoints.
It's really a shame; I feel like this transformation happened in the last 5 years or so. Most articles from NYT that I see posted here have this slant.
> they decide on a conclusion they want to make, and then interview enough people so they can cherry-pick the comments that support their conclusion, and don't bother to present any dissenting viewpoints.
I've said this exact thing in the past about NYT. This seems to be their MO these days and is especially apparent in their international reporting.
Along his goals of "doubling digital revenue" and maximising subscriber numbers, the place obviously turned towards clickbait and left-wing cheer-leading.
Give the customers what they want - and they definitely don't want to be told their worldview is wrong or that their opinion of certain issues has valid counterpoints. So it's been a huge cratering of credibility and honest reporting.
I don't mind the slant if it's clear they understand the issue, but it's clear that's not always the case based on what I've seen shared on Hacker News.
Google needs to replace their product management leadership. They have squandered their lead. Google business apps isn’t the top cloud based business platform. I’d pick office365 right now. Gmail/Calendar for businesses hasn’t changed in 10 years. Google cloud has been surpassed by Azure and will be a distant 3rd. Google meets is missing so much functionality that businesses supplement with zoom. I really don’t understand what they are doing with their enterprise offering. They should buy snowflake for Google cloud and slack for business apps to keep them relevant.
Like the article mentioned, they should have bought Shopify when it was much cheaper and provided the Google cloud as a place for shopify app developers for running their apps. Shopify has native event bus support for AWS so app developers favor AWS.
While googles business apps lack in features, office365 seems to be extremely buggy, documents look different online and offline (had the case last week), their authentication is pure horror (multiple accounts with different passwords for the same email address), teams is only logged in to one account at the time, one drive (or how it is called) is always using "significant energy".
We actually wanted to switch and bought a few licenses, but after trying it for 2 weeks with a small group of employees we discarded the idea. I was surprised and very much disappointed.
Yes and the synchronization system with parallel editing in office365 is completely buggy compared to google docs, during our trial we lost parts of our test documents...
I have lived in Silicon Valley for two decades and most people I've talked to see Apple as the most prestigious place to work out of all the FAANG companies. I'm not surprised because Apple has had the fortune of having a visionary founder AND Tim Cook, who is one of the best managers in the world.
Out of the people I know who actually work at Apple, they're either incredibly overworked and constantly teetering on the edge of burnout, or they see Apple's market position as a tool they can use to further some goals of their own. While I'm sure some people do consider working at Apple as high-prestige, that's doesn't seem to be reflected in the employees I know, at least.
I used to want to work at Apple until I got to know people who work there. Very heavy secrecy + burnout culture, plus weird things like some projects get free meals where others don't.
This mirrors my impressions from friends and family who work at Apple as well. My friends do get paid well for working there but its quite a stressful place to work.
I've lived in Silicon Valley for over 2 decades as well. Until iPhone, Apple was not prestigious at all. I still remember Brass Ring hiring conventions where the Apple hiring booth was completely empty. In fact, until recently, all I've heard is that Apple underpays engineers compared to most other companies. The fact that the stock as gone up ~300x in the last 8 years changed that equation, so everyone shuts up now, but it has historically never been prestigious. I've in fact never heard of Apple being prestigious unless you worked in design, or worked on the iPhone.
I would say the M1 is prestigious. It pushed tablets and notebooks forward.
You can also go back to 1977, the design of the Apple ][, and all the prestigious innovations (or bringing innovative ideas to the mass market) since then.
Haha... Apple to me is quite the opposite, more like a cult of personality. I really do not see Apple as visionary. I don't think they are doing anything really special or are market leaders in anyway when it comes to technology.
Because on my Google account I can turn off all the history settings, same for YouTube. Despite possibly being invasive with YouTube, they actually allow third party clients like NewPipe and youtube-dl. Google Drive offers some of the best storage and you can encrypt your files, and there is no proof that they are using your storage to spy on you.
Google Cloud was also one of the first providers to offer confidential computing. Google also contributes a lot to open source and so Android has a lot of options and different ROMs to use. Compare that to the proprietary OSs like Microsoft and Apple. With Microsoft, no matter what I do they keep uploading my activity history of every App that I open just because I signed into the Microsoft Store to play Minecraft.
Because on my Google account I can turn off all the history settings, same for YouTube.
LOL!
So with this setting off, Google forgets the IP you use to sign in to your Google Drive and GMail account and doesn't use it to identify and track you across the estimated 80% of web sites that have embedded Google trackers? And you've verified this how? Did they show you their tracking source code?
Virtually every website on the World Wide Web will track and record IP addresses as visitors click through the site's page. There are plenty of adblockers to prevent sites from using ads to target you. You seem to be more upset at Google than the sites you visit that choose to use them as a source of revenue. You also can't shop on Amazon without being tracked and solicited to based on your shopping habits or sign up for any discounts at most grocery stores.
You seem to be more upset at Google than the sites you visit that choose to use them as a source of revenue.
Makes perfect sense to me since Google earns most of their revenue from privacy invasion. Their entire business model depends on it. No one is more insidious, pervasive and widespread.
You really are just making claims without any evidence. If you have evidence that no one is more insidious, pervasive and widespread please prove it. Otherwise, I can only assume you are just speaking based on feelings.
If you actually read the study, you'd see with ad blocking enabled that Google was the least pervasive, widespread and insidious. If anything, this study shows that although that Google may be the most widespread, again thanks to the sites that you're visiting without an adblocker that you refuse to hold accountable, that they are the least invasive and insidious.
> and there is no proof that they are using your storage to spy on you.
It may be the case that they are not "spying" on you, but just because there is no proof of something happening, doesn't mean that it isn't happening. So this type of thinking is flawed.
> I can turn off all the history settings
Can you elaborate? Which settings specifically are you talking about? Are you seriously suggesting that google isn't keeping track of what you are watching or searching and tailoring your ads based on your activity?
> Google Drive offers some of the best storage
It's very convenient to use, yes!
> and you can encrypt your files
There goes your convenience. If you are encrypting your files, you might as well use any other major file storage service.
> It may be the case that they are not "spying" on you, but just because there is no proof of something happening, doesn't mean that it isn't happening. So this type of thinking is flawed.
The little gnomes are watching me through the cracks in my ceiling. My psychologist told me my thinking is flawed, but I told them @ksd482 thinks their thinking is flawed cause they don't have proof otherwise.
> Are you seriously suggesting that google isn't keeping track of what you are watching or searching and tailoring your ads based on your activity?
I can't say for sure, but again that is what youtube-dl, Minitube, etc are for and VPNs. If you're liking, commenting, etc on videos of course they are probably going to be tailoring content based on what you're engaged in. They do have the option to remove all that though and to delete your feedback history.
> There goes your convenience. If you are encrypting your files, you might as well use any other major file storage service.
Google Drive really is the most convenient even with encryption, especially for something like rclone if you look at what is supported.
> The little gnomes are watching me through the cracks in my ceiling. My psychologist told me my thinking is flawed, but I told them @ksd482 thinks their thinking is flawed cause they don't have proof otherwise.
Clever rhetoric aside, what are you suggesting?
Google has been using user's behavior to learn about them. This has been known for a long time. Even your emails aren't safe from it. So it stands to reason to "speculate" they might be doing something similar with your files as well. This may turn out not to be the case at all, but one can speculate given their track record.
Your original argument was "...and there is no proof that they are using your storage to spy on you", which effectively giving them a benefit of doubt.
But they don't have a good track record. So you still want to give them a benefit of doubt?
Apple is a company who I would give a benefit of the doubt in this space.
So my thinking is simply: a company that has a good track record with privacy --> give them a benefit of doubt. A company that doesn't --> don't give them a benefit of doubt.
When I look at your argument and fit it into the above model (probably overly simplistic), it is flawed thinking. That is what I meant.
To me it feels like no one in (big) tech is interested in building products _for_ the customer. They're only interested in building products for extracting money from the customer.
The idea of "charge what the market will bear" has been taken to an extreme by the tech industry. The combination of venture capital, non-ownership (SaaS everything), adhesive ToS, anit-trust levels of monopolization, etc. all work really hard to get customers locked in and dependent on half-assed garbage with a big feature list.
Everyone is building robots that hold you upside down and shake the money from your pockets while calling is SaaS. Boo!
Google needs to get its Search team into the driver seat. Its the information age. They are the ones who should be leading and laying out a path into the future.
Instead, the god damned empire defense crowd is laying out that path, for almost a decade now, and its naturally a road to nowhere.
There is no real big vision coming from Google on what is wrong with how info is being mindlessly generated and pumped into people's heads 24x7.
They are very proud and happy they index 2 billion 'how to make a boiled egg' videos. WTF are they even enabling? They have no clue because its all driven by empire defense.
Here is an example of what I see from Google these days. I get a notification banner telling me that Hangouts is being replaced by Gmail Chat. This comes a year after a rumor that Hangouts was being shut down. Apparently, that was just a rumor or something.
So I continue using Hangouts until now when I'm told it is officially being replaced. Whatever, I think, I'll just switch to Gmail Chat and uninstall Hangouts. Today, I get sent a video from someone still on Hangouts. They fucking play link takes me to the Hangouts page on the play store. I need to install Hangouts to watch the video.
Google has a history of product rot. Most notably where I rot the two most expensive pieces of product rot are the Jamboards. We opted not to renew them when COVID hit and now that things are kind of going back to normal, I’ve found Logitech and a few other companies have come out with better products that integrate with existing whiteboards for what we need in conference rooms.
Things like the jamboard turn me off of buying Google hardware.
I’m confused by the inclusion of the Stochastic Parrot thing. Why did this become such a flashpoint? Did people care about culture wars that happened at HP Labs and Sun in the 90s (I guess the more illustrative point is tha they didn’t)? I don’t see the relevance to profitability or future growth.
The Parrots paper is activism dressed up as research in my opinion. It only complains and offers no solutions. This is bad, that is bad, and that other thing, yes, it's bad...
It might be true, but with the stock at an all-time high (and close to doubling over the past year) I would say that not many people have put their money where the nytime's mouth is.
it doesnt matter who runs google. its literally a money printing monopoly with search. And that will never end. And they can plow that money wherever they want. (even into a furance) and theyll be fine. Especially if you add in youtube money.
> its literally a money printing monopoly with search. And that will never end.
Until it does. Go back 20 years and you could've written the same thing about Microsoft and end-user computing.
Google under Pichai looks increasingly like Microsoft under Balmer. Executing to stellar headline numbers, but increasingly paralyzed in anything other than their one or two anchor products.
It took a change at the top to turn Microsoft around. I expect Pichai to go the same way as Balmer.
Google Execs have an average vote that’s decisively short of “exceeding expectations.” But Google had an additional set of execs go for interviews that gave a more positive vote.
slightly unrelated, I used to open nytimes.com articles with a new private browswer session to avoid paywall, but this no longer works. any other ways to avoid registering/paywall to read their articles?
Have you considered just paying? People on this site often complain about freeloaders wanting software or support without offering anything in return, yet they also prefer to bypass paywalls on content.
I have seriously considered paying for the NY Times and that's the only site I've considered. I still haven't seen any reason to pay, yet. Seems like I can always find something somewhere else to read, and nothing that's exclusive to The Times has really drawn me in that much, at least not yet. I am aware of the freeloaders thing, and I end up feeling like one sometimes.
The problem that I face is that I don't get $20/mo of value out of any one publication (ok, I guess NYT is $17 per 4 weeks, which is a bizarre billing cycle). I certainly get (more than) $20/mo of value out of "online news" as a whole, but it's spread out, and any given site would probably only get a few dollars a month (and many sub-$1) if allocated what I'd consider fairly. But pretty much no news website will let me subscribe for that little, or will give me a cheap plan that limits me to, say, 10 or 12 articles per month (which would still be overkill for many of the paid sites I'll occasionally click through to).
If I were to subscribe to every site where I've bypassed a paywall even once in the last few months (of have just given up without reading), I'd easily be spending over $300 per month. I don't feel like my consumption warrants that price.
Newspapers have, to the best of my knowledge, always billed in week increments. I agree it's a bit strange, but I believe it's driven by a need to sell ads by the week and esp. on Sunday.
So the NYT editorial board greenlit a hit piece against Google? Well, that's gratitude for you. I hope others learn from this. The reward for bowing to such "prestigious" institutions is getting whipped for not bowing low enough.
The editorial board dictates tone and content of the paper, not just editorial pieces. They determine narratives long in advance and news articles must conform to it. You should not believe that nobody at the NYT considered the effect this story could have on GOOG shareholder value. In all likelihood, that was the only objective, given how little substance there is to the article.
