However, as a University lecturer I know a lot of people Google have employed. In my opinion, they have rejected some of the greatest students I have ever taught, and accepted some idiots who know how to speak well.
While they have employed some good people, I believe they purposefully taret the type of people who think working at Google makes you a fundamentally better person than anyone else, rather than the best programmers/researchers/AI/whatever.
Also, even if I am right, real-world competence may involve more bluffing, less high quality knowledge of algorithms, than I would like.
I’ve met plenty of “smart people” who couldn’t get things done to save their lives partially because they couldn’t communicate well or play well with others.
This has been a source of angst for friends of mine at google for over 15 years, which is almost 3/4 of google’s existence. The hiring process is just random.
Part of it is due to measures put in to avoid certain unconscious biases (hire your friends, regardless of how good they are; hire only people like yourself, etc). So I have some sympathy.
But only some.
There's no question that Google is happy to have false-negatives in interviews.
> I believe they purposefully taret the type of people who think working at Google makes you a fundamentally better person than anyone else
why would they do this? And, if they do this, how are they generally speaking so successful? (this is also an amusing comment because the only group I find more critical of Google than HN is Googlers)
When a company has a lot of money coming in, they can be successful despite decision X, rather than because of decision X.
Microsoft can interview people asking about filling airliners with golf balls. Valve can just not bother with Half-Life 3. Google can have zero support and a self-driving car division that keeps avoiding chances to release anything.
That the companies are successful doesn't mean all their actions are smart - sometimes it's that their successes are big enough the occasional bad decision doesn't hurt them.
They have almost complete monopoly on online search, web ads, online video, on phone OS, on browsers. And they are not afraid to abuse those to get more, and are getting away with this.
You don't need to do anything right when you rent-seek most of the online world.
'Rent seeking' doesn't refer to the same kind of 'rent', of course, but I think the analogy holds up pretty well. All Google has to do is turn a few screws, and the rest of us will have no choice but to sing whatever tune they call.
The usual recipe for success in tech: competitors who are even less competent.
See also: how Microsoft dominated personal computing back in the day.
Again I think this whole line of thinking is nonsense, but even if you take it at face value, it still doesn't make sense.
By making illegal deals with PC sellers, and by vandalizing apps running on their OS.
You talk as if people from FANG (your invented acronym to exclude Amazon) look down on all others, but it seems that you are the one looking down on all others, everyone who wasn’t lucky enough to get into G/FB straight out of college while also building up not just 1, but 2 or 300k or net worth.
These companies you aspire to do behavioral interviews, and I’m guessing you’re failing them.
Take a step back. You won’t “fail” life because you “only” got a job at one FAANG and not another, or because your net worth is only 100k straight out of college....even the sentence I just wrote sounds completely ridiculous.
Your problems are stemming from how you view yourself and the world, which is full of false assumptions. A lot of smart people on HN have told you this —- you should listen to them.
Don't know why people say this. I'm usually pretty good at behavioral interviews. The problem is the algorithmic interviews (again, this is where my IQ fixation comes from).
IDK man, compared to most everyone else I seem to have failed life at this point given that I have zero accomplishments and little financial security.
Please realize how offensive and insulting this is.
You were hired by one of the most successful tech companies, which most people could never aspire to. You claim that Amazon pays you 80% of what (you assume) Facebook or Google would pay you, which puts you financially ahead of the vast majority of people. By calling yourself a failure, you’re calling nearly everyone on Earth an even bigger failure, which is offensive and makes you look extremely entitled and detached from reality.
> Don’t know why people say this.
It’s because you come off in your posts as entitled, obsessive, elitist, insensitive, and bitter. These are the only sideS of yourself that you convey here, so that’s why people assume you’re failing your behavioral interviews.
Sorry again if I’m being harsh, but you’ve been posting the same stuff here for months, and every discussion gets derailed by people consoling you or advising you, which you invariably reject. Let’s stop going in circles.
It sounds to me like you have anxiety. I'm saying this because I have anxiety, so I know what it's like. One hallmark of anxiety disorders is that you think things are true about the world, even though you don't actually have evidence this is the case. Or, you fixate on some pieces of information while ignoring evidence to the contrary, which again is irrational thinking. Or you hold assumptions about how the world works that aren't proven. You should look into cognitive behavioral therapy as a potential solution.
You say "compared to everyone else". But, you have to acknowledge that the net worth and income numbers you named put you into the 99th percentile, right? So, you actually mean "compared to a very small subset of people I have failed", right? And this is just a completely irrational argument. I mean according to this vein of thinking, then since I don't have as much money as Jeff Bezos, I've failed. And the implication then is the whole world has failed. Right?
> "compared to a very small subset of people I have failed"
Compared to nearly everyone at elite universities I have absolutely failed. I'm sure some of them will become the Jeff Bezos of 2050 as well - it's irrelevant that it's still a small number. I don't want to be compared against somebody that works at Cisco or IBM for instance for the work and mental anguish I've put in.
You also have an implicit assumption that people who work at Cisco or IBM haven’t put in work or mental anguish, and you’re wrong. I know many people who worked and studied hard to get jobs at these places.
You’re artificially restricting the set of successful outcomes so that you can say you’ve failed because you don’t fall into that arbitrary set. Not to mention that your entire definition of success as defined by things like money and perks is wrong.
[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/09/14/sta...
Let me repeat: that is thousands of millions of people who can barely even conceptualize the life you're able to live.
On another note, I’m in my mid 40’s spent all of my time bouncing between yet another CRUD job most of my career (not complaining, it’s paid for a decent lifestyle in my relatively low cost of living area) and I’m always encouraging fresh CS grads to go for broke and take the r/cscareerquestions route of “grind leetCode and work for a FAANG”, knowing they will make more fresh out of college than I did until a few months ago.
Someone else’s success is not my failure.
I had a phone conversation with a hiring manager once, and obviously I was not the right type or class or caste or something, but it wasn't a technical screen at all, so it's a mystery to me forever what exactly determined the "in group" as you put it.
As such, I know I'm biased towards them, but I can't really assess the overall company.