The current set of Googlers that are complaining aren't the ones that built the company though. Google's success was built in the late 90's and early 2000s when they really revolutionized internet search and then email. I would argue that since 2010 they have lost this edge - even Bing and DuckDuckGo give better results now for many searches. Many of their interesting projects today are acquisitions.

I'm curious if SV's culture has changed in the last 15 years, and what future impact this may have - at least from the outside it seems like some of the brutal meritocracy attitude that made SV great has died off.

Money became more important. The amount of money to be made in the dot com boom attracted people for whom $ was the primary driver, and that changed the conversation. It changed the kinds of things that are worked on, and changed day to day life.

Pre dotcom Palo Alto wanted to help the homeless, promotes section 8 housing, SRO for the homeless, and accepts a sometimes weird culture. Had a lower medium income than some neighboring towns.

Today’s Palo Alto: “fuck off jack, I’ve got mine.”

There’s no way the next Grateful Dead, Joan Baez, or Grace Slick would emerge from today’s Silicon Valley.

The former is likely harder to achieve now, much like how games development is now an affair involving large teams whereas games developed in the 1980s may have been single-person affairs. The act of making a computer and all related silicon is a much more complex affair, the last CPU design you could probably feasibly keep in your head may be the MC68000 .

The latter too is now still a thing, but much less open, and either rent-seeking through patent, or pure profit with lower tolerance for wild ideas (less risk tolerated for an obvious cost-centre).

In particular I watched as a lot of the people I respected the most and identified as having made Google great, drifted away and left the firm. Most obviously all 3 leader/CEOs left. The complaining really started to ramp up after that. Larry/Sergey had ways to put those people back in their place in ways that weren't particularly aggressive but worked well (e.g. just mocking them at TGIF when a stupid question was asked). Culture needs to be renewed and cultivated. What remains now seems like a sort of hollowed out version of the culture that continues along its prior path through inertia, whilst slowly rotting away.

You've just made me realise how rarely I find myself needing to add a !g to my searches on DDG these days. That used to be a multiple times a day thing. I can't remember the last time I did it.

Are you talking about the US military and do you have some data on that? I see people with no experience of the military imagine a storybook entity (which is a very popular public concept these days), but the US military has significant retention problems, very high rates of suicide and sexual assault (signals of and, for the latter, a cause of a toxic environment), and a lot of morale, discipline, and corruption problems. As a couple of examples of the latter, around a year ago, the head of special operations said that it was their top priority. In ~ the last year, the Navy was having trouble filling higher ranks because so many officers had been kicked out due to corruption scandals (e.g., the 'Fat Leonard' scandal).

The glorification of the military might seem patriotic, but I think it's the opposite: It's a way of not seeing and addressing problems, which weakens defense and leaves the people serving to deal with the problems and suffer the consequences (including the environment, more and longer tours, and possibly their lives). It's like a case of extreme over-confidence in a CEO - a very dangerous flaw.

> Compare that to the Googlers who constantly complain about their employer

People in the military don't gripe?

That said, it’s easy to underestimate just how large the US military is and how many people cycle in and out every year. Just unemployment benefits alone get quite expensive during any economic downturn. Recruit millions over time and even if you reject the most obvious problem cases you will eventually get some seriously unstable people.

I think that's an erroneous way to look at it.

The fundamental problem is that the military is, and has been, made up of volunteers for a long time.

It's not that with more people you get proportionally more bad apples, it's that when you accept volunteers, you get people self-selecting and that's way worse.

You get the people who are mentally ill and not self-aware and seeking something they can't find anywhere else signing up.

Consider Tim McVeigh, who was taught to kill in Iraq. Allegedly (may be controversial) "schizotypal". That basically means "has some weird ideas, might develop schizophrenia some day, but not actively psychotic". Plenty of people could be like him - unstable in a lot of respects, but after talking to a recruiter go "nah, killing people on the other side of the world doesn't sound fun". So they don't enlist, and that shapes the military.

The only way to fix this is a return to the draft. Of course that's easier said than done. I know little about them, but people always mention Switzerland and Israel as having practically universal military service. So if it seems impossible, yet it must be possible somehow.

Imagine drafting in your profession. In many jobs, it takes months of training, then months for people to become truly productive - at the entry level. With the draft, you are mostly employing trainees and entry-level employees, all of them forced to be there.

> when you accept volunteers, you get people self-selecting and that's way worse. / You get the people who are mentally ill and not self-aware and seeking something they can't find anywhere else signing up.

There is some risk of that, but it looks like you are suggesting that it's the predominant motive for volunteering. People do it for many reasons. Almost all jobs in the world are filled by volunteers.

If the Swiss army was sent to distant countries to protect Swiss economic interest, to enforce a certain system of government, or even in 'self-defense' but against nebulous and theoretical threats, rather than the imminent risk of a direct attack, Swiss people would widely refuse to serve.

Similarly in America. If, for example, Canada carried out an aggressive land invasion of the United States, a very large number of people would be willing to serve, and accept a draft as well as poor conditions, low pay etc.

On the other hand, if there was a draft for young people to participate in controversial US overseas operations like Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, there would be widespread resistance. Many people would evade the draft either illegally (going to prison, disappearing, moving abroad) or legally (using college exemptions, National Guard, bone spurs, etc). Some people in the military would refuse to follow orders, pursue criminal or radical political activity (more than they already do), sabotage or go AWOL.

This was attempted with the Vietnam war. It wasn't stopped despite its success. It was stopped because it didn't work and threatened to destroy the entire fabric of US military forces.

>It wasn't stopped despite its success. It was stopped because it didn't work and threatened to destroy the entire fabric of US military forces.

Whether something "works" depends on what you define its purpose to be.

Saying the draft "didn't work" is exactly where I think we went wrong.

"Threatening to destroy the entire fabric of US military forces" (or of society in general) constitutes "working" if it prevents the continuation of that sort of war and in the long run, preserves a country that is as we would like it to be.

It was the war that didn't work.

You are welcome to your beliefs about international involvement, but often people see it otherwise.

There was no draft for the Gulf War. The United States entered WW2 after an unprovoked act of aggression against US territory.

I'm not sure which 'smaller conflicts' you are referring to because conscription has only been used in the Korean war, the American Civil War and the American Revolutionary War, other than the 3 already mentioned.

You are technically correct about WW1. The situation has changed in the more than 100 years since that conflict.

I think this common statement may be a bit misleading whether or not strictly accurate.

From what I've read, the Flying Tigers were authorized by Roosevelt, and the only reason they failed to engage in combat with Japan until after Pearl Harbor was because of unforeseen delays.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tigers

Recruit say the smartest 5% of the population and their median IQ is ~130. The tallest 5% and sure you get everyone in the NBA, but also the more normal person at 6’ 1”. Considering in the real world you can’t select the most extreme in every category and the US military is more or less forced to be fairly average compared to the US population simply because they want multiple things. Select for decent health, decent intelligence, and decent physical capacity and you can only focus so much on mental health.

I would expect the top (or bottom) 5% of the population in any dimension to be far from the norm.

>Select for decent health, decent intelligence, and decent physical capacity and you can only focus so much on mental health

I think these are wishful thinking, not what is actually selected for. As long as there's no draft, the military does not get to select people. Someone takes the ASVAB, and decides against going further, there's nothing that can be done. People select themselves. The minimum standards weren't that high when I last talked to a recruiter and over the years I've read a lot of articles that suggest they've gotten lower.

The military, like a lot of difficult jobs (police officer, teacher, etc.) doesn't pay proportionally.

So recruits are selected for willingness to put up with that. From an abstract economic perspective, someone who accepts lower than market pay must receive some other form of non-monetary compensation that explains it. It would be nice to attribute it always and only to patriotism, but there are other possibilities, conscious or unconscious, just like a devotion to justice and protecting people is one particular reason for becoming a police officer.

In letting people select themselves for a difficult and low paid job, you will get people who are not near average because they highly value access to things that cannot be found anywhere else, for any amount of money. And they will be concentrated together, changing the character of an organization.

Modern Western culture holds individual freedom, social mobility, and self-direction in such esteem I think we may have a blind spot with regard to how random selection and assignment of people to jobs can sometimes produce better results.

The military rejects ~23% of applicants due to educational issues. One of the results of this is members of the military are above the average intelligence in the US. But they also reject people with excessive criminal history, significant physical disability, or even extreme weight. Though it’s a sliding scale based on rates of recruitment.

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/carson-botches-military-el...

This is putting a civilian-centric filter on the problem. Many, many people chose the military for reasons other than pay. If it were strictly for pay, almost nobody would choose the “harder” military occupations like Marines, or Army infantry, or Navy SEALs etc. Yet those often get more applicants than they have slots.

As for your statistical claim, we’re not really wired to think well about stats so we get erroneous intuitions. To be in the 95th percentile, you’re away from the norm but not as much as you may think, which is the GP’s point. A quick Google search shows 95th percentile for height is 6’2”…it’s tall but not so tall as to actually catch my attention. 95th percentile in IQ is 125, in pay is $248k, in male weight is 246 lbs. Non-normative, sure, but none so far away as to leave someone awestruck

Slow down, that's exactly what I said.

I work for (a) government, and of course I didn't choose to because it paid more than anything else. And I didn't decide not to join the Navy because it paid too little.

What I'm claiming as a general principle is that some people have a huge advantage in opportunity cost for a certain job, and organizations can be seriously affected by concentrating those people together. And we see this all over the place.

Consider the Abu Ghraib scandal. It's not that joining the military entails that sort of thing, or that it's rightly part of the job, but if someone has an affinity for abusing prisoners, then most jobs do not offer the same opportunity. Theoretically, decent people who value doing good should be attracted to jobs that are important and underpaid, but in practice, bad people who value side benefits to an extreme degree may dominate the market of people who will take the job.

Or you know, by not going to the other side of the world to kill people.

When a person has terminal cancer of some kinds, fentanyl and even morphine can't fully stop the pain. So there is a standard surgical procedure where they go in and cut a primary nerve.

That is in effect what was done in eliminating the draft. It did away with the feedback loop, not the problem.

I’m not sure this is true. There’s a reason commanders generally oppose the draft; they know volunteers tend to be better service members than draftees. Imagine if your civilian job was full of people who were conscripted rather than chose that field (even if they chose it for the wrong reasons). I can imagine the amount of disciplinary problems would rise dramatically. I don’t know the statistics, but draft-era service members seemed to have serious problems from drug abuse to fratricide too.

Well, consider juries. While they don't end up being completely random, still, there seems to be a recognition that nobody or no organization should be unilaterally trying to select the best. Or taking volunteers.

I think most people agree that juries are very important.

>draft-era service members seemed to have serious problems from drug abuse to fratricide too

Yes, I just think the problems should have been attributed to the war being fought and not the fact of the draft. Maybe the corruption of the draft; I'm not old enough to have a sense of what it was like during Vietnam, but obviously it's a cliche how people were able to avoid it.

Which reminds me of juries again - it used to be, in my state, there were tons of exemptions for jury duty, and that really biased the pool. There were reforms to eliminate most of the exemptions.

I think you underestimate the effect of a draft on unit morale. Units can become more undisciplined because commanders have limited recourse for transgressions and people dont want to be there in the first place. Imagine if you and your coworkers were uprooted to perform some difficult, manual, potentially life threatening task. Not by choice, but by conscription; what do you think organizational morale (and productivity) would be like? I’d much rather be with people who chose that path.

>I just think the problems should have been attributed to the war being fought and not the fact of the draft.

And yet you recognize the premium Western cultures put on personal agency. The irony of your above statement is that in a “popular and just” war (if such a thing exists), there’s no need for a draft because ranks will be filled with volunteers. If you’re old enough, you probably remember the long lines at recruiting centers on Sept. 12, 2001.

This reflects the fact that the US military has learned how to carry on a substantial conflict without large numbers of casualties.

That sounds like a great achievement. But I think it's the problem.

There shouldn't be wars that can be run by a relatively small number of volunteers. That is the problem.

WWII and the US Civil War had drafts.

I wish I could find some cartoons that I remember from fairly soon after 9/11, about the dread people had that we were headed straight to hell in the military response.

I remember them as profoundly different from what you might see today with a left-wing slant, exactly because of the general sense of unity and nonpartisan feeling. Foreseeing the obvious subsequent events meant being against seemingly everyone and not just the red or blue tribe.

My recollection (of what I read more recently) is that only one congressperson voted against war in Iraq.

While it's impossible to hire millions of excellent performers, I think that focuses too much on the people and not on the organization. The institutions themselves have real problems - like other large institutions, but these are problems the citizens are responsible for addressing.

So you think they had specifically selected bunch of unstable to work in Abu Ghraib?

I had this platoon leader who was wondering about how much I used to gripe about everything and I told him when joes stop complaining is when you have to worry because they’re probably plotting your death or something.

This sounds very biased. The VA is constantly complained about as is their benefits payments. The MRAs suck, they can’t speak about some secret stuff, none of this information is unusual or buried, it sounds like you have a very biased viewpoint, maybe from not getting to know any military.

>From an outside observer's perspective, the results are not as strong - the budgetary, humanitarian, environmental, collateral, and political costs of most of the military engagements of the past 50 years have been quite bad.

Vietnam, the fuck up in Iraq, and suicides are well known to be bad to everyone including the military, the default response to anyone who served is “thank you for your service”. Many see it as a job. I know a very friendly female marine (they complained about her kindness and said it wasn’t militant -and reflected badly on their perceptions), she was well decorated, and complained about sexism even though she was a superior to these men. Get to know some military people, your biased opinion will change.

It is impressive when a military can ship 100,000 soldiers and all the necessary equipment half way around the world in a month.

I would agree with this statement when it comes to defensive campaigns. But in the case of offensive campaigns, the military very much gives the government an idea of what the plan looks like, including the budget, timeline, casualties, chances of success, etc. It's worth noting here that the military very much has a vested interest in saying yes to military action, because that's good for job security. But when it turns out that you cannot get in and out of a country in the forecasted amount of time, and when that country then goes back to its former political landscape despite all of our best efforts, that failure cannot land entirely at the government's feet.

> And the militaries goals are well, war-focused?

They are, apparently, in the US. I learned that when the CEO of Flexport suggested that we use the military to temporarily unblock the supply chain crisis by leveraging our military's logistics capabilities, which resulted in at least one person leaving a dismissive comment here on HN. I realize that this might have been an isolated view, but I doubt it. In other countries, it's very much expected that the military rolls up their sleeves whenever their capabilities can be generally beneficial to their communities, regardless if it's military-related or not. It's a resource we pay for, so why not share the excess capacity if it's not detrimental to our defensive readiness? I would argue that saving a few million jobs in the US is worth not being able to fulfill the two-war doctrine for a few months.

> It is impressive when a military can ship 100,000 soldiers and all the necessary equipment half way around the world in a month.

This once again sounds like an internal KPI that the US military can without doubt be very proud of. An external observer may ask how much such an effort would cost, and how well we compare on a per soldier basis with someone like China or Russia. Who can do it for less money? Perhaps the US is still ahead, but I genuinely don't know. Does money matter when it comes to readiness? Well, when it comes to defense, probably not. But if we're talking about invading a foreign country, I think the economics very much start to be a part of the overall equation.

A good example to bring up here would be the cost of the F-35 program. Is it an impressive aircraft? You bet. Are the capabilities of that aircraft in line with its cost? My gut tells me no, and I think a lot of people would agree. Do I have any hope that this was an isolated instance, and that the next-gen aircraft program will be done more cost-efficiently? Not really.

For the record, I am not anti-military at all. I just want to point at behaviors that seem a bit out of touch, and which if rectified would position us to have all the military capabilities we need at the least necessary cost.

I’m not sure you’re aware of the full scope of what the U.S. military does. The Marines I know spent more time on humanitarian missions than combat ones. The Army Corps of Engineers regularly provides relief efforts during natural disasters, manages watersheds and dams, etc. It’s not too say there’s no truth to your claims but the US military is huge and with any operation that large it’s easy to cherry pick examples to make cases for either side.

That seems like blind and dichotomic wishful thinking.

This relates to one of Hemingway's famous lines, "Gradually, then suddenly." When this a mismatch between the collective desires of a large group and their current circumstance, when suddenly there is some sort meaningful change (a disaster, a drastic court-case, assignation, etc ...) all of sudden rapid change can ensue.

I'd be really interested to know what could change the US Military-Industrial Complex. Our history of political changes and wars of the past hundred years seems to have been fluctuation on a common trajectory. It seems like we need something drastic, but the consequences of whatever is more drastic, seem large enough that they could be far worse than the current status quo. But there has to be something, I'm not trying to fatalistic here.

You're correct that the military comes up with the plans. In some scenarios they may come up with multiple plans. There may also be other parts of the government, such as the state department, coming up with alternative plans. Choosing which plan to go with and what budget to give it is the responsibility of civilian leadership.

> It's worth noting here that the military very much has a vested interest in saying yes to military action, because that's good for job security.

Whose job security is it good for? The private who just joined isn't involved in these conversations. The people who are in these conversation are well established and in the later parts of their careers so they don't need to worry so much about job security.

> But when it turns out that you cannot get in and out of a country in the forecasted amount of time, and when that country then goes back to its former political landscape despite all of our best efforts, that failure cannot land entirely at the government's feet.

Why not? What happened to "the buck stops here"?

> This once again sounds like an internal KPI that the US military can without doubt be very proud of. An external observer may ask how much such an effort would cost, and how well we compare on a per soldier basis with someone like China or Russia

Sounds like the sort of things people in relevant committees in congress would probably ask questions about. If they don't like the answers they could probably even make some headway in getting that changed.

> A good example to bring up here would be the cost of the F-35 program. Is it an impressive aircraft? You bet. Are the capabilities of that aircraft in line with its cost? My gut tells me no, and I think a lot of people would agree. Do I have any hope that this was an isolated instance, and that the next-gen aircraft program will be done more cost-efficiently? Not really.

These kind of purchases are very political. How spread out is the manufacturing for this jet? How many different congressional districts in the US have at least one part being made there? Here are a couple articles about the government buying military equipment the military doesn't need or want [0][1].

[0] https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-agai... [1] https://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/28/pentagon-tell...

For the most part, all of those issues fall squarely upon the leadership. Military personell have a duty to fufil lawful orders, and you can't simply resign and take a different job if given a lawful order you don't think is a good thing for all of those reasons.

In contrast, when working for an employer, you have at least some ability to refuse to do things you don't think are a good idea. Worst case, you're fired or resign and need to find other work. But you're very unlikely to be court martialed and imprisoned. Or even sued.

It's more than a few; it's a widespread problem. It's always a challenge for people from the military to not only adjust to civilian life, but to build up the networks of contacts, etc. that deliver us jobs and many other resources.

One simple method is to tell the recruiter that you want at least N serious candidates from excluded groups for each job. This causes the recruiter to also expand their network.

that's not on the personnel inside the military to decide what war to wage, but on the politicians and civilians.

The military is a tool - how well the tool works is a good metric to have. Whether the tool is used for good or evil, or whatever purpose the owner of the tool deems, is not on the tool itself to measure.

I think there are probably a fair number of everyday people who enlist without thinking about such things as what they would do if they needed to expose a war crime to the media or how their due process protections would compare to civilian life.

Now, they would probably know and be okay with getting treated like dirt in boot camp, having restrictions about where to live, where they can go in their free time, etc. But probably not as much about the more philosophical institutional beliefs about authority, ethics, what to optimize for, etc.

On the environmental side, I am not surprised to see people raising eyebrows, because the US military's impact there is vastly underreported. A lot of effort went into exempting the US military from the Kyoto Protocol - and that's for a good reason, since the US military alone emits more CO2 than many industrialized nations. So if you don't believe in global warming, there's nothing I can do to reason with you. But if you do, you might realize that the environmental impact alone might be more damaging than some of the other items I mentioned.

Think of it this way - if the US military cleaned up its act, we could remove the emission control devices from all US cars and still come out on top.

There's a pile and a half of people who only join the military for a much higher payout of benefits for essentially unskilled work, or only so the military will pay to educate them into skilled work certification, or only because they made some mistakes and it's that or a felony charge (typically with jail time), and they're all typically just hoping to fly under the radar of such things until they get out with what they want going in rather than genuinely approving of the military doing to them the sorts of things the military does.

Obviously not all, but many of these also come out with majorly reoriented priorities. We can pass value judgements on the goodness of the imposed priorities all we want, but they're pretty irrelevant to and just distract from the phenomenon itself: "Indoctrination" is absolutely the correct word to use, so much we need very little, if any, additional description. The US military, and pretty much every military under the sun, uses an intense bout of classical stress conditioning to induce the sort of immediate, unquestioning dedication you've needed for hundreds of years in an effective infantry formation to teach boot camp recruits how to be in the mindset of just efficiently and stoicly doing their job as the brass designed you, the very small cog in the very large machine of a superpower-scale techno-mechanized combined arms war machine, to do it. In software, experimentation is king everywhere with a healthy outlook, because wastes of time give just finite losses of money while breakout successes are comparatively infinite in money gains, so most risks are worth it until they're clearly working or not working. In the military, when the rubber hits the road, other people are depending on you to do your job just as everyone expects it to go so they can integrate you into their job, which includes shooting and getting shot at somewhere down the net. Flying by the seat of your pants in such an environment could possibly get your fellows killed when things don't pan out and you fail to deliver, so the simple stations the vast majority of military members fill just don't really tolerate independent thought without going up several ranks of approval. The type of risk just isn't seen as acceptable in that context regardless of why you're taking it, even if it's specifically for the military's long-term interest. The philosophy is that the juice is never worth the squeeze in combat, and since we're a combat force on the label we'll spread that philosophy of "just do what the man with the fancier patch says" to every desk worker and wrench turner as well as trigger puller. And we'll spread it through the most irresistible teaching method we're still allowed to.

Sorry for that ramble, but it's really important to not deemphasize the absolute psychological impact classical conditioning in such an overwhelming social context can have. There's a reason they march you for miles at first when they almost don't care how fat you get once you've got an actual job. There's a reason Marine boot camp intentionally prevents you from sleeping just about whenever possible the first few days you show up while knowing resistance to sleep is impossible to train. There's a reason hazing underperformers is just about as old as history itself. It's because you can make anyone do anything if you just beat them enough, if you just stress them more than they've experienced before. Stress basically compels obedience, and obedience is very habit forming. Is there some selection bias like you describe in play today? Absolutely, but I don't think anyone familiar enough with the psychological phenomenon I'm not doing a great job describing would think much would change if it wasn't around. We've all read about Stockholm/Lima syndrome after all, where people with neutral or reverse sympathies fall just as easily, and it's essentially the same phenomenon. Enough stress turns everyone, even independent thinking people or bullheaded rebellious people, into receptive sponges.

Same in every bureaucracy.