Last I interviewed there over a decade ago, I got filtered out due to my lack of math skills. And this was not for software development, but infrastructure.

If you want math 'from first principle' theory types because that's your proxy for competence in unrelated area or perhaps even IQ...

The funny thing about being tied to a product/revenue at a megacorp, is that people can hold you accountable - in fact because hundreds of teams depend on your team's revenue to survive, you may be forced to work ungodly hours.

On the other hand, you could go work on a team which is ... not tied to revenue, or even a product. Then your value is whatever you can convince others of, or you can simply be forgotten about as there is no way to tell whether you are doing your job. I've seen people spend 4+ years delivering not a thing in this manner while product focused teams work 80 hours a week.

Which group would you choose to be in?

The fact that GOOG has so many of the latter tells you something about the monopoly profit they get from the former.

The latter are often first in the chopping block and you’ll spend quite a bit of time trying to validate your own team’s existence. The aggressive product teams will probably have better career opportunities. Both paths are fine, it’s a trade off

When the latter group gets big enough, they may command enough sway to ensure the opposite occurs at chopping time. There is no guarantee that a business optimizes for the correct metrics, that the business has any ability to influence those metrics, or that the metrics are even valid/optimized for.

Anecdotal observation is that extremely successful businesses are often marvels of inefficiency as there is simply no need to make the business efficient. Efficiency is often contrary to employee goals as well.

Making a successful and well run business is very difficult.

> When the latter group gets big enough, they may command enough sway to ensure the opposite occurs at chopping time.

This is true. Metrics are really about who owns the narrative and who runs the org. If the latter group get their guy into power then decisions will be made that cause inefficiency, waste and even reduced revenue far longer than is logical.

That's interesting. Some of Paul Graham's old essays are about the kind of people who went into law or finance for the money, that there is a mindset where people pursue things for other reasons than making useful products (money, prestige).

I've noticed over the last 10-15 years that computer science became the most popular major at my alma mater. It literally used to be the least popular a couple decades ago. A professor even showed us the data. It's also one of the easier majors now by grade distribution. My thought is that computer science has become like a new business/finance degree and that it attracts people who aren't interested in product creation anymore. Maybe this coincides with what you are seeing.

perhaps this explains how, tangentially, someone like sam bankman fried got a "genius" pass

SBF probably is a genius for some definition of genius. He was also eloquent and persuasive (imagine that, for a guy whose parents are both lawyers).

Doesn't mean he could/should run a business.

Many such cases of tech geniuses who have the mental capacity to deliver, and the verbal skills to advocate for their own power.. but not the mindset to actually deliver the things they've advocated for!

Pretty hard to screen for, and can do a lot of damage to an org as they siphon off resources from the teams of doers, squander them, and then take their ball & leave when it stops being fun.