> But ultimately, should Google have hired me? Yes, absolutely yes. I am often a dick, I am often difficult, I often don’t know computer science, but. BUT. I make really good things, maybe they aren't perfect, but people really like them. Surely, surely Google could have used that.
Actually, no. There's no level of rockstarness that excuses being a dick and difficult to work with. That kind of attitude can turn a whole team's culture sour and result in way more damage than any one person can make up for through their individual contributions.
It's clear from reading his thoughts on the matter why Google didn't hire him, and it's also clear he still doesn't understand why either.
Yeah, my takeaway from his telling of the story was that he is someone I would give a Strong No to, and not because of anything related to his CS ability. The fact that he wrote that after an unsuccessful short tenure at Apple where he ran into the exact same problems as he would have at Google yet still thinks Google should have hired him just reinforces that.
Absolutely this. I sense no work ethic, no humility (“I make really good things“). This, from my experience, usually correlates with an overgrown ego and unwillingness to confess to a mistake allowing to act quickly to mitigate the side effects. So when it actually happens the damage can be catastrophic.
Yep. And I don't know the story and certainly wasn't there - but technical prowess alone doesn't get you the job. And honestly he may not be a good fit. Is he going to want to fix bugs or work on Google's schedule and have a boss? Some people aren't cut out for the work lifestyle.
It was Google. Because he didn't know what a binary tree was or something similar during the infamous Whiteboard test.
But I mean it make perfect sense. Google is all about building AI, ML, Algorithm, K8S etc. Complexity is their KPI, usefulness is not.
So may be it isn't so much a bad thing after all. He wouldn't have fit in.
Edit: I guess the tone didn't shine through. The "all about" is a figure of speech. A more accurate wording would be, in my opinion Google doesn't know how to built great "user" Product.
And I may also include some of the Google hiring practice [1] that were brought to twitter.
I completely disagree with this comment. Not to mention the comments to his Quora answer, suggesting he should try a TPM position... people are so out of touch.
The main problem is that he went through the standard interview process. To prevent bias you need to maintain a consistent interview process and bar. All interviewers in big tech have annual trainings about this. If someone underperforms it's considered bad judgment to be inclined based on who the person is or their past experience. This is to prevent cases like "he didn't do well but we should hire him anyway because he graduated from Stanford".
When you have someone who is an exception you shouldn't hire them via the standard interview process. Maybe Google didn't think he's an exception. But the reality is, the vast majority of Google engineers wouldn't be able to build something as successful from scratch like he did. It requires more skills than just being a good engineer. They could've found him a role that fits his skills. When FB hired Yann Lecun I'm sure they didn't ask him how SVMs work. (not saying they are on the same level, clearly not, just an extreme example)
Another possible option is that he came across too arrogant in more than one interview and the hiring committee was worried he wouldn't be a good fit culturally.
That sounds about right. I'm guessing the last time I was hired it wouldn't have happened through a "standard interview process" because my background is somewhat eclectic and I frankly probably wouldn't tick enough of the boxes for obvious positions I might have been inclined to apply for. But people knew me, a job description was written for me, and here I am quite a few years later.
> Google is all about building AI, ML, Algorithm, K8S
No, no big companies are "all about" anything, there is so many different areas of work, that rejecting a person because the company is "all about" X, doesn't really apply. If they wanted to work with him, they would have made it work. But they didn't, so they didn't.
You are right, certainly there could be a fit, but finding the right place for someone implies that the hiring decision has already been made.
For me, it sounds like he applied for a standard software developer job through the standard process. Would you hire someone as a software developer without knowing the basics?
From that resume, I would see him rather in a product owner role or some other full or semi-management position.
I think golang's handling of packages makes a lot of sense... if you're Google, and you have a huge monorepo anyway.
I think this reasoning explains a lot of my frustrations with Go: it's Google's language that they kindly let you use, it didn't grow organically within many communities and companies across a whole range of use cases and codebase sizes.
You have a similar thing with git, it was the kernel's VCS that you could also use if you wanted, but especially early on it was rather hostile if you didn't actually need to maintain a gigabyte-sized monorepo with hundreds of third-party contributors mailing patches to various subsystem maintainers that would then have their branches merged into the mainline. Fortunately git's usability has improved a lot since then.
