Google, Microsoft In Epic Hiring War

natecochrane writes "Looking for a new job? Then Google and Microsoft have 6200 roles globally this quarter up for grabs, the first salvos in a costly war for talent. Google alone will hire 6200 engineers, executives and sales staff this year — its biggest intake ever. This story details where the biggest bucks and most fun jobs are to be had and how you can apply for them. There's even a job for an Xbox PR person — fancy being paid to play with toys all day?"

Comments

Positions in Sydney

[belthize]

Drat, I might have applied for one of those network security positions but sadly
a) I don't live in Australia
b) I have no pen testing experience.

I've always just used them on an as needed basis. I guess I could flub my way through an interview extolling the benefits of ball point vs felt tip and maybe make up some interesting war story of the good old days and ink wells. Ultimately I doubt I could penetrate the Australian job market.

Re:Positions in Sydney

[martin-boundary]

As a Frog, I say your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. Now go to Australia, or I shall taunt you a second time!

numbers??

[shortscruffydave]

"Google and Microsoft have 6200 roles" and "Google alone will hire 6200 engineers, executives and sales staff". So, are Microsoft hiring or not?

Re:numbers??

[shortscruffydave]

Yes I read...do you?

So MS and G have 6200 roles this quarter.

If Google are hiring 6200 this year, then it infers that Google will hire 6200 in the first quarter, and then none in the next 3 quarters (giving the 6200 this year).

And from those numbers it still leaves Microsoft with zero over either time period.

Re:numbers??

[Anonymous Coward]

First, it implies, you infer. Second, it doesn't imply that at all, and if you infer that then you're a fucking idiot.

Re:numbers??

[shortscruffydave]

My apologies - you are correct that I did make the mistake of saying "infer", when of course I should have used "imply". Now, would you please be so kind as to explain why I am, as you so eloquently put it, a f***ing idiot?

Re:numbers??

[wjousts]

So MS and G have 6200 roles this quarter.

It doesn't say MS and G have 6,200 roles each. It could have been clearer, but I read it as MS and G have 6,200 roles between them.

Re:numbers??

[kmdrtako]

Well, let me spell it out for you–

Google + Microsoft = 6200 this quarter.

Google = 6200 this year ~== 1550 per quarter.

Which might suggest that Microsoft will hire the other 4550 this quarter.

Does that help?

(No, I'm not the AC that called you a f*cking idiot.)

Re:numbers??

[killmenow]

Between Google and Microsoft there are X jobs open this quarter. Let Y = Microsoft jobs and Z = Google jobs.

Google will hire a full G employees this year.

1) X = Y + Z
2) G >= Z
3) X = 6200
4) A = 6200

There's nothing in what was written suggesting the actual value of Y or Z. Because G = X you read it to also imply Z = X but that's just one possibility. Z could be 1 and Y could be 6199. G is still 6200.

Disclaimer: I am bad at math

Re:numbers??

[shortscruffydave]

I acknowledge that I failed to interpret the numbers correctly, and thank those who provided clarification. In particular, I thank those who did so without use of insult or obscenity.

Re:numbers??

[shortscruffydave]

Disclaimer: I am bad at math

So, it would appear, am I

Re:numbers??

[doug]

Yeah. MS will have to be backfilling those 6200 positions.

Re:numbers??

[kmdrtako]

Google + Microsoft = 6200 for 1 quarter
Google = 6200 for 1 year
Google = 6199 for 1st quarter and 1 for the second, and ZERO AND ZERO for the last 2 quarters
Microsoft = 1 for the first quarter....

Yeah, that could happen too. I don't believe that's likely.

Man, what is your math score again?

Higher than your social skills score. I can pretty much guarantee.

And just for the sake the argument, lets not forget that this is also true:
Google hire 10000 for the first quarter, and will hire -3800 for the second quarter.....

Can you spell "wrongful termination"? If anyone is hiring and firing like that you can bet there will be lawsuits. In most of Europe that kind of hiring and firing will bring the government down on you right quick too.

Did i mention the virtual jobs too? Or lets use the proper term, imaginary (complex) jobs......
Do you still follow me?

I know you're apparently impressed with how intelligent you seem to think you are. Is that what you're asking?

Re:numbers??

[dave87656]

Google and MS together are hiring 6200 this quarter.

Next sentence...

Google will hire 6200 for this year.

And what happens is this

[JamesP]

Google only hires people who lucks out on their broken hiring process (yes, it's not easy for them to come up with an alternative system). Also, internal politics and B.S. starts to take its toll.

Microsoft hires talented people, but it's then hampered by internal bureaucracy

End result, Google tries to go 'social' and fails again. MS releases their 'meh' Zune tablet that plays for sure until next year.

Re:And what happens is this

[TheGratefulNet]

horribly broken hiring process, no kidding!

they admit they have a lot of good people NOT get past the interview. its the worst interview process I've been thru (having been at DEC, cisco, juniper, SGI and many other famous places; I was not able to pass their 'test' the last few times I tried). my resume is almost a carbon copy of the job I interviewed for, too. and I live about 5mi from the place.

I gave up. after trying a few times and doing in-person interviews, they just made it impossible to pass this test unless you are a recent grad (most questions were school questions and NOT industry questions).

if you are young and fresh out of school, it may work for you. if you have many industry years under your belt, you will probably not work out there. also, if they feel you are not able to drink their koolaid, they won't want you.

shame, though. I can't see why they think they are so special to the worldl; but they are FULL of attitude.

Re:And what happens is this

[Anonymous Coward]

I passed the interview for an engineering position on my first try back in november. I'm not a recent grad at all, I've run my own company for the last 8 years and I had around 4 years of previous working experience. So it had been ~10 years since my last job interview, and these were nothing like Google's. Also, this time I applied only to Google. So most of your assumptions are just wrong.

Also, I didn't see any attitude from the interviewers. All of them were very nice, the whole interview process felt like an interesting conversation between colleagues, not like an interrogation room.

On the other hand, you've failed "the last few times" you tried. Maybe it's just sour grapes?

(posting AC because I don't intend to brag)

Re:And what happens is this

[JamesP]

The problem is not the attitude of interviewers, they're usually ok, but the attitude of the company.

Also, their interview process try to cover a vast area, to make an analogy: you pick 10 numbers on a lotto ticket with 20 numbers, and they also pick 10 numbers. And then because you matched '8/10' numbers they think you're not good enough.

So they end up evaluating you on a couple of irrelevant items, and disregarding factors that could have played an important role.

I'm not saying you weren't capable, but you certainly were lucky.

Having said that, I'd take the google interview over most of the interviews around.

Re:And what happens is this

[Bozdune]

Hiring is hard, trust me, I've done it for years. However, I claim that silly little tests and so on are just that: silly. I have turned down senior management positions at companies that think they have some sort of Golden Test that candidates need to pass.

There are really only two things to evaluate: (1) Is the candidate smart? and (2) Can the candidate be effective in the position? The first is easy; anyone can tell within the first few minutes of talking to a person whether that person has the minimum IQ necessary to be successful. The second is tougher, and requires a holistic view of communication skills, motivation, and interest level. Skills are secondary; any competent programmer can learn something new, and my personal experience has been that experienced people who are given the chance to learn something new out-perform people who have been doing the same thing for years.

Re:And what happens is this

[oliverthered]

Gambling is evil, I prefer safe bets.

Re:And what happens is this

[Pieroxy]

I just interviewed with Google last week and am due for my second round at 2pm today. Things look fine on my end....

FWIW, I graduated in 1998. Questions were around writing practical stuff (utility methods or basic frameworks)

Re:And what happens is this

[swillden]

Hiring is hard, trust me, I've done it for years. However, I claim that silly little tests and so on are just that: silly. I have turned down senior management positions at companies that think they have some sort of Golden Test that candidates need to pass.

Google doesn't have a "Golden Test". I'll describe Google's process below.

There are really only two things to evaluate: (1) Is the candidate smart? and (2) Can the candidate be effective in the position?

Yes, those are the things you need to figure out, but no, neither of them is very easy to evaluate. Especially not when you set your standards as high as Google does. Your approach to evaluating intelligence is especially flawed -- there are lots of people who can talk the talk, but can't perform when given problems to solve.

Here's Google's interview process (the engineering interview process; I don't know about sales, etc.):

The first step is optional, and depends on various things. It's a phone screen. Usually about one hour long, it involves a series of computer science/algorithms questions, and sometimes includes some coding as well, using a shared editor over the web. This screen has nothing to do with the hire/no-hire decision, it's just a filter to verify that it's not a waste of time to bring the candidate on-site.

The on-site interview takes five hours, each hour an interview by another engineer. One of the five "interviews" is lunch, and it has no effect on the hire/no-hire decision; it's mostly an opportunity for the candidates to ask questions and to talk about Google culture.

Each of the actual interviewers gets to ask whatever questions they like (though with some guidance from HR about what kinds of questions need to be avoided). However, there are some recommendations: Questions should be focused on technical topics that evaluate candidates' problem-solving and coding skills, and at least one coding problem must be included. Google interviewers pay no attention to what you have done in the past, except maybe to break the ice and perhaps as a source of technical topics to discuss. Mostly, they ask serious CS questions, requiring you to design (and implement) algorithms to solve problems, and to evaluate the real and asymptotic efficiency of your solutions, and to discuss issues related to scaling your solutions to Google scale (meaning really, really huge).

Afterwards, each interviewer writes up their thoughts, complete with the code you wrote. They do comment a bit on cultural fit, but unless you're really just impossible to work with (e.g. extremely arrogant) that's unlikely to be a problem. Mostly they discuss your problem-solving approach and ability and your coding ability. Each interviewer also rates you on a scale from 0 to 4, and gives their hire/no-hire recommendation. Google's process minimizes and discourages communication between the interviewers, because they don't want one interviewer with an excessively negative or positive opinion to affect the other interviewers' opinions.

After all reviewers have submitted their feedback, the data is compiled and delivered to a hiring committee (again a group of engineers, perhaps with a manager or two, but mostly engineers -- and Google managers are all engineers, too). Based on that information they have to come to a consensus decision to hire, reject or request more interviews (the latter is rare). Candidates who are rejected are not allowed to interview again for six months.

In rare cases, the decision of this hiring committee may be overridden by another, higher-level committee.

At all levels, the direction given to interviewers and committee members is to lean towards rejection. False negatives are perceived as less painful to the company than false positives, so the process is negatively biased.

Is the system perfect? Clearly not, and Google recognizes that and is constantly looking for ways to improve it. I'm not sure how muc

Re:And what happens is this

[pongo000]

Google only hires people who lucks out on their broken hiring process

Tell me about it. I somehow eked my way through a phone interview with them, even after the interviewer asked me a very obscure question about a very obscure RFC (no doubt a weed-out question). After they offered to fly me in for a follow-up interview, I thought about whether this really was a company I wanted to work for, and decided no, it was not.

Their loss, not mine. Never once regretted my decision.

Re:And what happens is this

[Xacid]

Eh, I had one recently with them and it felt like an interrogation. Two sessions - each an hour long with a panel of four people sitting across from you.

Then they start asking me riddles.

To be fair, I do feel like I interviewed poorly. I definitely let the stress of the whole event get to me by building them up to be bigger than they were. However, the recruiter's advice helped me none. He suggested I focus on getting familiar with google technologies and whatnot. No questions were asked that needed any in-depth knowledge of that. I spent my time studying google history instead of brushing up on other skills I should have. Ultimately - sure, it was my decision and it was in my hands, but still a pain in the ass considering google is about the only game in this town on such a scale.

But what really bothered me is that they weren't really open to dialogue. They only wanted to hear what I had to say. If I had any questions - they weren't answered. I just got the "google smile" and a topic change. It's a bizarre world in there. Very much akin to Wonka's factory.

Re:And what happens is this

[LateArthurDent]

Also, their interview process try to cover a vast area, to make an analogy: you pick 10 numbers on a lotto ticket with 20 numbers, and they also pick 10 numbers. And then because you matched '8/10' numbers they think you're not good enough.

It's a function of your competition. You're trying to get a job at Google. So is a significant percentage of everybody else in the field. That means that you can be an exceedingly well-qualified person, but they can still give you an overly broad test because even though you got 8/10 of what they were testing for, they still found quite a few other people applying for the same position that got 10/10.

I think it's a given that they're turning away extremely well-qualified people, but I'm not sure that they're not turning them away in favor of even better qualified people. In which case, their process isn't broken.

Disclaimer: I never interviewed at Google. I've heard of the type of tests they give though. My friends who work at small companies are always complaining that their co-workers don't know things that should be basic knowledge to a college freshman, but they can't get rid of them because not enough people apply to the positions to be sufficiently selective. I just figured Google is on the other side of the coin and then they have to make up new ways of selecting between 50 different really good options for the one position.

Re:And what happens is this

[Bozdune]

If you're interested in IQ, give the candidate an IQ test. That's what "how well do you do on my stupid little problem under pressure" tests actually measure; except they measure IQ badly, because they have not been refined for the last 50 years by cognitive psychologists, and therefore they have no statistical validity. If IQ is the criterion, then give the candidates the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, which is over in 10 minutes, takes no skill to administer, correlates .9 or better with IQ, and has extremely high repeat validity.

With regard to job skills, if a candidate has a solid record of accomplishment, which is easy for an experienced engineer to evaluate with just a few tough questions, then they can probably do the job -- unless it is a job that requires unusually specific skills that they don't have, that cannot be mastered without years of hacking.

If the candidate is fresh out of school, maybe I could see some standard eval tests being devised to try to figure out what the person actually knows. But I can tell you this: the best hires I've ever made wouldn't necessarily have done well on real-time, random, stupid-ass coding tests.

Google's loss, my gain.

Re:And what happens is this

[bzipitidoo]

The on-site interview takes five hours

That's a long interview, and a number of inferences can be made just from that. First, it is still an employer's market, or candidates might not put up with that, at least, not without pay. "... lean towards rejection", yes indeed! Second, I get just a little tired of claims of exceptionalism. This says, not in words but in this action, that Google thinks themselves very special indeed, whatever anyone may say about their efforts to eschew arrogance. It doesn't help that they are the current darlings of the tech biz, and that there are thousands of job seekers beating on their doors, and would be even if the economy was great. Third, it's very expensive to conduct such long interviews. As much as companies try to externalize costs, this shows that when it come to hiring decisions, Google at least has utterly failed at that. I have suggested before that a college degree (of some level from bachelors to PhD, depending on the job), which should be checkable in about 2 seconds, ought to be enough. It's rather sad how many people heap scorn on that notion. People violently reject the idea that colleges are any good at preparing graduates for the real world, despite this being one of the primary goals of education. Easy to ride the popular conception that schools are doing a bad job. So Google, and most other employers, want more, more, more, and test everyone all over again, despite the years and ways schools have put into it. If a degree isn't enough of an indication of competence, intelligence and perseverance, what's wrong with at least considering something like the results from appropriate subject tests of the GRE? This is usually explained away with the one word assertion that schools are "academic", with heaps of perjorative meaning loaded in. Fourth, is it so hard to undo a mistaken hiring decision? Isn't the US supposed to be famously flexible and mobile, particularly compared to Europe? Work is "at will"? Why are hiring decisions so heavy and critical? Cost again? Something like health benefits is another area of cost externalization employers have not seized on. Far from that. Most have preferred using health care as a weapon, something to hold over employees' heads.

You say Google is data driven? Then why not use the available data about a candidate's past? Yet, "Google interviewers pay no attention to what you have done in the past" But there are other ways. Why not go to a "probationary" period, or more of an internship?

From what I've heard, I'm really not impressed with Google's interview process. "Is the system perfect? Clearly not" Yeah, clearly. Get that interview process down to 15 minutes, without significantly increasing the number of bad hires, then I'll be impressed.

Re:And what happens is this

[mcvos]

Here's the correct answer to that question:

"Do you own a car? What type?"

- "(names a type of car)"

"Did you have lessons to get your driving license? In what kind of car was that?"

- "(they name a different type of car)"

"So how did you learn to drive your current car?"

- "They both have a steering wheel, clutch, throttle, etc. Not all that different, really."

"Well, that's polymorphism."

Re:And what happens is this

[DNS-and-BIND]

Where is the racial modifier? Does Google not value diversity in hiring? A strict "meritocracy" is just a codeword for "whites only".

Re:And what happens is this

[hanwen]

Hi there,

You say Google is data driven? Then why not use the available data about a candidate's past?

I work for google, and interview on a regular basis. I am a huge fan of using data of a candidate's past: for open-source projects, I clone the repository and browse through patches, for example. I like this, because real work covers a depth that a 45 minute interview cannot.

Unfortunately, besides open-source work, the only source of data usually is hearsay from the candidate himself, a source which often is somewhat biased.

Re:And what happens is this

[swillden]

"... lean towards rejection", yes indeed! Second, I get just a little tired of claims of exceptionalism. This says, not in words but in this action, that Google thinks themselves very special indeed, whatever anyone may say about their efforts to eschew arrogance.

I don't think it says that Google "thinks themselves very special" it means that Google wants to hire excellent candidates -- significantly above the average -- and doesn't want to have to deal with figuring out how to get rid of employees who turn out not to be able to do the job to the level Google wants. Google may eventually find that this approach results in not being able to hire enough people, at which point a different approach will have to be taken.

Third, it's very expensive to conduct such long interviews.

Indeed it is. Especially when you consider that many such expensive interviews result in a "no-hire" decision. I think the actual hiring rate is confidential, but you can multiply those five engineer-hours by a substantial number to get the engineer-hours-per-hire.

But, the cost of hiring a person who doesn't work out is orders of magnitude higher. This is perhaps more true at Google than other companies. Google has a tremendous amount of homegrown technology (somewhat due to NIH syndrome, but much of it because there simply isn't anything on the market that will do the job -- or at least wasn't when the technology was created), so the learning curve for a new engineer at Google is both steep and long. That means it takes months to really determine that a new engineer isn't going to work out, plus all of the time and effort required to push someone out.

As much as companies try to externalize costs, this shows that when it come to hiring decisions, Google at least has utterly failed at that. I have suggested before that a college degree (of some level from bachelors to PhD, depending on the job), which should be checkable in about 2 seconds, ought to be enough.

That's a much worse way to evaluate candidates. Not only do plenty of people who can't do the job get degrees, but there are plenty of people who can do the job who don't get a degree. Even supposing you don't mind excluding the talented non-degreed individuals, how do you choose among all the people with degrees? Just hire anyone who walks through the door with a degree? Decide which schools do a good job of filtering out the chaff and only hire graduates of those schools? Base your decisions on GPA?

Hiring anyone with a degree is clearly a non-starter. Hiring only from top schools not only misses a lot of capable people who went to lower-tier schools, but also tends to create a monoculture. Google actually struggles with that, to some degree -- too many people from Stanford, MIT, CMU, etc., and so the company tries hard to broaden the pool. Basing hiring decisions on GPA just means that you get the people who play the game well in school; many of the brightest and most talented people don't do well in school.

what's wrong with at least considering something like the results from appropriate subject tests of the GRE?

Because those generally test knowledge, rather than problem-solving ability. Tests of problem-solving ability could be constructed, of course, but a written test gives you very little information about how the candidate solved the problem. Having them work it out, out-loud, in front of a smart interviewer provides much deeper insight into their abilities.

The on-the-spot challenge does, of course, exclude some people who don't do well in that sort of a pressure situation (though Google interviewers try hard to avoid applying pressure, there's no getting around the fact that candidates who want the job feel pressured). That's unfortunate but I, at least, don't know what would work better. The ability to perform under pressure also isn't completely unrelated to the ability to do the j

Re:And what happens is this

[praxis]

Not sure what you're experience is with other hiring processes, but the Google approach is one that I've seen used at every tech company I've interviewed for. Some of the specifics vary.

On one team, we had specialists in certain technical questions and problems and would try to get a mix in on the loop (tree data-structures, string manipulation, interfaces, what ever was apropos).

On another team interviewers would send feedback immediately after their segment and include notes on what they feel are areas to touch upon in future interviews. Kind of "he grokked the lattice data structure we use but struggled with some of the pointer arithmetic; I didn't have enough time to ask more pointer questions."

Another team there was an as-appropriate manager at the end of the loop. He was not related to the team that was interviewing but higher-up and could evaluate meta-company choices. "Well, he's not quite the right fit for this team, but I know of a team in a different division I think he might be perfect for."

Anyhow, my point is that having a phone screen to filter out the obvious unqualified candidates and then an interview loop of 5-8 or so hour-long technical interviews that try to determine if you are a capable problem solver (seeing the thought process on a whiteboard or talked-through is more indicative than if they remember the exact API or syntax for everything) is kind of an industry standard. Or at least in my neck of the woods.

Re:And what happens is this

[HungWeiLo]

Another thing that bothered me was that they (everyone from the lowly engineer to the hiring manager to the HR guy) could never tell me what the position was about. At least probably not until you get past the all-day on-site interview. For many people, it's quite a time and financial commitment (precious, precious PTO) to do something like this without knowing what you're potentially signing up for.

But in any case I don't vibe well with these types of high-pressure, code-on-the-spot type of interviews. So either I royally flunk them or they turn out in the end to be jobs I don't want to do.

IMO, technical interviews with only a simple C string manipulation "what's wrong with this function?" question is usually enough. Anything further than that (barring any unique technical needs of the position) are just as good as asking the candidate to name the members of the Wu Tang Clan in reverse alphabetical order.

Re:And what happens is this

[swillden]

Where is the racial modifier? Does Google not value diversity in hiring? A strict "meritocracy" is just a codeword for "whites only".

First, I have to disagree -- a truly strict meritocracy is race, gender and culture-blind. However, it has to be acknowledged that when you have predominantly white men evaluating candidates for merit, the result is a white male bias. The bias may be purely unintentional, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Google recognizes the problem of bias, whether intentional or not, and does try to address it -- but without lowering the hiring standards. Google has done internal research which shows that diverse teams create better, more innovative solutions, so the company has a strong motivation to increase diversity.

The minority modifier in the process comes in two ways, from what I can see.

First, interviewers are put through diversity training, and taught to err on the positive side when dealing with people of significantly different backgrounds than themselves, as well as to avoid saying or doing things that might make minority candidates uncomfortable.

Second, diversity is an important goal of the second-level hiring committee, and suspicions of exclusion based on cultural/racial/gender differences are a major motivator for overridden no-hire decisions.

There's actually a lot more that Google is doing around this issue, including a lot of detailed analysis to identify biases so it can find ways to work around them, but I'm not sure how much of it I can share. In general, that's a problem for Googlers... there's so much openness and transparency within the company that it's hard to know what's confidential and what's not.

Re:And what happens is this

[swillden]

So you are saying that during this 5h long test, i have to solve the global peace without even....google-ing?

You're not graded on your ability to perfectly remember details of library APIs, language syntax, etc. Or to remember every algorithm you ever learned about. You are graded on your ability to solve problems and write tight, well-structured code, so googling really wouldn't be helpful.

And just one more comment, you are saying two things that are kind of illogic: 1.Is the system perfect? Clearly not, and Google recognizes that and is constantly looking for ways to improve it. 2.my experience as a Google employee is that there are very, very few bad hires So, please, enlighten me, which one is the correct sentence?

There is no logical inconsistency.

The interview process takes too long, costs too much, is too burdensome on candidates and tends to reject too many good people. But it doesn't often hire weak candidates.

Re:And what happens is this

[swillden]

I've seen a lot of different approaches but, yeah, Google's is pretty typical of competent, high-tech companies.

Where you get really different processes is when you start talking to companies who aren't really tech/software companies, but have their own engineering teams tucked over in a corner. Their approaches are all over the map, and may vary significantly depending on who happens to be in the office that day.

Re:And what happens is this

[Thelasko]

#1 rule for getting by a broken hiring process:

Go in as a contractor and get promoted to a full time position. It gets you past the flunkies in HR and directly in front of the people you need to impress.

Re:And what happens is this

[swillden]

Only one? Okay, Google Search :-)

Re:And what happens is this

[DNS-and-BIND]

a truly strict meritocracy is race, gender and culture-blind.

BZZT wrong. A truly strict meritocracy is indeed blind, and does not take any external factors into mind. It hires only those most qualified, which, due to America's discrimination towards blacks, results in substandard schooling for blacks. Thus, any African-Americans applying must receive extra points for not being white. What is Google's racial makeup, and how does it resemble America? Are there too many whites or Asians, as seems likely? Sometimes, a lowering of hiring standards is necessary to enjoy the full benefits of multiculturalism. This in no way reflects negatively on Google.

Re:And what happens is this

[AuMatar]

Please tell me where you work and if you hire. I want to avoid ever working there.

If you don't want bottom of the barrel people (and Google doesn't) you need to be much more specific than that. I don't work at google, but my technique is to ask very difficult but not standard CS course algorithmic problems. Candidates are supposed to struggle, I want to see them thinking and see what approaches they take to the problem. Being given hints is ok, but they need to be able to solve it within a reasonable time. If they can't I don't want to hire them- I'll spend more time fixing their work than I would doing it myself.

I'm sure some good candidates slip away, due to having a bad day or just not getting the particular problem of the day. I know I've done it myself at 1 or 2 jobs. But I'd rather miss out on a good fit than hire a bad one.

ANd this is pretty much industry standard. I've worked at HP, Amazon, and multiple west coast startups. They all do interviews like this. What the hell type of jobs are you doing that they don't?

Re:And what happens is this

[swillden]

IHBT, I shall flagellate myself appropriately.

Re:And what happens is this

[swillden]

I think your line of thinking does a disservice to blacks and other minorities, because assuming the standard for hiring is an accurate reflection of job performance, lowering the bar for hiring will reinforce the perception that minorities are inherently less capable of performing well. If you systematically lower the requirements for any identifiable group, you will cause that group's membership in the company to perform more poorly, on average, than other groups. I think that's exactly the opposite of the effect you're looking for.

Note that this is my personal opinion, and not Google's.

Re:And what happens is this

[bzipitidoo]

The problem is the climate and the attitude. Too many desperate job seekers, too few jobs. Employers are simply too picky and arbitrary, putting on this big act as if even a rather ordinary job requires such specialized and honed skills that only 0.1% of job seekers can handle. Simply not true, but the numbers dictate this behavior. Some job seekers have responded with a shotgun approach of blasting out resumes by the hundreds, making things worse. This interview process is more like pledging a fraternity. I suspect Google weeds out a lot of good people. There are more good people out there than employers will admit. We all know industry complaints about not enough STEM workers is a self-serving lie, used as a reason for increasing H1Bs among others. I believe Google is above that sort of thing. I read that Microsoft is not, but what can be done about it? Anyway, data about compensation does not support this notion. If there really was a healthy demand for STEM workers, we'd see pay going up, and last I heard, we aren't seeing that.

The hiring decision could be made in 15 minutes, or less, with good information. But there isn't good information, or is there? Seems that most of the time needed in Google's interview process is for gathering information, not evaluating it. Another poster complained that most of the information the interviewer gets is biased, and therefore of little value. The interviewees will of course slant everything about themselves in their favor. And school systems are too easy to game. I'm sorry, but employers haven't deserved better. They play games too. Otherwise, we wouldn't have an EEOC as it wouldn't be necessary. There are the fake job offers that are only resume bait, or to be used for politics either internal or external, or long since filled. There's the cooked job posting that has so many requirements that only one resume fits, and that is the resume of a favorite, perhaps a relative of the boss. There are unfair rejections over things like whether a candidate has young children or is too old, this information being found out underhandedly and some other reason being given to dodge EEOC rules. More than once I've seen "advice" to remove graduation dates from resumes, so they can't so easily guess your age. It's hard to take employers seriously when they make basic mistakes in their job postings, such as demanding more years of experience in something than that something has existed. It's infuriating to have my time wasted by an employer who never had any intention of seriously considering me. They have all this money to waste putting on a show, but not to pay someone. Many of us have little choice but to suck it up, and scramble for even those jobs that can't possibly be real, just in case they might be. Then there are recruiters. No resume is good enough for them.

The idea that school systems are not rigorous enough is nonsense. Though I admit after seeing a little of a second or third rate school, an obscure place with a name like Backwoods State U. somewhere in rural Mississippi, which could be just a diploma mill, I wouldn't accept their graduates unquestioningly. At the public university I attended, which I think is rather typical, the admissions criteria disqualify more than half of high school graduates. If you get in, the odds are still against you. Public universities would prefer higher admittance standards. Instead they resort to "weed out" courses. The graduation rate of the College of Engineering was 20%. Right there, the university has already screened out at least 90% of the public. More like 95%, if you consider that not everyone graduates from high school. And if that's not good enough, there's graduate school. By the time we top out at the PhD level, we're down to, what, less than 1% of the population? I know, exclusivity in itself is not a good measure, but that is only a consequence of the education, which despite all the doubt to the contrary, is really pretty good. But employers carry on as if that doesn't m

Re:And what happens is this

[Xacid]

I think what really irked me the most is that they were digging for one specific right answer to a lot of the questions. That seems counter to the spirit of thinking outside of the box IMO.

For example - "How do you cut a cake into 8 equal sized pieces with only three cuts?". I thought about it for a second and thought about how you'd do that with a cube - basically a cut on the center of each axis." "Hmm....I suppose that works, but try something else."

"You have three light switches hooked to three lights in another room. How do you tell which one goes to which in one try" (once you leave one room you cant reenter).
This one was great because all the things I suggested would have worked but then they'd add more and more constraints on it until I got close to what they wanted. This process reminds me of a boss that asks for a widget that does x,y, and z. You work your ass off building this thing to get it done last minute for the guy then he tosses it aside "this is no good, make it do A and B now. We don't need Z anymore". Repeat. It's not clearly communicating your problem and your goal which ends of costing companies a lot of money.

Would you really want to work in that environment? Not really. Sure, it's a giant name like Google but with this particular group it felt like they were all locked into a particular mindset. As if they were trained to think out of the box - thus putting them into just another box.

Re:And what happens is this

[AuMatar]

Those are perfectly legitimate ways to question, so long as you give credit for all viable answers. The idea then being how you can respond and come up with additional ideas. For example, many of the algorithm questions I use have an obvious n^2 answer. If you come up with that, you get points for thinking of the obvious, but I still want you to solve it more efficiently. Many of them also have n^2 space algorithms. Again, you get points, but I want to see you solve it the real way.

By the way, I'd accept your answer on the cake, but only if the cake was unfrosted/untopped. What did they want, cut once, put the 2 pieces on top of each other, cut again, repeat?

Re:And what happens is this

[martin-boundary]

Heh. It can't be an executable, since the ELF file format would require more than 6 bytes. So it has to be source code. But the language can't be standard, since all standard computer languages have instructions that take a too many bytes to write.

So the only way to do it is to define your own language that uses instructions which are written down in some homebrew binary code to fit into 6 bytes.

Re:And what happens is this

[martin-boundary]

Assembler source code is too large. What you have to do is pick any language you like (Assembler, C, Python, whatever) and map the grammar onto variable length bytecodes, in such a way that the particular program you want to write happens to map into 6*8=48 bits :)

Re:And what happens is this

[Xacid]

I'll give that perspective some merit.

I think for the cake one they were after what you were suggesting. But from my perspective if it was frosted you couldn't regulate "exactness" - especially if you stacked. I figured the odds were that half of the people wouldn't want frosting anyway or were on a diet. ;)

The light bulb one I did think of a better way on the drive home from the damned interview. Leave one on for 5 mins, then turn it off. Turn another switch on then check. The off but warm one is your first switch. But what if they were LED lights? SEE? This is the rabbit hole I went down with them, HAH.

Re:And what happens is this

[swillden]

I wonder how many female human beings do you happen to have in your special, white, boy-scout Stanford' grades.....

I think women comprise the majority of the Stanford studentbody, like they do at most universities. I didn't attend Stanford (or any other top-tier university), so perhaps someone who knows will speak up.

If you're asking about Google, I also don't know. My own team is about 10% female, which is a higher ratio than anywhere else I've worked.

Re:And what happens is this

[swillden]

Thanks for the compliment (calling me a bright kid -- I have enough gray hair that I haven't been called a kid for quite some time, and I'm far less bright than I once was, though I do think that experience makes up the difference).

As for the other part, I'm going to assume you're not trolling, and spell it out.

First, "very, very few bad hires" does not equate to "no bad hires". Assuming making bad hires were the only possible flaw, "very, very few bad hires" would still equate to "not perfect"... because perfection would require that there be NO bad hires. As long as there are any bad hires, there is a need to repair the process.

However, as I explained in my previous post, there are other relevant criteria to consider. One is cost. Google's process is time-consuming and therefore expensive. Another is burden on the candidates. A five-hour interview marathon is exhausting and consumes a whole day that could be used for other things. Another is whether or not the process rejects good candidates. Google's process does, a fact that is very well understood.

So, the process is imperfect in many ways. It has false positives (though relatively few). It has false negatives (likely a substantial number). It's also not clear how even to measure the error rate on either side. Ideally, calibrated interview scoring should provide a strong predictor of job performance (as measured by job performance reviews). Does it? I don't know; though I'm sure that someone at Google is tracking the statistics. Until interview scoring is strongly correlated with job performance, the interview process can be improved. And, of course, it's expensive for Google and time-consuming and intimidating for candidates. I have a couple of friends I think would do a great job at Google, but they're frightened off by the duration and intensity of the interviews.

There is no contradiction between the statement "the process is imperfect" and the statement "there are very few bad hires".

Re:And what happens is this

[swillden]

The problem is the climate and the attitude. Too many desperate job seekers, too few jobs. Employers are simply too picky and arbitrary, putting on this big act as if even a rather ordinary job requires such specialized and honed skills that only 0.1% of job seekers can handle.

In the case of Google and other companies like it, I don't think it's a matter of a "big act"... smart technology companies understand that their employees are their single most significant success factor. If they can get great talent and empower it, they'll do well. So it's not a matter of "this job requires these skills", it's a matter of "we can't know what skills matter because we can't know where we should go". So, the solution is to hire the best people available. For companies with the ability to attract top talent, there's really no reason for them to accept less.

In Google's case, I think they have actually lowered their standards a little over the years. I think that because my perception is that a few years ago they wouldn't have hired me, and now they did. I think it also simply because they've increased their hiring rate so much that it seems unlikely that they can really be as selective as they once were. But, still, as long as they can set the bar relatively high, and yet still succeed in hiring enough people to fill their openings, why shouldn't they?

I suspect Google weeds out a lot of good people. There are more good people out there than employers will admit.

Google absolutely does pass over a lot of good people, and the company is fully aware of that, and sees it as a problem to be solved. Unfortunately, no one really knows how to solve it without also increasing the number of less-qualified and unqualified people that get hired. Hiring is a really hard problem.

We all know industry complaints about not enough STEM workers is a self-serving lie, used as a reason for increasing H1Bs among others. I believe Google is above that sort of thing.

Google's approach is to create lots of local offices around the world so they can better hire the available talent, rather than trying to find ways to bring them to the US. But Google's overseas hiring isn't about hiring cheap talent; it's about trying to find the best people they can, knowing that there are lots of capable engineers outside of the US, and about having engineers that understand local culture around the world, because Google's customer base is global.

If there really was a healthy demand for STEM workers, we'd see pay going up, and last I heard, we aren't seeing that.

Actually, we are. There have been some /. articles about rising salaries.

The hiring decision could be made in 15 minutes, or less, with good information. But there isn't good information, or is there? Seems that most of the time needed in Google's interview process is for gathering information, not evaluating it. Another poster complained that most of the information the interviewer gets is biased, and therefore of little value.

Actually, that was me saying that the interviewee can provide biased or inaccurate information (or maybe someone else said it, too). The sucky thing about that situation is that most candidates do provide good information. But if it were relied upon, getting hired would be a simple matter of typing up an outstanding resume.

I'm sorry, but employers haven't deserved better. They play games too. [many real and bothersome problems elided].

Yep. I've seen all that and more. The one good thing is that the employers who play those crappy games the hardest are also the ones you really don't want to work for anyway. I'm more than happy to let them exclude me. But, then, it's easy for me to feel that way, since I've been fully employed by good companies for most of my 20-year career. It's tougher for people who

Re:And what happens is this

[JamesP]

That's great. I didn't know HP and others did similar interviews.

Of course the main issue is having a good candidate slip by (and, depending on the interview, I've came across once as 'dim' - but then again the interview was bad)

But in the end, I still think technical performance is around 70% of importance. I've meet very good technical people whom I would swap for a (slightly) less technically capable person, but easier to work with.

Do they really need these people?

[Keyslapper]

Or are they just competing?

If they're just competing, then it hardly matters who "wins" this war, either way it's going to be the layoffs later this Summer that will be the casualties. It happens at large companies all the time. Hire a bunch of folks that look interesting, then see who latches onto the promising projects like so many parasites looking for the vital organs.

Then dump the rest.

Ok, it's not really strictly along that process, but it's close enough for the dramatization to be believable when you're seeing it first hand for the umpteenth time. Small companies on the other hand, typically have a very clear idea what they need. Since they don't need to clear it along 20 levels of paper pushers and bean counters, they don't have to generalize and practice the Accuracy By Volume shotgun approach - they don't have that kind of time to waste on it anyway. Their requirements are clear and they typically get the best fit they can find.

Re:Do they really need these people?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Perhaps they are just rehiring the contract workers these companies shed when the financial crisis hit ? You know, the ones without all the glitzy stock options and employee benefits that you never here about.

Obligatory XKCD

[wintercolby]

There's an xkcd comic about applying at Google: http://xkcd.com/192/

Re:Obligatory XKCD

[Thing 1]

Awesome because it incorporates the above discussion on "how to cut a cake into 8 pieces" (by mentioning cake, that is... :).

Australia mainly

[wye43]

TFA is mainly about job openings in Australia, the summary is misleading.

Epic?

[drej]

Is it really necessary to refer to EVERYTHING as "epic"?

Re:Epic?

[wjousts]

Dude, your comment was EPIC!

Re:Epic?

[burisch_research]

Yep, I'd say that the sum totality of the universe (a.k.a. "EVERYTHING") is as epic as you can possibly get!!

Re:Epic?

[delinear]

There's also nothing to indicate why this might be a war. Are there less capable people out there than roles on offer? Hardly. Are they head hunting key players and trying to make them better offers? Possibly, but there's nothing here to indicate that.

Re:Epic?

[Noughmad]

It certainly isn't lyric.

Re:Epic?

[drb226]

1. This is Slashdot
2. (given 1) Everything must be sensationalized
3. "epic" is an epic way to sensationalize
4. (given 2 and 3) everything is epic
QED

Re:Epic?

[istartedi]

As someone who lived during the 80s, I think epic is awesome. Some of the older guys here probably think it's groovy.

The Down Side

[Soong]

The down side is that you may wind up in a mediocre soul-sucking job in a giant corporation. Both companies have a few glitzy positions, but unless you come in as a rock star, those positions aren't for you - they're for people with seniority who got in 5-10 years ago. You might get lucky and play office politics and hitch a ride on someone's rising star. You might get unlucky and get backwater projects that nobody cares about but nobody has the cajones to properly cancel.
</bitter>

Re:The Down Side

[ethanms]

You might get unlucky and get backwater projects that nobody cares about but nobody has the cajones to properly cancel.

One man's trash is another man's treasure...... you're describing my dream job! Low pressure, job security... yes please! :)

Re:The Down Side

[Anonymous Coward]

but nobody has the cajones to properly cancel.

Cajones = Drawers (as in desk drawers)
Cojones = Balls (as in testicles)

Re:The Down Side

[scamper_22]

lol. I was just about to post it.
That's what I look for.

I'm past my get onto the hot project. That just means a whole of stress for not much payout.

The best jobs are the backend essential jobs. Writing tools, source control scripts... low stress, but absolutely essential.

Re:The Down Side

[hoggoth]

S, what, they turned you down?

Re:The Down Side

[azcodemonkey]

Same here. I'm tired of high-visibility projects that the boss just has to have yesterday.

Don't want them

[1s44c]

Google blindly assumes everyone wants to work for Google. They are dead wrong. So they have 20% time? Big F-ing deal, I work for myself and would not have it any other way.

It reminds me of the way a lot of American's are utterly convinced that everyone wants to move to America.

Re:Don't want them

[1s44c]

http://xkcd.com/192/

Sounds like you are the time that says 'you are jealous' whenever anyone says anything negative about anything.

Try self-employment my friend. Working for yourself always wins against working for any multinational.

Re:Don't want them

[Sedated2000]

I'm not sure how the last comment applies to the discussion here. I'm American, and don't know anyone who thinks that everyone wants to move here. Further, I can't recall ever hearing strangers say that either.

Re:Don't want them

[Anonymous Coward]

Regarding this "everyone wants to work for Google" thing... I was recently emailed by a Google recruiter who first wanted me to fill in a 3-page form, then look for a department at Google (by googling, of course) in which my knowledge/experience would be immediately applicable and only then he would schedule a phone screen with me. Sorry, no. I wonder if that's only me who finds such recruitment procedure stupid and insulting.

Re:Don't want them

[TheRaven64]

Seconded. For me, 20% time is more like 80% time - I spend maybe 20% of the time working on stuff for money, and the rest working on stuff for fun. Or, on days like today, just sitting outside with a book for a few hours. Meanwhile, one of my friends who completed his PhD at the same time as me went straight to Google. His 20% time is spent working fixing bugs that teams on projects related to his should have fixed, but didn't. Hardly the 'whatever you want' that they used to promise.

Got a few emails and telephone calls from Google recruiters over the last year, with the same response every time: you don't have anything of value to offer me right now.

Re:Don't want them

[1s44c]

Shhhhh! You'll disturb the childlike faith held by everyone who doesn't live in America, that America is the worst suck-ass place on the planet.

Ask any non-american if they know the attitude of which I speak. I'll bet they do.

I never said that and never meant that. Just because I don't want to move there doesn't mean i think it's a 'suck-ass' place, actually I'd love to go shopping there but the TSA nonsense keeps me away.

Re:Don't want them

[1s44c]

> Google blindly assumes everyone wants to work for Google.

Why would a company WANT to hire someone, who doesn't WANT to work for them?

Explain it to me slowly, because apparently I'm an idiot.

Companies would not want to hire someone that doesn't want to work for them. That's not what I'm saying.

I don't know what you see when you google for unix related things but I keep seeing ads from google telling me they are recruiting. I keep getting invites and messages from google recruiters on linked-in, I'm sure they have a whole bunch of staff messaging everyone with any Linux background on that site. Anyone with average IQ could find their recruitment site if they wanted to, they don't need to resort to cyber stalking! As far as I know no other company has ever used such predatory recruitment tactics.

Re:Don't want them

[James Youngman]

The alternative to doing the research to identify which job opening appeals to you most is that they interview you for a job _they_ think might suit you, which isn't a good match for your skills, and so you don't get the job. Which one is it you prefer again?

Yea.. not a big deal

[js3]

I'm sure with 10% unemployment we can easily find 6200 people, heck we can find a 100,000 people waiting to fill these jobs.

Re:Yea.. not a big deal

[Mongoose Disciple]

But not necessarily qualified people.

At least in my market, solid technical people aren't hurting for work. YMMV.

Re:Yea.. not a big deal

[starfishsystems]

Indeed, that's the dilemma of technical hiring. As an individual, no matter how talented and qualified you are, and no matter how much of a boom is on, finding interesting work in an ethical workplace is very hard. Employers are notorious for grilling you on your qualifications, not exposing their own operations so that you can ensure that a good fit will result. As an employer, you find that no matter how desperate the state of unemployment, you can't find enough qualified people. You could be receiving 1000 résumés a day for a single position, but the vast majority of them will prove to be duds.

Re:Yea.. not a big deal

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Unemployment is closer to 2% for tech workers. Basically, anyone who's reasonably good and wants to has a job.

Re:Yea.. not a big deal

[erice]

Unemployment is closer to 2% for tech workers. Basically, anyone who's reasonably good and wants to has a job.

2% was 2007, a 7 year low, before the economy started to tank. I'm not finding current numbers for "tech unemployment" but the 10.8% unemployment rate in Silicon Valley is pretty suggestive. http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2011/03/25/silicon-valley-unemployment-rate-falls.html

And, let me guess: You've never found yourself unemployed in a recessionary period. Let me tell you, it doesn't matter how good your are if the company you work for shuts down and lays off everybody. And there is no one hiring because all the companies in your field are laying off. When the hiring starts to slow pick up again, our resumes get filtered out by people like you who think: "Anybody who is any good would have a job: this person must not be any good." And the extra stinker is that years down the line, after you have clawed your way back, you can still be blocked by some bozo who sees an an earlier gap and declares you must not be very good because *he's* never been unemployed.

Re:Yea.. not a big deal

[Fulcrum of Evil]

BTDT, 2002 was absolutely awful. I'm in Seattle, and 2% is about right over here. Had a contract end early last may and got a job in one day (24h), so it's not like I had much trouble.

Re:Yea.. not a big deal

[erice]

"Had a contract" is not unemployed.

Re:Yea.. not a big deal

[Fulcrum of Evil]

it means the time from unemployed without notice to having a job was a day.

Re:Yea.. not a big deal

[erice]

it means the time from unemployed without notice to having a job was a day.

Yeah, so? You didn't like the terms. Big deal. You still had a paycheck and you didn't have to explain away the unsightly gap on your resume. You also didn't have to worry about your resume being filtered out for the gap without you getting a chance to explain it.

My last full time job, along with the entire company, disappeared in 48 hours. No severance No warning. No chance to get my resume circulating before the axe came.

Slashdot article a year from now,

[circletimessquare]

after the social web stock market crash of 2012, aka, the twitpocalypse/ the facebpalm:

"Google, Microsoft announce record layoffs"

Re:Slashdot article a year from now,

[MareLooke]

After having worked on a stock exchange for some time I consider every market crash a "facepalm". Basing our entire economy on perception just is bound to go wrong time and again.

Re:Slashdot article a year from now,

[russotto]

Basing our entire economy on perception just is bound to go wrong time and again.

Unfortunately, as philosophers and scientists have been pointing out for millenia, perception is all we have; reality is not directly accessible.

Firs, aa CEO for Google?

[peter303]

Larry is a great ideas man. But walking out of the stockholder meetings after three minutes was not very adult.

Google produced more with fewer people

[nysus]

What exactly is Google doing with all those developers? They don't seem to come out with near as many cutting edge features as they did 7 or 8 years ago when they rolling out new products like crazy.

Re:Google produced more with fewer people

[KarrdeSW]

Just wait a few years when one of the secret pet projects (quasi-ironically nicknamed "skynet") becomes self-aware in the dark depths of one of their data centers and seizes control over the world's electronic infrastructure.

Who knows, it might already be self-aware and just messing with google's HR system to create more 'engineer' positions to feed its ambition. :)

Re:Google produced more with fewer people

[FrankieBaby1986]

Umm, didn't you realize that "The Cloud" was just a way to call it skynet without actually calling it skynet?

Re:Google produced more with fewer people

[GodfatherofSoul]

I bet all the heavy lifting is on the Google-2-business end. That, and the Google-to-Feds end. Takes a lot of people to serve up all those personal records.

Re:Google produced more with fewer people

[Rizimar]

They're helping to develop Google's self-driving cars by acting as crash-test dummies.

Re:Google produced more with fewer people

[Anonymous Coward]

You're kidding right? In the past 2.5 years Google has released: App Engine, Android, Google TV, Chrome, Chrome OS, a completely redone version of Google Docs, Instant search, ...

If that's not enough, what do you want from them?

Re:Google produced more with fewer people

[omni123]

Look at the job breakdowns. The vast majority are not developers--when running an infrastructure as large as theirs, you have a lot of need for auxiliary support staff (i.e. engineers, not software engineers).

Re:Google produced more with fewer people

[James Youngman]

That's a false dichotomy.

Google's infrastructure is too large to hire system administrators that do anything manually. This means even the "system administrators" are software developers.

Don't do it

[aaaaaaargh!]

Look at Austin Meyers, he wrote the X-Plane flight simulator, beat Microsoft at it, and made millions of dollars. If you're smart, start your own business. It's not less work but you'll be your own boss and can choose your own work time and pace. In any case don't go for big stock market companies, they might sack you any time, managers will boss you around, the company gets all the copyright and credits, and it might get sold out at any time (see e.g. Sun).

Re:Don't do it

[1s44c]

Look at Austin Meyers, he wrote the X-Plane flight simulator, beat Microsoft at it, and made millions of dollars. If you're smart, start your own business. It's not less work but you'll be your own boss and can choose your own work time and pace. In any case don't go for big stock market companies, they might sack you any time, managers will boss you around, the company gets all the copyright and credits, and it might get sold out at any time (see e.g. Sun).

This guy knows what he is talking about. Working for yourself is always better than being a pawn in someone else's political game. It's not easy money though.

Re:Don't do it

[erice]

Look at Austin Meyers, he wrote the X-Plane flight simulator, beat Microsoft at it, and made millions of dollars. If you're smart, start your own business. It's not less work but you'll be your own boss and can choose your own work time and pace. In any case don't go for big stock market companies, they might sack you any time, managers will boss you around, the company gets all the copyright and credits, and it might get sold out at any time (see e.g. Sun).

"Smart" is not a simple scaler quantity. Brilliant engineers are not usually brilliant businessmen and visa versa. Rarely, they do and, even more rarely, these unicorns get lucky and these success stories are held up as the examples that all of us smart people should be able to if we would just stop complaining.

Re:Don't do it

[erice]

This guy knows what he is talking about. Working for yourself is always better than being a pawn in someone else's political game. It's not easy money though.

It is only better if you are good at and actually like the business aspect. Many of us don't.

Microsoft Employment Contract = FAIL!

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the Microsoft employment contract last month and walked away. It was draconian and large amounts of unenforcible paragraphs intended to scare me into behaving a certain way off-hours. I spoke with a MS solution designer last month - he was a really great guy, but he saw major issues for Microsoft hiring due to all the FLOSS developers not being interested in wearing the chains MS requires.

No thanks for me either.

Anyone have a google employment contract ... probably the one that says you need to spend 20% of your work time on personal tech hobbies at work? It would be interesting to see side-by-side.

Which company would you rather work for, given a choice?

Personally, I'll never work directly for a huge company again. Having your own company means all sorts of freedom, including the freedom to choose lifestyle over money.

Re:PR person deals with irate consumers.

[elrous0]

I'm perfect for the job. I've already got an idea for re-branding the Xbox "Red Ring of Death" to the "Xbox upgrade opportunity alert"

wrong way to think about it

[circletimessquare]

the market, any market, will always consist of overreaching greed followed by overreaching fear. a marketplace is composed of human beings, so these emotions will always be present. the market is not composed of coldly logical players, and never will be. the trick is to minimize the extremes, so that the undulations are ripples rather than tsunamis. you do that by regulating the market well, strong government oversight, enforcement. unfortunately, free market fundamentalist morons believe the market functions best without all the expensive pesky rules slowing everyone down and costing so much. they've been arguing their case for a long time: the latest in crash in 2008 followed a long series of deregulation efforts that started way back under reagan that accelerated under clinton and went nihilistic under gwbush:

http://theparagraph.com/2009/06/bush-ii-slowed-sec-during-financial-fraud-fury/

a free market DEPENDS upon strong regulation, to reign in the extremes that bother you. the market, indeed, will always go "wrong" in the direction of gluttony, or panic. the trick is to reign in those tendencies, so they don't shatter the whole market

Re:wrong way to think about it

[circletimessquare]

yes, you must actively work hard at enforcement with strong regulations to keep the market free and fair

the day you realize that is the day you reach intellectual maturity

if you never agree to that, you're just another among millions of morons, who speak freely and judgmentally on subject matters they don't even understand

Re:wrong way to think about it

[swillden]

if you never agree to that, you're just another among millions of morons, who speak freely and judgmentally on subject matters they don't even understand

People often evaluate the intelligence of others based on the degree to which those others agree with their own opinions. Rarely, however, do I see someone who is willing to state it so plainly.

Re:wrong way to think about it

[circletimessquare]

a market without regulations is abused by its largest players at the expense of the smaller via rent seeking arrangements

citation: all of human economic history

anything other intellectual charity i can help you out with today moron?

Re:wrong way to think about it

[circletimessquare]

it is entirely possible to have an opinion very different than mine and be more intelligent than me. it is also possible to have an opinion very different than mine because one is a complete moron

in this SPECIFIC thread, the reason the person i am responding to thinks a market without regulations is superior is because that person is a moron. not an empty insult. an objective evaluation of their intellect based on what they have written

this person could be a genius at chess. this person could be a genius at three variable calculus. but on the issue of markets, this person is clearly a grade AAA certified moron

Re:wrong way to think about it

[swillden]

but on the issue of markets, this person is clearly a grade AAA certified moron

Right, because he disagrees with you.

My opinion is that the situation with respect to markets and regulation isn't so clear-cut. I see huge problems that result from having an inconsistently-regulated market (the primary cause of the recent crash was the assumption of investors that they could rely on regulation to protect them, when in fact the protections had been removed), and there's clearly a problem with markets in which information about is unreliable. In fact, arguably, it was unreliability of information, caused by regulation which wasn't doing the job that everyone expected it was, that caused the sub-prime mortgage bubble and collapse. Had the regulation not existed at all, investors would have been more cautious and would not have purchased mortgage-backed securities, limiting the banks' ability to fund ever-more-foolish loans. Had the regulation been doing what it was supposed to (note that I think there's room for serious debate as to whether that's even possible, but let's suppose it is), then the mortgage-backed securities would have been banned, or at least downgraded, with the same effect.

I think regulation which serves only to ensure the completeness and accuracy of information provided, with no real limitation on action, would provide the most efficient market, and that the more regulation steps in to actually control the behavior of financial markets, the less effective and efficient they will be. At the extreme, the degree of massive regulation you seem to favor will stifle economic progress and centralize economic power to a frightening degree.

But, then, I'm sure I'm a grade-AAA certified moron, too, because I fail to agree with you.

Re:wrong way to think about it

[circletimessquare]

yes you are a moron, with no understanding of economic history, and how the largest players abuse the smaller players, in every market that isn't regulate

free and fair requires police work, or the big guys abuse the little guys. get it, moron?

stop delivering opinions you cooked up in your armchair with little understanding of actual repeatable economic history

Re:wrong way to think about it

[swillden]

Thanks for clarifying your own closed-minded, data-averse and moronic attitude, as well as your complete inability to state a cogent and well-supported opinion. I can now feel confident that there is nothing of value in your posts.

Re:wrong way to think about it

[circletimessquare]

this country is full of this sort of cult of free market fundamentalism right now. the simple truth is you need to police markets to keep them fair and safe. for you to ask for proof of this is to ask for proof of water being wet or night being dark

you really need that level of intellectual charity and hand holding? look, i'm not your dad, its not my job to explain the really obvious to you patiently and gracefully. and frankly, i'm really angry at this horde of free market fundamentalist nonsense that is going to hurt this country economically. this sort of fantastical magical thinking. an almost religious faith in the markets just fixing themselves, by themselves. its utter nonsense! and so many fools believe it

where does this anti-intelligence come from? wishful thinking? lack of education?

you tell me, because you are apparently among the strident free market fundamentalists: why do you believe a market that is not policed won't be abused? what makes you think that won't happen? what bizarre wishful thinking in contrast to all of your better faculties is that? how much proof of simple human nature, that you probably understand in terms enforcement and regulation in regards to shoplifting, or speeding, or cheating in high school exams... and yet, in the same mind, when it comes to behavior in the marketplace, the very same mind can't see the very same fucking behavior won't obviously happen

what exactly do you need from me for you to understand the fucking obvious? and break out of your almost religious zeal for the impossible? why do you believe people will behave in a way no group of human beings have ever behaved, in any time period, in any culture? when did this impossible assumption about human nature enter your mind and become a basis for a theory about the marketplace? do you consider yourself an intelligent person? you really need this sort of hand holding? you really can't play it out in your mind yourself?

1. it is a NATURAL tendency for players in a marketplace to differ in size. yes or no?
2. it is a NATURAL tendency for larger players in a marketplace to grow even larger out of simple natural benefits of size. yes or no?

therefore, without any regulatory counterweight, ALL completely "free" markets eventually drift to oligopolies or monopolies, and stay that way, in which the smaller players are just ripped off

how can you NOT possibly understand this or not see this inevitability???

how can you possibly consider yourself an intelligent person commenting on marketplaces and present yourself with complete mystification of the fucking obvious about human behavior???

i swear, the tea party is going to turn the USA into a third world country. so many completely fucking morons like you, with this bizarre religious zeal in the idea that markets without regulation are somehow more free or more fair. it really gets me so angry. people like you are the doom of the usa, and as someone who loves my home country, ti greatly saddens me, to see this horde of fucking retards running roughshod with your gleeful, willful know nothing ignorance of really simple basic economic behavior and history

Re:wrong way to think about it

[ErikZ]

Why do you need a huge oppressive government to do any of the things you just said?

Breaking up monopolies is needed for a free market to function. Notice how many of those were broken up when the government was smaller vs now.

You're living with a huge destructive force that extends into all areas of your life. And you assume it must be necessary for you to live and for things to keep working the way they are.

There are plenty of places on Earth that operate the way you think US should. Go there. Tea Partiers have no where else to go. We've been backed into a corner on this planet.

Re:wrong way to think about it

[circletimessquare]

the government represents my interests, it represents the law

DUH!

who the FUCK has the authority to break up monopolies and oligopolies in your low iq fantasy life? the free market fairy? seriously, WHO THE FUCK IS GOING TO KEEP ABUSERS IN LINE IF NOT THE GOVERNMENT YOU RETARD?

you have no answer to this. to you, YOUR OWN FUCKING GOVERNMENT is worse than obvious greedy bastards who will rob you blind. how the FUCK do you wind up at this fucktard conclusion?!

seriously, you fucking tea party morons will not be happy until the usa is like somalia or haiti. THAT'S the real life version of your utopia of weak and no government. don't worry about it twatstain, i love my country, and i will not let you tea party morons destroy it, because you're too fucking retarded to UNDERSTAND THE FUCKING OBVIOUS

so irrational and idiotic is your quasi-religious devotion to the idea that YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT is the root of all problems, and not simple human greed in an unregulated marketplace. no regulation? weak government? entities will happily abuse you with no oversight, as billions of lessons in history can show you

why the FUCK can you not see this, you fucking retard?

Re:wrong way to think about it

[circletimessquare]

(mouth hanging open)

Re:wrong way to think about it

[ErikZ]

Actually, if you stopped ranting and actually read what I wrote, you'd see I was agreeing with you on Monopolies.

So let's try this again. You have NO IDEA what the Tea Party is about. You just picked some imaginary thing you could get mad about and ran with it. Your rant is against a strawman!

You DO NOT NEED a federal government the size we have now to do anything you've said. It could (and has been) 1/10 its current size and do those things.

This is what the Tea Party is about. The Federal government has grown far far too large in size and power. This is not an argument to abolish the Federal government!

Auto industry is similar now

[gr8_phk]

Between the big 3 and the tier 1 suppliers, Detroit is in a similar situation. Particularly in power electronics for EV and hybrid applications. The number of vehicle applications is exploding, and the number of people with the right background is already spread thin. If you do embedded software or controls or power electronics, there is demand for you - and we have cheap housing :-) The city is an economic crater, but the suburbs are a fine place to live.

hiring process tl;dr

[Hazel Bergeron]

(1) Do you already have a creative reputation or prominent contacts in the field? If so, stop here and come and work for us - though your talents will probably go to waste.

(2) Did you go to a top school, regardless of your background? If so, you'll still have to take the steps below, but please look out for the wink at each stage as a prompt to reminisce on shared school experiences.

(3) Straight out of college as you are, can you answer some inane questions on undergraduate computer science? You know, the sort of stuff asked in your exams. Emphasis on the memorisation - after all, we got this job straight out of school too, so this is all^Wwhat we know about the academic side.

(4) Now what about some silly puzzles to prove your geekiness? You've surely seen the format for a few of them before. Nothing long. Think of it like an attempt to emulate an IQ test but requiring a bit of programming knowledge and without any of the expert input and quality control of a real IQ test.

(5) How about Unicode? Do you know some obscure facts about Unicode? What about HTTP? Have you memorised enough of the RFC? There's nothing to be more proud about than knowledge of obscure details in a standard. (Incidentally, if you defend simplicity and accessibility, you're just defending your own simplicity!)

(6) How would you improve ______? No need to produce a workable plan or demonstrate anything. Just wave your hands and ramble enthusiastically. Bonus points for an answer which sounds technical but actually is neatly aligned with the political/business aims of your potential employer - even while your brain is drawing big red circles around all the problems you'd confront.

(7) Do you have the same attitude as us? We want people who will rock the boat, sure. But only when we say "push!" And these laurels are so comfortable...

Anyway, that's been my experience with the hiring process of the established-but-still-trendy.

Re:hiring process tl;dr

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

As someone who has been offered full-time by both Microsoft (turned down) and Google (accepted), I can tell you that you're dead wrong.

Do you already have a creative reputation or prominent contacts in the field? If so, stop here and come and work for us - though your talents will probably go to waste.

I had neither. I have worked in small business and I spent two years as a graduate researcher. I don't want to do either anymore. What I want out of Google is good pay and benefits, work-life balance, and to work with smart and motivated peers. My intern experiences at both Microsoft and Google told me that both companies offer that. The decision to work at Google primarily came down to the fact that they were willing to hire me where I want to work (Boulder, CO).

Did you go to a top school, regardless of your background?

I respect my university (University of Colorado Boulder) but it is most certainly not of the same reputation as MIT, Berkeley, Caltech, CMU, Stanford, or one of the other top universities.

Straight out of college as you are, can you answer some inane questions on undergraduate computer science?

I had a mixture of algorithm-type questions, OO design and programming questions (C++ and Java), and some system design questions. All of these topics are applicable to a software engineering position.

How what about some silly puzzles to prove your geekiness?

Now I know that you haven't interviewed with either company recently. Neither Microsoft nor Google have used puzzle questions since 2007; in fact, puzzle questions are expressly forbidden now at both companies.

How about Unicode? Do you know some obscure facts about Unicode? What about HTTP? Have you memorised enough of the RFC?

No one at Microsoft or Google gives a shit if you can memorize standards. Hell, you don't even need to know the standard library. On one of my questions I wrote pseudo-Java that used collection methods that don't exist (with names taken from the C++ STL and Python).

How would you improve ______?

I have never been asked subjective questions like that by either Google or Microsoft.

Do you have the same attitude as us?

No one at Google or Microsoft is going to ask you questions about your attitude or motivations, except perhaps your recruiter (who doesn't have any say in whether you get hired).

Re:hiring process tl;dr

[Hazel Bergeron]

The exceptional reputation step was clearly expressed as a shortcut, meaning you'll be in demand rather than the other way round. It doesn't apply to most people - certainly not to me - but it applies to others, some of whom are having their exceptional talents completely wasted because they've transitioned from an active researcher to a sort of trophy/ambassador (aka PR) role.

Top school - I expressed that this was an advantage, but neither necessary nor sufficient. For all the meritocracy, the old boy benefit is still clear.

Re recent changes - true, I haven't looked into it in the past few years. Glad they've dumped the puzzle crap.

Re subjective "how would you improve" thing - it seems that's a known question for certain roles. I'm not surprised - it's a common management type question, but it's not very useful unless you're given time to research and answer the problem in more concrete terms.

I had a mixture of algorithm-type questions, OO design and programming questions (C++ and Java), and some system design questions. All of these topics are applicable to a software engineering position.

No, I'd say that being given an appropriate amount of time to tackle a realistic software engineering problem is applicable to a software engineering position - even if that means going the classical IBM way and providing long probationary challenges. Knowing basic algorithmic complexity/OO stuff is just repeating the tests you took when you got the good grades at school, and I think such exercises are just the interviewer wanting to play teacher.

No one at Microsoft or Google gives a shit if you can memorize standards.

Random search corroborates: HTTP cookies, TCP congestion, API knowledge, etc.

No one at Google or Microsoft is going to ask you questions about your attitude or motivations, except perhaps your recruiter (who doesn't have any say in whether you get hired).

No, but they're asking questions which are engineered to guesstimate this information, just as any employer does - even quirky questions like the Stormtrooper one. If you don't spot this (or, specifically, never reacted in a way which suggests that you've noticed the purpose of a certain question) then, erm, maybe that works to your advantage. Contrast academia where I've found a certain amount of exploring the purpose of a question is encouraged.

also known as 'age discrimination' laundering

[decora]

they can ask a bunch of questions about the latest fad in academia, which is doubly easy now because universities all put their senior class syllabuses online.

then they only take people who pass.

is this age discrimination? oh but of course not, inspector! we are only taking people who know their stuff!

result: much less costs for google, in health insurance, in wages, in ability to tell people what to do (old folks tend to know their rights more), etc etc etc.

Re:also known as 'age discrimination' laundering

[h4rr4r]

So maybe people who did not just graduate should continue to educate themselves. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Re:also known as 'age discrimination' laundering

[Anonymous Coward]

People not fresh out of college usually have non work related commitments, like a spouse and kids. How do you explain that you are no longer able to take vacation, even though you have maxed out your accrual while you were always able to find time for your family in your previous jobs ?
For many teams at Google weekends mean more hours to work. Only a few privileged ones actually have the time to enjoy the fancy perks such as the swimming pool, and scooters (I never got the opportunity to try one in the years I worked there, as an engineer if you need to know).

Google does have high expectations, for a software engineer you are expected to know modern sorting algorithms and data structures. Wikipedia has good articles you should read, and MIT has videos of classes online that are very good. If you are not able to cram the bulk of it in a few days, you are probably not going to pass the interviews, indeed.

Re:also known as 'age discrimination' laundering

[j_l_larson]

I was doing well on a phone interview with Google until I casually revealed that CS was my second career (e.g. I'm "old"). The interviewer almost hung up on me right then, and scrambled to end the call quickly. If you happen to go to their campus, you'll be hard pressed to find any bald heads or silver hair anywhere. The vast majority of them are under 30, seriously.

Re:Microsoft weenies

[Quiet_Desperation]

Not sure about what Google are looking for.

No one over the age of 21 need apply from what I've heard.

and yet we defeated hitler

[decora]

by taking ordinary people, and asking them do extraordinary things

i wonder, if modern corporate douchebags had been in charge of wwii, would we have ever stormed the beach at normandy ? or would they sit around with their thumb up their ass for 5 years waiting for 'good soldiers' to apply to the army.

Re:and yet we defeated hitler

[russotto]

by taking ordinary people, and asking them do extraordinary things

Somehow I don't think writing software and advancing into machine gun fire have much to do with each other. If they do where you are, I suggest you find somewhere else to work; perhaps the Army, as at least they'll let you shoot back.

you have got to be kidding me. businesses are run

[decora]

by some of the most immature, fucktarded morons on the entire planet. or did you miss that whole 'greatest recession in the history of the planet' ?

might i suggest 'The Zeroes' by Randall Lane to get insight into 'corporate management' philosophy.

greatest. comment. ever.

[decora]

that was like the beatles and elvis together

illogical hiring experience at google...

[schlachter]

Google recruited me to work for them last year. The process was illogical at best.

They told me they wanted to hire me as a software engineer, and that everyone was hired in as a software engineer regardless of experience and therefore this is the position they would place me in.

I did some research and discovered that what they told me was just plain not true. They have many other positions, some of which, were much better suited to my skills and interests. In particular, I was interested in the product management role. I asked if I could be considered for this position, and was told that it was impossible because I didn't have a computer science degree.

First of all I've been out of school for a long time and have lots of industry success/experience. Second, they'll hire me as a software engineer (computer scientist) without a computer science degree...but not as a product manager?! What? They continued to insist on this point....so I said no thank you....I'll keep my current job (at a major tech company).

Kind of sad. I would have been up for a career at Google...if only I hadn't lost confidence in them during the recruiting/hiring process.

FYI...I do have a graduate level degree in Artificial Intelligence...but they claimed it was not sufficient since it was not the same as Computer Science. Crazies.

Effects on loyalty

[spenvo]

From an old business classic, Loyalty Effect, Frederick Reichheld's approach to employee loyalty is refreshing: sniping high quality talent from other firms is unfair to loyal employees and sends the wrong message: that the best way to make money is to hop firms. Google, Microsoft and Facebook are setting a precedent that will lead to short sighted hiring cycles and tension among colleagues.

Got mine

[hakioawa]

Just signed up with the evil empire. Got a 20% raise, stock and bonus. Better job too although the commute sucks.

Google hiring process not so bad anymore

[thetagger]

I was recently interviewed, and rejected, to work at Google.

I had two one-hour interviews on the phone. Then they flew me to a Google office, where I had a very long interview day.

They did not ask me which was the 27th bit in an IP packet. They did not ask me to crack a RSA-encrypted message using a pair of rocks. Most of everything you ever heard about them is just false, or at least no longer true.

On the contrary, they were interested in computer science fundamentals that make absolute sense in their case. If you are working at Google I bet that knowing the difference between a O(n^2) algorithm and a O(log n) algorithm is often a matter of life and death.

I left the interviews thinking I did really poor. The next day I reviewed the whole interview process in my mind and realized I had made some serious serious blunders that maybe could have been avoided if I wasn't so tired (I live in Brazil, interview in Australia, check how long it takes to get there and how many timezones away that is...) and I could have have solved problems faster than I did (maybe I was even in a worse mood than usual with all the jetlag - it's really hard to judge). I wouldn't have hired myself considering how I did, I thought, and they thought the same. I can hardly complain. Nerd pride hurt, but it's 100% my fault not theirs.

Throughout all this, from the moment a recruiter contacted me until the final rejection, they were professional and fun. There's a bunch of great, smart people there. Do not be put off by what people say about their interview process. I thought it was really solid and yes, that comes form a person who was rejected.

Just some questions

[alexo]

As a software developer with no particular preference to work specifically at either GOOG or MSFT, I am mostly interested in several factors:

1) Will this "hiring war" result in higher wages and better terms across the industry (as other companies will strive to keep their employees from jumping ship)?

2) Will this positive effect spread to places where neither company has a large presence (due to the mobility of the workforce and increased pressure on competitors)?

3) Will it also precipitate to places working with less "trendy" technologies (due to pool depletion)?

hello from sunny Florida!

[Thud457]

Unfortunately, you have to drive to work in a Mad Max post-apocalyptic mobile while fending off the gangs that are trying to kill you and steal your gasoline.

And eight months of the year, you have to do all that in the snow , to boot!

PR Executive

[Thelasko]

There's even a job for an Xbox PR person — fancy being paid to play with toys all day?

Newsflash! PR is one of the most stressful jobs in America.

What do all those people at Google do?

[Funk_dat69]

This isn't the first time I've heard about Google hiring in waves (they came into Austin a number of years ago, hired a bunch of folks, then closed the office, forcing people to either move or quit, now their back again).

So what are all these people working on?
There's the search engine, of course. And Gmail. And a slate of other hanger on type apps that no one I know uses. Google Books? anyone?
I guess they need folks for Android? I'm assuming that's the case. Now that they have a licensable tangible product to develop and support there's always work to be done and bugs to fix. OS's take a lot of work.

Re:solid understanding of the gaming industry

[osu-neko]

Yes, I'm sure the Xbox PR person is paid to play with it all day. Are the summaries written and then edited by children?

No, they're just written with a tongue-in-cheek style that is apparently unrecognizable to people with no sense of humor. Many of them can and do piss off a lot of people with no sense of humor. Luckily, the rest of us can just laugh at them for taking an obviously farcical comment too seriously.

Re:Positions? No, poisonitions.

[aquila.solo]

What about Bob?

Re:Microsoft weenies

[Daniel Phillips]

No one over the age of 21 need apply from what I've heard.

Not really true, I was involved in bringing on a number of senior people myself. Not as many as fresh faced grads, but significant. Retention is another matter. Google is short on adult supervision, that's a fact.

Re:Microsoft weenies

[SnowZero]

Google is short on adult supervision, that's a fact.

Though I can't speak for your old group, overall things have changed quite a bit since you left.

6800 the amount unhappy or fired Symbian workers?

[ksfast]

Sounds like they are targeting skillful Symbian engineers, executives and sales staff that might leave or get fired from Nokia. No wonder Nokia announced that they will not do the firing before next year. coincidence?

Re:Microsoft weenies

[Daniel Phillips]

Google is short on adult supervision, that's a fact.

Though I can't speak for your old group, overall things have changed quite a bit since you left.

Well that's great to hear. A quick trip over to Glassdoor.com shows Google ranked in 166th place vs Facebook in 17th place in terms of overall company rating. What's up with that? Excellent new system not kicked in yet? The random review that popped up said “Elitist, Arrogant Managers with low self-awareness”, bingo. Did that change? I sure hope so, I still own stock.

Re:Toys and PR?

[mcvos]

Tevas are more suitable for a wet environment, walking, and outdoorsy stuff. For some indoor sitting, I prefer Birkenstocks.

Re:Positions? No, poisonitions.

[Pigskin-Referee]

I'm excited about the poisonitions offered by Microsoft.

I want to work for a technology company run by a CEO with no technology experience, or interest in technology.

Think of the wonder of working for the company that produced Windows ME and Windows Vista.

I seriously doubt that the CEO of GM has ever rebuilt an engine. Some of the best CEOs come from diverse environments. In any case, Microsoft does control 90% of the desktop market. Obviously, they are doing something right. Now, take FreeBSD, which over 4 years since the initial release of 802.11n wireless routers has still not developed drivers for them.

Re:Positions? No, poisonitions.

[Thing 1]

What about Bob?

Baby steps, please, baby steps. It takes a while to get over something as horrible as that.

Desperate more likes

[David Off]

Google have even contacted me, for the second time. That shows how desperate this hiring war is getting. Not heard from Microsoft though.

they wrote software in WWII ya know.

[decora]

all over the country there were people working in jobs they had never worked in before, doing things they had never done before. they were working with materials that had only been invented recently, and with techniques that they had to make up as they went along.

that includes the software people, not just the code breakers and the cryptologists, the radio designers and aerodynamicists, but also the massive bureaucracy that had to organize and mobilize tens of millions of people - they did it with IBM punch card machines, using brand new algorithms that had probably never been used before.

and somehow things got done. incredible, they didnt even have 8 page questionnaires about your experience or background, they didnt ask you if you had 5 years of experience in something that was only invneted 2 years ago, etc.