I worked at Google for ten years (as an IC). Here's my personal perspective.
Yes, of course, the individual employees know. But the decision making for these kinds of things is usually a full-time middle manager, who isn't deciding on behalf of Google as a whole, but on behalf of their organization within Google (could be 50 people, could be 2000). It's not just _not_ that manager's job to make the globally optimal decision for Google, it's actually likely often in direct conflict with their job, which is basically "set the priorities of your org such that they launch things that make your boss look good to his boss". Spending headcount on maintaining niche stuff is usually not that (and takes resources away from whatever is).
And this is exactly why they need to be broken up. If that offering was their core service, you can bet it would be the priority of the middle managers.
I'm personally unconvinced that smaller companies put out better products, and that breaking up google would raise the bar either at the new entities, or at the competition.
The integration between Google products is definitely one of the things that keeps me with them.
I've seen more than a few companies that are no better at their core service than the giants.
I can do it with changes that are related. But I understand that jj makes it trivial, which is not a life-changer but it's nice. Does that sound about right?
The hard part I always found without jj (and Fig before it, when I was at Google) was managing a DAG of small changes.
What's your git workflow for a change that depends on two other in flight changes? (More generally, of course, this can occur in an arbitrary part of one's change graph - which is usually not too deep, but at least in my experience, occasionally is.)
Having good tooling for this unlocked workflows I didn't know I was missing, and switching back to git when leaving Google felt like losing a limb.
The term poaching is common, but is a word that overemphasized the importance of the hirer.
There are 3 parties involved. The worker choosing to accept a better offer. The hiring company making a better offer. The previous employer offering unsatisfactory terms.
The term "poaching" suggests that the departing employee is being "stolen" or "taken" from their current employer, implying a sense of ownership over that individual. Employees are not property; they are individuals with the right to seek better opportunities and make their own career choices.
"Working" is a pretty generous description of a policy that, at a cost of 3-4% of GDP, has raised the fertility rate from its low of 1.23 in 2011 to about 1.55 today. That 1.5ish TFR is pretty stable, too: there's been almost no improvement since 2016.
No country has figured this out, and if getting to (just!) replacement rate requires healthcare-like expenditures as a % of GDP, it is genuinely unclear to me how we do that on a global scale.
It's pretty clear theyre going to drop below their 2011 baseline soon. In other words, 5% of GDP into pronatal policies and transfers will have at best delayed the inevitable drop by a couple years.
IIRC that was a deliberate campaign to make the site unattractive to a spate of non-technical folks who had apparently all simultaneously discovered it.
"We've had a huge spike in traffic lately, from roughly 24k daily uniques to 33k. This is a result of being mentioned on more mainstream sites [...] You can help the spike subside by making HN look extra boring. For the next couple days it would be better to have posts about the innards of Erlang [...]"
"Ok, ok, enough Erlang submissions. You guys are like the crowdsourced version of one of those troublesome overliteral genies. I meant more that it would be better not to submit and upvote the fluffier type of link. Without those we'll be fine."
I hope what this policy amounts to is declining visas to students who support proscribed terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hizballah, broadcast blood libels, harass Jewish students on campus, etc. I had a foreign (Pakistani) student tell me, to my face, "I don't like you because you're a Jew." -- in front of a group of mutual friends, who awkwardly laughed it off as if he must have been joking. It's _not_ about mere criticism of Israeli policy or war doctrine, and pretending it is seems to be a new popular misperception on both the far left and the far right.
This was a very real thing when I was an undergrad, and it's surely much worse today. I have family with long histories of attending Ivy League schools, and their seniors are no longer applying to those schools, entirely over antisemitism.
If American universities were 1/3 populated by, say, Russian students with a high propensity for harassing gay students, implying that all gay people are predators, etc., I think the left-leaning commenters here would take a very different perspective.
A massive problem in the current climate is that the middle-ground has been eroded. There are only two states: pro- or anti-Israel.
For example, if you show solidarity for killed children in Gaza, that also means that you're by proxy pro-Hamas, because Palestine = Hamas. Thus you can not be pro-Israel, and must be anti-Israel.
Likewise we've come to the point where you can say: "I feel for the Israeli people after the October 7 attacks, but I don't like the Israeli government". You automatically get classified as something other than pro-Israel, and, thus anti-Israel.
The middle ground has eroded. And with the Trump administration being what it is, I have zero faith that they'll see it any other way.
Not really. I take the third option: I don't know enough about the situation to reach almost any policy recommendation with high confidence. Not engaging is always an option, particularly when you're dealing solely with rhetoric and not any fundamental action. (Obviously, if you're greenlighting weapons purchases your duty of care is higher.)
You don't need to recommend any policy. Simply saying "I don't support genocide" will illicit a negative response from the pro Israel side of things and puts you in the "against" category.
> Simply saying "I don't support genocide" will illicit a negative response from the pro Israel side of things and puts you in the "against" category
Sure. But declining to use the term "genocide" similarly illicits a negative response from a lot of the pro Palestinian side.
Single-issue advocates will tend to dislike you if you don't take their position on an issue. That doesn't mean anyone has to. (My pet war was Ukraine. I, similarly, took a dim view of anyone who described Russia's invasion as a defensive war. And I'd similarly argue with folks who thought what happens in Ukraine has nothing to do with America's security, though I hope I was more respectful than the status quo with Gaza.)
> Single-issue advocates will tend to dislike you if you don't take their position on an issue. That doesn't mean anyone has to
These are the people who will determine whether or not you get a visa over a statement both you and I see as benign. Anything other than explicit endorsement is seen as adversarial.
Assuming anything but the obvious is carrying water for fascists and which is how we've gotten into this situation. Is there any reason to assume that aren't going to do the exactly that?
Trump's admin is ignoring court orders and are about to pass a bill that will make it illegal to hold them in contempt of court. I don't see why an injunction will matter.
> what this policy amounts to is declining visas to students who support proscribed terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hizballah, broadcast blood libels, harass Jewish students, on campus, etc.
I dressed up as Ghadaffi in college for a party. Not because I knew almost anything about the man. But because it was edgy and adolescent brains are dumb, particularly when male. Plenty of students who will go on to be good and productive members of society hold stupid views now, possibly most given the state of scial media.
This move, in particular, comes across as in particularly bad faith inasmuch as it's being done by the man who pardoned the January 6th nutters. Actual violent criminals subscribing to terrorist tactics.
Weird you mention a brown person, and not the various white nationalist ZOG types who actually go and shoot up synagogues. Also how did you even know he was Pakistani or a student?
I'm talking about my actual experience, and I know he was Pakistani because we had mutual friends. He dated one of them. I know exactly who he was. What a bizarre comment.
I didn't have any similar experience with any white international students.
That was what, 10+ years ago? There have been multiple terrorist attacks on synagogues by white men since then, and somehow this is still what you posted about antisemitism.
Do you think we should strip citizenship from and remove white men who are antisemites?
> Shouldn't we increase visas to those that support Hamas and Hezbollah?
No. It is perfectly acceptable for a society to have norms and conventions it wants those seeking to enter it to uphold. One of those is not accepting violence as a political tactic.
You're confusing law and politics. They're intrinsically related. And there is not a natural separation. But if there is a single corollary to the rule of law, it is in the integrity of that separation.
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_gkpYORQLU