Comment by baby

5 years ago

The same happened to me after I started at a company than HN hated and realized that it’s much different inside that the picture painted here. I became really skeptical of any big claims about other big corps too.

Having also worked for companies that HN hates, of course it's much different on the inside. Nobody twiddles their mustache and cackles when they make decisions that screw people over. They find ways to make it sound benevolent and positive.

Keep at it! Big/impactful companies are great places to learn, and I don't want to tell you what to think. But your views on topics like benign intents and unintended consequences might change after you see enough of them firsthand.

  • >Nobody twiddles their mustache and cackles when they make decisions that screw people over

    Well. Oracle.

    • Nah, that’s more like shrugging. “Mhh, this number here says that screwing X we’ll make a few more dollars. <shrugs> Ah well, that’s how the cookie crumbles.” <goes ahead screwing X>

    • Yeah but Oracle generally only screws over companies who either can afford it easily or have used expensive external "consultants" to help make the decision, both have a low sympathy vote from me.

      1 reply →

  • > Big/impactful companies are great places to learn

    Is it really? I always learned the most at tiny companies.

    • Well, a company doesn't have to be big to be impactful. What's important in my experience is a productive environment which can foster the occasional side project.

      This is actually something that I've struggled a bit with, because it feels like the most interesting and educational jobs are the ones that involve more than 40hrs/week.

      Sometimes I wish that I could find a 20hr/week role with the potential to make big positive improvements in peoples' lives. But there are always other groups trying to do the same thing, and they're never happy to stop at part-time.

the alternative is that the company or you found a way to rationalise or reframe the very same behaviour in a way that makes it appear positive, after all as the saying goes your paycheck literally depends on you believing that very fact.

Genuinely awful organisations always have people on the inside who are very convinced everything said about them is an injustice, but that can very easily be tribalism. I mean Zuckerberg and many Facebook employees claimed that Facebook influencing elections is a ridiculous proposal. If that's the kind of thing that working at the place does to you I think we can safely discount the opinion of insiders.

not to forget this gem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELgAZH-Wb44

Facebook? Riot? Microsoft? SoftBank?

  • Do hn hate those? Maybe facebook has a lot of haters these days. Last time i heard someone bash on microsoft, slashdot was still big. On the whole i think hacker news tends to be pretty positive to big tech.

    • > On the whole i think hacker news tends to be pretty positive to big tech.

      Perhaps to a fault, the same applies to the CCP Bots you see here posting anytime anyone questions China: you have people here with self-interest guiding their words and creating rationalizations like those above stating how erroneous 'the media' and 'outsiders' portray them in a bad light and that some how they are poorly informed and thus their views are nothing more than unsubstantiated conjecture.

      But one needs to only look at the recent behavior of Apple riots in India and Amazon exploiting warehouse workers and firing them during COVID due to reasonable concerns--like lack of PPE and distancing/hygiene/prevention methods.

      Its so commonplace and thus very easy to realize that if these massive monoliths, who benefit from very skewed tax, legal and labur laws, are not going to put Human Rights/Labor Laws before Profit or Market Share even during a Global pandemic, then they never will: and Governments on a whole are either/or both complicit as they ignorant on their business models making legislation solutions entirely moot. And I'm not even going to mentioned Google as this rebuttal would never end.

      But nothing changes those objective truths regardless of how much you may want to sugarcoat things, and the fact that so many here still think FAANG is the end all and be all of Tech shows just how misguided if not entirely indoctrinated (from within or otherwise) they really are and how easily they are bought off with the illusion of prestige, a meaningless title and an often over bloated salary and by extension a sense of self worth for the things they've actually bring to the World often, most notably: Social media that creates discord and division and devices that promote further dependence on self-infatuated naval gazing while our Environment and hapless languish in mines and suffer ever greater exploitation, and these businesses make them increasingly more within the closed source, planned obsolesce paradigm business model. Not to mention the depression and suicide these addictive things are meant to create in a sort of intention span casino addiction model.

      So, no, I don't think what you're saying is true, and what you are referring to is told with very obvious biases.

      People should be critical of these exploitative and frankly often unnecessary and cancerous business models, the problem is that they wield so much power and money they simply destroy any competition they may have had in the past, assuming they didn't acquire them and we get less choices due to these monopolistic practices.

      I think it was Chamath that said it best when he describes what banks and big tech excel at that most the Industries can't as the 'intellectual lobotomization' of a generation(s) best minds as they spend(t) their talents and drive to often pointless (facebook) and often nefarious ends (credit default swaps, naked short selling/high frequency trading algorithms etc...).

      3 replies →

  • Uber or AirBnB maybe?

    Also, commonly, Google, but many Googlers on HN aren't afraid to reveal their affiliation.