Linux audio sucked before pulseaudio. I would never go back to the old days.

What is undebuggable about systemd? What problems are you having? It's modular and verifiable, and it's quite a bit easier to debug service problems than init scripts (am I the only one to have to turn on set -x in an init script to find out what is going on with hacked scripting logic?). There are lots of reasons to dislike systemd particularly with how it deals with syslog, but your arguments seem a bit tired.

Too many people hated Concast for this to work. Had it gone through, well.... I'm fairly certain there would have been a black hole knocked off course or something somewhere :-)

Honestly they've simply pissed off way to many people. They have a serious PR issue which has lasted for years and they were arrogant enough to believe it wasn't going to prevent this from happening.

Personally I'm pleased and hope for more (not less) competition in the Industry.

Yeah I know. That's a tough wish. maybe I'll go find a Buddha belly and rub it for good luck :D

Not at Google. Engineers talk to each other a lot about what they ask in interviews, because one of the rules is that you must "calibrate" your questions, and the very best way to do that is by trying out your questions on your colleagues.

The goal, of course, is to select hires who are at least as good as you and you colleagues.

Actually there's an extremely good chance of Java. Google mostly runs on Java... infrastructure stuff like GFEs, borg, etc. is all C++, and search is C++, but nearly everything running on borg is Java.

This AC nails it. I'm also a Google SWE. And I have gotten yelled at (figuratively) for not disconnecting :-)

No, they don't. Google did try that once, with math problems on billboards. Lazlo Bock says those billboards resulted in zero hires.

(I'm a Google engineer.)

What use is that? That is asking for rote memorization.

Why would you want to test that? That's pointless. At the very least if you ask about complexity of common algorithms, you should also ask them to explain how they determined it, or could determine it. Even better, ask them to create an algorithm to solve a problem, then ask them about the complexity of that. Then they have to actually work out the complexity, demonstrating that they understand asymptotic complexity as a concept, rather than just regurgitating. Then take it one step further and see if they understand the difference between asymptotic and real-world complexity, and why the ideal algorithm for massive data sets may not be at all appropriate for small ones.

My goal in an interview is to make the candidate think, and to watch how they do it. How do they explore the solution space? Do they tend to get stuck on one unproductive line of inquiry, or can they step back and try another angle? Can they see ways to reformulate the problem to simplify it? Generalize it? Specialize it? Do they understand the tradeoffs of various design decisions? How effectively do they collaborate with me on the solution? Good engineers know when to ask for help.

Oh, and... can they write code? Because it's amazing how many people walk in fully able to talk the talk but when asked to produce some functional, reasonably-clean code fall flat on their faces.

Those are useful things to ask about. Memories of libraries and interfaces? Useless. Actually, probably counterproductive unless what you really want is someone who is deeply specialized, then you can ask about the relevant components in that specialty. But in the common case it's far more important to find out if they can reason, problem-solve, code and interact with you. They can google the specifics.

Yes, this is why one of the requirements for good Google interview questions is that they not rely on specific knowledge. They tend to ask you to invent and implement a new algorithm, not remember an old one. Where interviewers do ask questions that require specific knowledge, they're happy to provide whatever you don't remember.

Nice theory, but as I understand it, higher percentages of candidates with professional experience are hired than of candidates fresh out of school. I'm 45 and was hired by Google four years ago. Most of my team was in the 40s, with several in their 50s and a few in their 60s.

There is an issue that older guys who haven't reviewed their algorithms, data structures, complexity, etc. recently may be a little rusty. Most of the time this doesn't actually create any issues, and it's pretty easy for older guys to address simply by brushing up before the interview. I did.

Actually, Google doesn't. The cafes are open late because people work all sorts of odd schedules. Some don't come in until noon and leave late, some show up early and take off at 3. In the Mountain View office there's a lot of both of those patterns, mainly because traffic sucks so bad that people try to schedule around it.

As for the games and stuff, that's just recognition that taking a break is good for think time. Massage services, espresso bars, etc., are all parts of that.

I've been a Google software engineer for four years and there has never been the slightest pressure on me to work long hours. Not only has no one ever asked me to, no one has hinted, implied or anything else, and on a few occasions when I chose to work late my old manager noticed and told me to go home. I'm not saying every manager is that way, in fact I don't think my current manager would ever say anything to me about my work schedule, whether I worked around the clock or hardly at all. Eventually my lack of productivity would provoke a response, though it would probably take a quarter or so.

Now, there are people who work a lot of hours at Google. Mostly young people who don't have anything better to do and are really excited about what they're building. And mostly no one tells them not to. But there are plenty of others who work normal hours, and no one says anything to them, either.

BTW, I'm 45.

Not at all. Why do you ask?

So you're suggesting that the pumps are adding enough energy to move millions of tons of earth and rock? Really?

That's nonsense. All they're doing is breaking loose enormous energies that were already there.

The whole military system is so turned on its head now that it has become a distinction without a difference. But it didn't start out that way. The the Framers were very leary of standing armies, and so restricted military appropriations to two years, assuming that major military appropriations would happen only in times of declared war. In the meantime, states could keep militias that could be called up in times of war. That's not how it has worked out, though. We now have a huge standing army, and while we technically follow the rule that military appropriations have a two-year life, we renew them like clockwork every two years. So in effect, we have become exactly what the Framers hated (and had just overthrown).

I'm in favor of this, mainly because "privateer" is a cool word, and it would be all swagger and swashbuckling to have them. Also, it would probably be an excellent way to stop African piracy. And paying bounties for capturing/killing terrorists would probably be cheaper than our current war effort.

Probably because if you accept the status quo of racism and just avoid those places it does nothing to fix the racism problem. You might as well ask why all the black people didn't up and leave the USA after the civil war. If we want to change peoples racist attitudes and stereo types you have to make it personal. They need to see that their fears and hatreds are unreasonable as frequently as possible. Going to a country where a significantly large part of the population has an unreasonable hatred for you with the purpose of rendering humanitarian aid is a pretty good way to do that. Whether or not it is a wise decision for your personal well being is a very valid question. But often times the people who do this kind of work value the work they are trying to accomplish more than their own well being, at least before they are actually put into mortal danger. Then again most people's ideals and motivations become very maleable once they are under immenent threat of death.