[yanilkr]

This blog post was so painful for me to read.

This is a symptom of "bullshit" going on around in big tech companies. "bullshit" here is an economic term defined in the book "bullshit jobs". https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Jobs-Theory-David-Graeber/dp...

Reading through the post, I was noticing

So much corporate Jargon which really does not mean anything important.

Dehumanizing language when describing people interviewing and being interviewed and its process.

Too much obfuscation of ideas that can be very simply explained.

glorification of simpler problems into heroic challenges.

Delusions of Grandeur.

Today's such jobs are tomorrows layoffs.

I think I will stop here. I have crossed my negativity threshold for the day.

[sidlls]

"Obfuscation" and "delusions of grandeur" are practically synonyms for ML and Data "Science" in this industry. I've been around for a while and I've never quite seen something as over-hyped and hyper-glamorized as these two specializations.

[dchichkov]

Calm down. Machine learning is a part of software engineering. Like multiprocessing, computer graphics or network protocols. It is here to stay. It is a part of a pallete of algorithms with which one can build software.

[bitL]

Heh, given that I am starting to see more and more companies that offer ML engineers $2-6k/month (before tax), it's starting to resemble gaming industry in all its negative characteristics instead.

[danielmg]

Does "blockchain" get an honourable mention?

[codesushi42]

Really?

Were you around during the dotcom era?

Although I'm not old enough, I've heard that OR in the 80s was the same crap.

[m0zg]

Yep. Taxi routing service, and not even the best one, you'd think they're launching those taxis to Mars.

That said, SpaceX interview process is even more ridiculous. The first step is to talk on the phone with a non-engineer recruiter who has to ask you highly technical questions, but doesn't understand a word of your response, and you know it. They then sort of have to correlate what you're saying with the answers they have and decide whether you know anything or not. The most uncomfortable interview situation I've ever been in. Or at least that's how it was a few years ago, maybe they've changed it. I was so thrown off by this, I totally fucked it up and never got to the second step, in spite of nominally having all the right experience. To relate, imagine trying to explain low level assembly to a five year old, over the phone.

[hcknwscommenter]

Not saying this is the case for spacex, but in my field (totally not space or engineering or software (but very much "tech" (physics/chemistry)) related), these types of interview are for weeding out the non-standard folks (of which there are many, including me but many of us (including me) have become good at hiding it). A person with high E would presumably (but not always because it is indeed a difficult task, casualties are regrettable but expected) "grok" the task and begin feeding the right keywords to the recruiter. Once you realize the game, it becomes fairly easy. Just read the job description and sprinkle the keywords provided therein.

[gamesbrainiac]

Thank you so very much for saying this. When will these people realise that nobody gives a toss about their overly long and overcomplicated selection process.

And, these guys aren't even Waymo.

[Keloo]

https://mourner.github.io/bullshit.js/

[tempodox]

mission critical!

[commandlinefan]

It seemed like a lot of words to say very little.

[barry-cotter]

> This is a symptom of "bullshit" going on around in big tech companies. "bullshit" here is an economic term defined in the book "bullshit jobs".

Bullshit is neither an economic term nor an anthropological one. David Graeber is an anthropologist, not an economist, though he has written inexplicably popular books on economic topics that betray his lack of understanding of economics.

Bullshit is actually used as a technical term in philosophy occasionally.

http://www2.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f12/frankfurt__harry_-_on_...

> One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted. Most people are rather confident of their ability to recognize bullshit and to avoid being taken in by it. So the phenomenon has not aroused much deliberate concern, or attracted much sustained inquiry. In consequence, we have no clear understanding of what bullshit is, why there is so much of it, or what functions it serves. And we lack a conscientiously developed appreciation of what it means to us. In other words, we have no theory. I propose to begin the development of a theoretical understanding of bullshit, mainly by providing some tentative and exploratory philosophical analysis. I shall not consider the rhetorical uses and misuses of bullshit. My aim is simply to give a rough account of what bullshit is and how it differs from what it is not, or (putting it somewhat differently) to articulate, more or less sketchily, the structure of its concept.

[thundergolfer]

> not an economist, though he has written inexplicably popular books on economic topics that betray his lack of understanding of economics.

"Debt" I think shows a deep understanding of the relationships economics has with history, philosophy, and society. Graeber knows he's not an economist but he's got a point to make and he's not shy about making it even though it says less than flattering things about some aspects of economics.

You're link is broken for me btw.

[quadrifoliate]

Sometimes, lessons from the past can help to remove some of the rose-tinted glasses that people seem to associate these newer companies with. For example, it's worth reading Enron's Vision and Values statement (http://www.agsm.edu.au/bobm/teaching/BE/Cases_pdf/enron-code...) from 2000.

I don't think there have been any fundamental changes since 2000 that would incentivize make communication from large public corporate entities to be more honest or logically rigorous.