Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Google Microsoft The Internet Yahoo!

Comparison of Working at the 3 Big Search Giants 179

Posted by Zonk
from the searching-for-some-free-sushi dept.
castironwok writes "Finally, everything you've ever wanted to know about being an employee at Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo. Tastyresearch describes his (or her) past few years interning and working at the three companies. Things I didn't know from before: Bill Gates wears old shoes, Google's internal security watches you like a hawk, the office styles of each company, and how to fill your suitcase with Google T-shirts. He calls the few select companies the 'prestigious internship circle', noting 'once you have worked at one, it's a lot easier to get into another'."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Comparison of Working at the 3 Big Search Giants

Comments Filter:
  • big three? (Score:5, Funny)

    by superwiz (655733) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @02:48PM (#18053172) Journal
    Microsoft? There are people who use MSN for searching? Name two.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Nanidin (729400)
      Anyone computer illiterate whose default homepage is MSN...
    • Re:big three? (Score:5, Informative)

      by RichPowers (998637) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @02:56PM (#18053262)
      Remember that MSN.com is the second most visited website. This will draw some search traffic.

      Here's the breakdown:

      Google - 43.7%
      Yahoo - 28.8%
      MSN - 12.8%

      http://seo.zunch.com/search_engine_usage_statistic s.htm [zunch.com]

      While MSN trails Yahoo and Google, it's still in the top three. Other websites rank the engines in the same order, but the percentages slightly vary.
      • Re:big three? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by timeOday (582209) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @04:16PM (#18053826)
        While we're throwing out percentages, my biggest surprise reading the article was something I could have just looked up: the market cap of google is about 50% that of microsoft, and over 300% that of yahoo! It amazes me that within just a few years, an ad-sponsored website (yes, that's all google is) could reach half of Microsoft's size!
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by westlake (615356)
          It amazes me that within just a few years, an ad-sponsored website (yes, that's all google is) could reach half of Microsoft's size!

          what goes up like a rocket can come down like a rocket.

        • Re:big three? (Score:4, Informative)

          by Kuciwalker (891651) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @09:41PM (#18056358)
          Actually, Google isn't just one ad-sponsored website; it's a million ad-sponsored websites. Half the internet uses Adsense.
        • Re:big three? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by ghjm (8918) on Sunday February 18, 2007 @03:16AM (#18057986) Homepage
          Don't make the mistake of equating market capitalization to "size."

          Google has $10 billion in assets, $6 billion in revenues and 10,000 employees. Yahoo! has $10 billion in assets, $5 billion in revenues and 11,000 employees. Microsoft, on the other hand, has $70 billion in assets, $44 billion in revenues, and 71,000 employees.

          Google's market capitalization means that overall, the market has spent $144 billion in cash in order to own Google's $10 billion in assets. The market believes that somehow, it will make future profits with a current value over $134 billion.

          To do this, Google would either have to start paying dividends within a few years, and pay out an amount well in excess of the company's total assets every year for 20+ years; or it would have to see revenue growth such that the company turns a profit 5 or 10 times better than the best Microsoft has ever done.

          None of these scenarios are remotely plausible; the market has clearly overvalued Google. As such, the market cap figure is not very useful for valuation or market-strategic purposes.

          -Graham
        • Apparently you need to realize that 'market cap' != size. I can point to a number of companies with amazing market caps that died a painful death.
      • The old ladies at my office actually load up Internet Explorer, which loads MSN.com, then use the search field to type www.yahoo.com to get to Yahoo.

        And I do tech support for these people. I have horror stories.
        • The old ladies at my office actually load up Internet Explorer, which loads MSN.com, then use the search field to type www.yahoo.com to get to Yahoo.

                They probably just type yahoo.com )or maybe even just yahoo) which would also work. This may be quicker than bringing up a Favorites menu and clicking in there. It's a lot more convenient and what I do in Google with I Feel Lucky for ad hoc site visits.

            rd
          • I do something very similar.

            If I want to go to some site which is not in my bookmarks, story goes like this. I launch Firefox. I get Google page. Focus is already in the Google instead to be at URL field. If I type name there, I dont have to move to URL field and I can simply hit Enter. If I mistype the name, Google will correct me. If I decide to type in URL field, I would have to change the focus, if I miss the name I will have to try again etc... It's much simpler to let Google to take care of the correc
      • by jthill (303417)

        Remember that MSN.com is the second most visited website.

        When was the last time you watched what happens when you type just the hostname (sans `http://`) into IE6's address bar?

    • by Dunbal (464142) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @02:57PM (#18053266)
      There are people who use MSN for searching? Name two.

      Lincoln 6 Echo and Jordan 2 Delta in the movie "The Island". Oh, you meant REAL people? Sorry...
      • by sharkey (16670) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @04:24PM (#18053884)
        Guy at my $ORKPLACE has MSN set as his homepage. Whenever he needs to browse a website, he opens IE, types "google" into the MSN search box and hits ENTER. Once at Google, he searches for whatever it is he is looking for.
        • by Teresita (982888) <(ten tod orezten) (ta) (1eganidab)> on Saturday February 17, 2007 @04:38PM (#18053992) Homepage
          Guy at my $ORKPLACE has MSN set as his homepage. Whenever he needs to browse a website, he opens IE, types "google" into the MSN search box and hits ENTER. Once at Google, he searches for whatever it is he is looking for.

          This is exactly like sitting in a Yugo as it is dropped straight down into a Mustang convertable, and then busting out the windshield of the Yugo so you can shift.
        • by StikyPad (445176)
          Guy at my $ORKPLACE has MSN set as his homepage. Whenever he needs to browse a website, he opens IE, types "google" into the MSN search box and hits ENTER. Once at Google, he searches for whatever it is he is looking for.

          Let me guess.. he also says Nanoo nanoo? [wikipedia.org]
        • You know what else is funny? "yahoo" is one of the top search queries on google, and vice versa.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by physicsboy500 (645835)
      True... I don't think that even an MSN search could turn up an MSN search user!
    • The MS one is big because its running IIS on Vista.
    • Apparently the answer to "Can you tell me what was the most difficult bug you faced while programming and what you did to resolve it?" isn't "My programs don't have bugs."

      Too funny. I think I really started to mature as a programmer when I realized that I actually *don't* know all the answers, that *everyone* makes mistakes, and it's foolish to let pride get in the way of asking someone for help or admitting you had absolutely no clue about something (instead of trying to bluff your way through).

      • Agreed on the asking questions.

        My worst bug comes, oddly enough, from the time I was still in university. I was writing a shell in my operating systems class using lex and yacc. For some cases, it would just completely crap out.

        It should be noted that gdb did not play with yacc at all at the time (I don't know if it does now or not). I literally had to print out the source code and go down with a pencil line by line. Turns out that I made a typo. I accidently had a $2 where I should have had a $3 or th
  • by antifoidulus (807088) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @02:53PM (#18053220) Homepage Journal
    Yahoo prefers one 24" monitor compared to the dual setup at Microsoft and Goolgle(19" and 20" respectively) Considering that most 24" LCDs cost at least as much if not more than a pair of smaller ones, I wonder why they opted for less screen real estate(also interesting to me since I am in the market to upgrade displays and am debating between the two setups as well)
    • by Joe The Dragon (967727) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @03:13PM (#18053370)
      It needs less video card ram and power the drive one screen then it takes to drive 2 also SLI and cross fire only work with one.
      • by akpoff (683177)
        For 3D you're right about the card but for 2D any card on the market today can handle it -- which for most desktop-productivity jobs is where the action is. Now as to power, you may be right that one 24" monitor uses less.
    • by nmb3000 (741169) <nmb3000@that-google-mail-site.com> on Saturday February 17, 2007 @03:26PM (#18053470) Homepage Journal
      Considering that most 24" LCDs cost at least as much if not more than a pair of smaller ones, I wonder why they opted for less screen real estate

      That is odd. At work we upgraded to dual 19" LCDs a few months ago and I can say there is a huge difference. I *feel* more productive because I spend less time bouncing between windows. I find it especially useful when coding, be it web or applications. You can have your code full on one screen, then the resulting webpage or documentation on the other. I think that a third monitor would be even better, having three full screens for different parts of a project. With one huge monitor you can't arrange windows as easily as you can with smaller monitors where you can just maximize the two or three windows you are working with. (An aside: if you have multiple monitors on Windows, you must try Ultramon [realtimesoft.com]. Worth every penny.)

      I don't understand why anyone would want a 24" monitor for work. Watching movies maybe, but not the day-to-day stuff. Somebody who just started doing research at the university where I work got dual 24" LCDs with his new $8,000 workstation. For the cost of those two monitors he could have gotten three 20" LCDs, which would have given him more desktop space and (in my opinion) a much more useful setup. He just thought two 24" beasts sitting side by side would look frakking cool. He's right, but I still prefer multiple smaller monitors.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Bottlemaster (449635)

        With one huge monitor you can't arrange windows as easily as you can with smaller monitors where you can just maximize the two or three windows you are working with.
        Sounds like your window manager doesn't organize your windows very well.
        • What window manager can organize a massive single desktop effectively?

          Having two smaller desktops with windows maximized on each is better than trying to get 2 windows arranged efficiently on one big monitor.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by noidentity (188756)
        More advantages of two smaller monitors (hypothetical, as I only use one CRT monitor):
        * If one fails, you still have the other in the meantime.
        * You can upgrade them separately
        * If you ever need another monitor for another machine, you have it
        * You can turn one off if you're doing light work
        * Smaller flat-panels are probably cheaper per square inch, because of a lower defect rate and higher demand (more volume of product)
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by toddestan (632714)
          *Also, you can throw one of them on a second computer by a KVM (or by using the multiple input capabilities of some monitors) and view the output of two computers at once.
          *You can have one be a CRT and other be an LCD and get the best of both worlds.
      • I can say that having three 19" monitors helps immensely with productivity. I have task lists or specs docs in the left screen, application in the middle, email or browser on the right. It's far more efficient than uncovering windows or clicking on the taskbar and waiting for the app to show. And, and, I never use it for prOn, that would just not be right.
      • by vidarh (309115)
        I can't stand working on large screens or using multiple screens. Good keybindings and all maximized windows combined with apps using tabs works much better for me. I switch between apps or tabs in a single app with quick key combinations, and don't have to change my focus or turn my head all the time. But then I have always had a very clear picture of the things I work with - I can visualize the files of most of the projects in our subversion repository that I've spent time on to the point where I can pict
      • My favorite thing to do in these situations is get multiple monitors and put them in portrait mode. You are able to maintain closer to a normal aspect ratio than something silly like 5120x1600 - 3200x2560 is much easier.
    • With most 24" widescreen LCDs the max resolution is 1920x1200, with most 19" widescreen monitors the max resolution is 1440x900. Regular 19" monitors (not widescreen) have a more sane 1280x1024 resolution. Personally, I'd rather have one large high resolution display over two smaller lower resolution displays, but that's just me.
    • Most Yahoo! employees get laptops. Most laptops can only connect a single external display.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17, 2007 @02:59PM (#18053276)
    When I worked at Yahoo, I had to say things like "Doinky doink" to my boss and paint my face green on one side and white on the other since I was the guy in charge of the Saskatchewan part of Yahoo...wherever the hell Saskatchewan is...anyway... the people in the cubes next to me where chimpanzees but they wore "Richard Nixon" halloween masks.
    When I worked a Microsoft, I had to wear a suit, but the suit was in camoflage colours. My supervisor (I never did find out his name, I only knew him as "XZ95") was in charge of BTLIME.DLL, the subroutine that made sure that the system clock didn't accidentally exceed the number "6"...a big responsibility.
    Finally, I got a job at Google... I don't know how it's going because I've spent all my time trying to win the "special day" competition to remake the "Google" web page logo on those "special days"

    Thanks for listening
  • by kaigeX (614976) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @03:01PM (#18053284)
    "Google's internal security watches you like a hawk"

    Uhh...no. I walk around with my badge concealed, explicitly to see how much of a problem it causes, and I have been stopped less than a handful of times this year, and probably less than twenty last year. (Barring events that are explicitly high-security.)
    • by EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @03:10PM (#18053356)
      You're so badass.
    • by robably (1044462) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @03:12PM (#18053362) Journal
      Or you could look at it from the point of view that "security" has become so pervasive and commonplace in your life that you no longer think it unusual to be stopped 20 times a year...
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Or more likely, that security is so pervasive and commonplace in his life that they just remember him and only had to ask for his badge that first time. I know if I were assigning security I'd keep people in the same areas as much as possible for this reason exactly -- If security knows all the faces that should be there daily, theres much less room for 'unwanted guests' slipping through.
    • by EmbeddedJanitor (597831) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @03:29PM (#18053488)
      Well that's pretty high security for most places. Where I work there's a badge-on-display policy but I have not worn my badge in the last ten years.

      When I worked in the military everyone was supposed to have badge-on-display and everybody was supposed to look at badges all the time. The top security guy rigged a test: He had an arbitrary soldier replace his picture with one of a baboon. He walked past security points at least 6 times a day and was only discovered after 6 months when he dropped his card and people had a really close look at it.

      • by rossifer (581396) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @05:32PM (#18054454) Journal

        The top security guy rigged a test: He had an arbitrary soldier replace his picture with one of a baboon. He walked past security points at least 6 times a day and was only discovered after 6 months when he dropped his card and people had a really close look at it.
        Similar story at Texas Instruments. To get into a TI building, you're supposed to have an electronic or visual inspection of your badge. Where we worked in Sugarland, TX, they used a visual inspection station (you put your badge over a video camera and the security guy in some security office remotely "verifies" your badge). But this happened so quickly, we knew they weren't doing anything more than glancing at the badge.

        One of the interns (red badge, meant less than 5 years senority back in the 1990's) thought they probably weren't even doing that. So he taped the front of a small box of Sun-Maid [sun-maid.com] raisins over his badge. And used it like that for six months. Was only caught because we were laughing so hard about it at lunch one day while his boss was walking by, and the cat was out of the bag. The security office actually got in trouble, not the intern, and I don't think they use the visual inspection stations any more.

        Regards,
        Ross
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by grcumb (781340)

          So he taped the front of a small box of Sun-Maid raisins over his badge. And used it like that for six months.

          Feh, that's nothing. I made a counterfeit badge for myself, changing the 'Mitel Networks' (i.e. my employer's) logo to 'Myhell Networks'. Not only did I never get caught, but I never even got disciplined for having the same image flapping merrily in the OpenGL breeze as my screen-saver.

          Did I mention that my unit had absolutely fantastic management? They invested trust in us, and relied on every

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by switcha (551514)
        I would think you would want the top security guy doing more about the security problem besides a six-month implementation of "Operation Adhesive Primate" to show off how bad things were.
      • by Bob54321 (911744) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @08:04PM (#18055652)
        By "arbitrary solder" did you mean "the soldier who looked most like a baboon"?
    • I interned at a major hybrid seed (as in corn seed) company for a year. The security didn't might if you hid your badge because its passive transducer allowed them to track every doorway you passed through.
    • by westlake (615356)
      I walk around with my badge concealed, to see how much of a problem it causes...I have been stopped less than a handful of times this year, and probably less than twenty last year

      so you are saying you are stopped every other week for being a horse's ass?

    • by ghoul (157158)
      Seriously hiding your badges? I regularly walk out of AMD with 16000 dollar servers. Hint: Use the side door. (BTW people I am not stealing :). My lab and my office just happen to be in different buildings).
      But if you want a really really cool software job you should come work at a hardware company. Thats where the men get separated from the boys. To be able to send of emails to Linus saying please change this piece of code on the next kernel because it will work better this way due to the new features our
  • Only for Interns (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lancejjj (924211) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @03:02PM (#18053292) Homepage

    Finally, everything you've ever wanted to know about being an employee at Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo.
    ... based on a few weeks of experience of an intern.

    This is intersting information for someone who is looking to be an intern, but that's about it.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by skoaldipper (752281)
      Maybe, but not necessarily. Some subtle observations can define corporate culture or even their mission statements.

      For example, I actually met Sam Walton a few times back in the 80s while working for him. He drove an old beat up 50s vintage Ford pickup, and he dressed in overalls and a plain white t-shirt. He was frugal even for being the richest man in the world at the time. Also, while working for Ross Perot at EDS, I had to follow a very strict dress code; no hair below the collar, no beards, plain c
  • by peter303 (12292) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @03:02PM (#18053294)
    Al have interesting work, good pay, interesting areas to live. "May you be cursed with job offers from all three" and have to decide :-)
  • I'll bet! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by eck011219 (851729) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @03:19PM (#18053404)

    'once you have worked at one, it's a lot easier to get into another'

    This doesn't surprise me at all -- I'm sure you're seen as not only good enough to have worked at the other ones, but as a possible wealth of information about the workings of the others. And you're cheaper and lower-profile than hiring away the competition's bigger fish.
    • Re:I'll bet! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Onan (25162) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @03:57PM (#18053666)
      I've only worked for two of the three (Yahoo to Google), but as far as I've seen _nobody_ wants you to disclose the inner workings of the others to them. This true on at least three levels that come to mind:

      - The competitive advantage of knowing about other companies' proprietary information is dwarfed by the liability of acquiring that information. Especially given that you'd be acquiring them through someone who had proven they could not be trusted to keep a secret.

      - At least Google has the (mostly deserved) hubris to assume that their own solutions to problems will tend to be as good as or better than other companies' solutions. So while other solutions may be academically interesting, they generally won't be useful.

      - Lastly and most significantly, it's unethical. And yes, every person with whom I've worked at either company would find this alone to be reason enough to refrain, even if it did grant a competitive advantage.

      Really, everyone would rather just hire competent, trustworthy people who will do their actual job well and with appropriate discretion. No one is looking for a stool pigeon.

  • by Kaenneth (82978) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @04:00PM (#18053686) Homepage Journal
    At my last contract job at MS, I really tried to use MSN search...

    Sometimes the site wouldn't even load, sometimes clicking on search results would fail (because the click-tracking would fail), sometimes the main MSN site would show an server error. Each of these things were rare, but given how many things have to happen to complete a search task, overall I would estimate a 10% failure rate, to get any results at all.

    Meanwhile, Google ALWAYS works. I have never once seen Google fail to load, or produce proper results. If Google doesn't load, I know it's my local network that's the problem.

    Maybe it's the Parallel nature of Google's configuration vs. the apperently Serial setup of MSN. If a machine at Google fails, it dosn't affect much else, while one failure at MSN breaks the chain.
  • by heroine (1220) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @05:19PM (#18054324) Homepage
    2000 is a distant memory. In 2000, VA Linux and Redhat were the it companies. Work at one and you could work at the other and the world would kill tthemselves for your autograph. Now no-one even knows what VA Linux was and Redhat is a troll. Hard to believe in 4 years we'll probably forget what Google was.
    • Compare the max market cap of Redhat and VA combined, and then look at Google's current one. Look at Google's profits, and then look at the max profits of those two combined.
    • by jsight (8987)
      Redhat is a troll? Er, what?

      I'd say a lot of people would still love to get the Red Hat job!
  • Sounds Terrible (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nate nice (672391) on Saturday February 17, 2007 @06:02PM (#18054696) Journal
    These places sound great in theory but the more you think about it, the more phony and limiting they become.

    Consider that they provide all of these resources to keep you on their campus as long as possible. Their entire goal is to squeeze as much work out of you they can while prolonging the time it will take you to burn out. They create their own small community you're expected to be a part of at almost all times.

    Maybe I'm in the minority but my work isn't my life. I enjoy what I do but I don't stay at the office any long than I have to. I have friends to see, places to go and personal endeavors to get to that don't involve my company. I don't want my recreational activities to be sponsored by or provided by my company. I'm not sure I want to work in a place that "optionally" provides these facilities as they become expectations of the employees and those that shun them become outcast by their coworkers.

    It's like if you don't participate in as many work related activities as possible, you'll alienate yourself and not be part of the brainwashed masses at your company of choice.

    Maybe I'm old fashioned but I get to the office, I do my job and after about 8 hours or so I go on my way and do whatever I want to do. I get lunch with some friends at places of our choice. I'll even participate in work related and non-work related recreational activities with people. But it's not a way of life.

    I don't know, something about working for a company that has created facilities and devices to keep you occupied under their roof for as long as possible seems a little fishy. I don't trust companies like this. They don't have your best interest's in mind, like most companies, but try and create diversions from this. Many young geeks end up wasting their youth in this corporate socialism.

    • by Skreems (598317)
      I get the feeling that Google is the worst as far as pushing you to stay longer. Their perks are all kinda slanted towards eliminating any reason for you to leave. Microsoft seems a lot more willing to let you walk out the door when you feel that you're done for the day, whenever that may be.
    • Maybe I'm old fashioned but I get to the office, I do my job and after about 8 hours or so I go on my way and do whatever I want to do.

            The perks are to attract and retain the best employees for those 8 hours or so.

        rd
      • by nate nice (672391)
        Is that truly the intention?

        I have a hard time believing that. Video games, toys, free foods (which might actually help their health care plans really) and other recreational activities are just there for fun? To create a diversion for a hard worker?

        It seems like the common goal of each of these devices is to keep a person on the corporate campus for as much of their time as possible. This way, the company becomes their life and they feel more of an attachment to the company than a typical 9-5er. It's t
        • It seems like the common goal of each of these devices is to keep a person on the corporate campus for as much of their time as possible. This way, the company becomes their life and they feel more of an attachment to the company than a typical 9-5er. It's the hive now instead of a place to work.

          The coolness factor to hire in the best minds far outweigh the hive stuff. People can log in from home when a crunch is on, they don't need to be in the hive to work long hours.
          • by nate nice (672391)
            I'd assume the best minds generally are working for their own company or for a university.

            Not that places like MS and Google don't have some great employees (most successful businesses do), but lets kill the corporate tag line here used to convince their workers they are somehow lucky to be employed. The company I work for claims to hire "great employees" but it's clearly a lie. And any company I've walked into usually has about 10% great employees and the rest are easily replaceable. From what I've read
            • So although it might make for nice corporate slogan or initiative, I'm not sure free candy, soda and food is going to attract the best of the best. If so, the best of the best are mighty shallow or easily tricked.

              I agree with this. And also that those great minds will become entrepreneurs sooner rather than later. It sounded like Google was trying to incubate that kind of initiative in house though. But everyone with a great idea should take their shot.

              rd
          • People can log in from home when a crunch is on

            When there's a crunch, rightly or wrongly (and I think it's far from clear cut), most managers are going to want you "in the hive". You're accessible to your team members, for collaboration/idea sharing/review/meetings and such. Of course you can still 'participate' via telecommuting, but it's not comparable to the real thing. My team at MSFT has fifteen minute catchup meetings in stairwells every morning, etc, etc.

        • The other thing that a lot of people miss is the strategic use of the word "campus".

          The use of the words corporate campus are often an attempt to make people forget they are at work. If they call it a campus, they can trick people into working an insane schedule like half of us did in college.

          It's never a corporate office or corporate compound. It's always a campus.

          It's an interesting psychological ploy.
    • by Dogtanian (588974)
      I thought Google came over more than a little cult-like [slashdot.org] when I heard about their "Testing on the Toilet" [slashdot.org] initiative...
      • by nate nice (672391)
        Your comments are exactly how I feel. It totally has the feel of one of the cults or something in Utah where they invade every part of your life. And where if you don't dedicate your entire existence to them, you're looked at as a sick person who needs help. This of course results in even more "care", etc from your new cult overlords.

        I can imagine it's the kind of place where every time you answer a question about yourself, you're then told of the "Company X" way.

        Maybe we're too cynical but i don't think
    • Interesting way to look at it. However, if you haven't figured it out already, most companies are trying to figure out how to suck the last erg of productivity from their workers. The bigger they are the worse this tendency is. I suppose what you are getting at is here there are examples of companies that have the audacity to attempt to make you like it. Frankly these kinds of efforts to suck me dry is a problem I wish existed with my employer.

      These kinds of perks are not evil underhanded attempts to suck t
      • The thing is that a lot of those companies aren't hoping that you'll spend 70-80 hours a week working for them; they're expecting it.

        I've had interviews at places where the directors who were talking to me were highlighting that so many of their people were there until the wee hours of the morning. They were proud of this and trying to make it sound like the norm instead of the rare crunch time exception.

        To me, that's not something to be proud of. It screams that they push their people to early burn out a
  • Since you've worked no where, no one will hire you for lack of experience. I laugh at jokes even when they're at my expense.

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Working...