
Loon and Wing graduate from Google/Alphabet X - jpm_sd
https://www.wired.com/story/alphabet-google-x-innovation-loon-wing-graduation/
======
jamestimmins
This (almost) exact story seems to resurface every couple of years. Given that
Google has to allow (or perhaps) initiate the story and access, I wonder if
there's a specific type of situation in which Google's PR team decides that
it's time for another "Inside X" story.

~~~
Analemma_
I wonder if it's when they have trouble hitting their recruiting numbers.
There's a popular theory that X is the carrot dangled in front of both current
Google employees and potential hires-- "Look at this cool stuff you could work
on!"\-- while in reality they usually get sent to the trenches to squeeze out
0.003% gains in revenue-per-query.

~~~
vkou
Nobody I have ever worked with at Google has had this carrot dangled under
their noses. It certainly wasn't dangled under mine when I was hired. I don't
dangle it under the noses of anyone I interview. I think most people with a
basic understanding of arithmetic realize that the overwhelming majority of
the company does not work in X, and they should not expect to, either.

I have zero interest in working in X.

The reason hiring is hard is because the interviews have a low pass rate,
everyone else is also hiring, and salaries + benefits among top tech firms in
an area are fairly similar.

~~~
Y_Y
> The reason hiring is hard is because the interviews have a low pass rate

But the pass rate is up to the company. Either the wrong people are being
brought in for interviews, or Google is looking for some x-factor that nobody
has.

~~~
endtime
I work for Google and conduct interviews for Google. No magic x-factor, just a
good command of data structures and algorithms, plus the ability and stamina
to express it in a full day of interviews, plus the luck to have a good
night's sleep beforehand, not have an off day, etc.

~~~
backpropaganda
The strongest factor in my opinion (after pure luck) is the rapport you're
able to build with the interviewer. Doing that of course requires doing well
in the technical questions, but the end-goal shouldn't be seen as doing well
in the questions, but seeming "Googley" to the interviewer. Googleyness in
this context tends to include not just whether you did well on the questions,
but things like your sense of humor, ability to communicate in a positive and
cheerful way, whether you seem mature and responsible, and other such little
things the typical techie would like in another person. Interviewers are also
human, and they can only do so much to change how they perceive another
person.

Source: Have interviewed with Google a couple of times, and coached a couple
of other people for the same.

~~~
endtime
I can't speak for other interviewers, but I barely take this into account. As
long as someone isn't actively antisocial (has never happened to me) or
unprofessional (has happened once or twice) I file feedback exclusively on
technical merit and communication. There have been times where I liked someone
and wanted to give them good feedback, but couldn't.

~~~
backpropaganda
> I barely take this into account.

> I file feedback exclusively on technical merit and communication.

I appreciate your comment, but my point is that there's no way to actually do
this, even if your goal is to. It may seem that you're being objective, but
the objective facts can only influence the subjective opinion that's
ultimately responsible for the decision, not the reverse as we like to think.

For example, if an interviewer likes the interviewee, they would actually
think that the person did quite well in the technical question, and not if
they don't. We first form an opinion about someone or something and then look
for "objective" facts to justify it, not the other way round.

The only way to really be objective here is to use a point system and hard
thresholds which completely removes the human in the loop, like SAT.

I recommend "Thinking Fast and Slow" and "Why Buddhism is True" which go into
this idea in detail, and in general about how poor we are at being unbiased
and rational. You'd be surprised at how deep our irrationality goes even if
you already have some idea.

~~~
frahs
And that's why Google's recruiting has the extra step of a hiring committee
which didn't meet the candidate. Interviewers fill out interview feedback
based on how their interview went with the candidate, and there's guidelines
to try to reduce bias (no gendered pronouns in feedback, the candidate's code
is included as-is in the feedback, etc) and the committee makes the final
decision based on the feedback.

Sure, what is included can still be slightly biased, but if you're talking
about non-technical things at the beginning or end, it won't really make it
into the technical interview feedback, and probably will have little to no
effect on the committee's decision. At the end of the day, the problems you're
asked have optimal solutions and your code will either work or it won't.

------
bitmapbrother
Good to see Loon graduating into its own company. Project Loon was very
instrumental in connecting Puerto Rico after the hurricane [1].

[1] [https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/20/project-loon-att-
puerto-...](https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/20/project-loon-att-puerto-rico/)

~~~
Eridrus
Was it? The numbers Look posted didn't seem super impressive given the number
of people on the island. They also said nothing about reliability. I want to
like Loon, but don't have much data to really go on.

------
nchase
Are any of these moonshot projects trying to counteract human-driven climate
change?

~~~
Eridrus
There's a salt battery project in X. Makani is also in X. There's a thermal
pump company that graduated from X last year. There's also a team at Google
working on Fusion research. Probably more I don't know too.

~~~
pfdietz
Thermal pump -- is that Malta?

~~~
Eridrus
Not sure if thermal pump is really the right term, but I meant Dandelion.

------
1996
TLDR: big company tries to remain dynamic by running its own internal
innovation program

Too bad it has never worked too well for any other big company, for structural
reasons ("Internal incubators")

~~~
ucaetano
Actually it worked very well for many companies. The Amazon Kindle came out of
Lab 126, Amazon's innovation program.

The idea isn't just to remain dynamic, but to allow for new products and
services to be developed despite posing a threat to the company's main cash
cow.

So Lab126 was completely independent from most of Amazon, including being
based in the Bay Area vs. Seattle. This allowed the to develop a product that
went directly against the main cash cow at the time (selling physical books)
and make it to market.

Microsoft had one as well, but would always fail because the existing
businesses heads held too much power, and would always kill the products. Just
take a look at the history of the Surface.

~~~
vl
Well, ereaders and ebooks are really obvious things to develop if you are in
selling physical books business.

~~~
sjm-lbm
Not if you're Kodak and making film.

Or, at least, the technology might have been obvious (they did have a hand in
developing digital cameras), but the idea that they should bet big on the new
technology eventually replacing them evidently wasn't obvious.

~~~
frankchn
It is even worse than that for Kodak -- Steven Sasson actually created the
first digital camera using a CCD sensor while working at Kodak [1] and Kodak
owned the patent for a digital camera [2].

[1]: [https://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Kodak-engineer-
ha...](https://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Kodak-engineer-had-
revolutionary-idea-the-first-1182624.php) [2]:
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US4131919](https://patents.google.com/patent/US4131919)

