| ▲ | cs702 11 hours ago |
| Looks like a textbook example of Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy.[a] People like the OP, Justin Poehnelt, who build cool things out of self-motivation that others find interesting and want to use, are now at the mercy of those inside Google who care more about the company's internal bureaucracy and their own role and importance within it. To them, the fact that the OP's project was an instant github hit meant nothing. -- EDIT: Others here are saying that Justin released his code with Google's branding without asking for approval. If that's true, it wasn't right of him, and his firing was justifiable. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48650310 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48650192 --- [a] https://jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html |
|
| ▲ | cs702 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| EDIT #2: Former Googlers here say that for a long time it was common at Google to let employees publish code with Google branding on github, in which case the firing was not justifiable. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48652851 Yes, I changed my mind again. I have no qualms about changing my mind if the facts justify it :-) |
|
| ▲ | djmips 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think your first take still stands. |
|
| ▲ | xnx 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Google is worth $4+ TRILLION. There is natural and needed bureaucracy in preserving that. This type of probably well-meaning, but cowboy activity is not worth the risk to Google. |
| |
| ▲ | BLKNSLVR 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sounds like exactly why they're now a lumbering ineffectual beast, rather than the center for innovation that they used to be. | | |
| ▲ | uejfiweun 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | It depends on what you consider ineffectual to mean. Ineffectual at making new products and innovating? Yes, definitely. Ineffectual at preserving business momentum and continuing to grow profits? Well, the latest numbers speak for themselves. | | |
| ▲ | BLKNSLVR an hour ago | parent [-] | | Can't argue with that. You'll never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jauco 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You’re not disagreeing with gp. I like the law because you can quite easily formulate it without bias. Large enough orgs will indeed get people whose job is more closely aligned with the goal vs people whose job is more closely aligned with the existence of the org. _Because_ you need to keep investing energy to keep the org in existence. You can’t just do the goal only. But being responsible for keeping the org in existence is not the same as responsible for the goals that the org was created for in the first place. _and_ I can see how the people whose job it is to ensure the org keeps existing will gain the majority vote. It’s like a law of nature: the way things fall out if you’re not consciously working to have them fall out differently. (So it can be good for google to fire them from a “let’s keep existing standpoint” even though it might be contrary to having the easiest/optimal to use product. And if that is so, the keep existing vote will have the power) I don’t use google products really that much so I can’t speak to the merits of this example. | |
| ▲ | judge2020 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Unlikely that the bureaucracy is what will keep them valuable in the long-term. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | BrenBarn 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Actually it means less than nothing, it's a negative, because it shows that working outside the system can be popular and potentially woo away users, which challenges the supremacy of the organization. |
|
| ▲ | sleepybrett 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| i think your edit is asinine. google could have requested the removal of the trademark and made everything kosher, but they didn't. They decided to make an example of a guy who built something useful that people liked and now every other engineer at google will think twice before adding any not previously approved value to the business. You were right above the edit. |
|
| ▲ | logicchains 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| People ask why Google's Gemini is falling behind the competition in spite of Google's immense resources, this kind of thing is an example why. |
| |
| ▲ | FuriouslyAdrift 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | the Antigravity AI suite is hugely popular among non-developers | | |
| ▲ | kamikazechaser 33 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Every other AI suite provider claims the same. | |
| ▲ | int_19h 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I wonder if it's because non-developers are not exposed to Codex and Claude Code? I try to use Antigravity every now and then, and each time I drop it because of the sheer number of bugs and general brokenness. | |
| ▲ | amanharshx 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | antigravity is one of the worst tools i have ever encountered with | |
| ▲ | stogot 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So is every other AI tool | |
| ▲ | throwaway23597 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Who is in charge of naming things at Google? Like a five syllable word followed by "AI", I couldn't think of a worse name for a product competing for mind share. | | |
| ▲ | quuxplusone 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | The other day I learned that the command line interface (or whatever) to Antigravity goes by the abbreviated name "agy", which is awfully close to "agi" as in "artificial general intelligence." I strongly suspect they did that on purpose. |
|
|
|
