There will be a pool of candidates who "passed", and hiring managers can search through that pool to decide who to take for their team. If there are fewer openings than candidates who "passed" or hiring managers aren't interested in taking someone, then these folks won't get an offer.
GA4 has several advantages over UA to account for the evolving privacy landscape. For one, it supports user modeling in ways that are GDPR compliant, and you simply cannot count these users in UA. Apple and the leading browsers have made changes with cookies that have necessitated product changes, but not using fingerprinting as suggested elsewhere.
GA4 also reports on combined app+web data whereas UA did not.
Another distinction is that GA4 has better support for muti-touch attribution, e.g. all of the user ad touchpoints, for ad traffic, whereas UA was primarily last click, or first click if you look at the user acquisition reports.
TCI is not even close for median "salary". 300k is way too high. This may be right for median total compensation for engineers (factoring in stock appreciation), which is salary+bonus+stock, but the company has a lot of other lower paying job functions. Overall, I suspect the 300k median is not accurate.
Levels.fyi tends to be in the right ballpark. However, the equity number has to be understood in that Google gives out $X RSUs vested over 4 years and the stock number there factors in stock growth, which can vary a lot by person and hire date.
The L5 salary on levels.fyi is near the upper end of the range, at around $196k in MTV. The engineering ladder is very lopsided, with most people being in the L3-L5 range.
I am a longtime Googler, not impacted by layoffs.
I also dispute all the other comments here that Googlers are overpaid. Now, I certainly can only speak from what I see. In my experience, Googlers tend to work very hard, including extra hours on nights and weekends. Expectations are very high, and unlike many other companies, the engineers don't get a lot of top-down direction, so often have to figure out what they work on by themselves.
The following blog argues that there is sloppy accounting in the claimed 90+% reduction of homelessness.
"Although overall homelessness has actually increased slightly over the past decade in Utah, such a large reduction in chronic homelessness is still an impressive achievement. But is it real?
Unfortunately, no. I spent some time studying Utah’s data and found that the miraculous 91 percent reduction in chronic homelessness appears to be driven by changes in how people were counted, rather than by how many there were."
I would seriously question whether 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) is relevant at all. This law is specifically for "Circumvention of copyright protection systems". Does Snapchat own the copyright of pictures distributed using its software? or rather do the users own the copyright? I suspect the answer to this is the latter -- that users own the copyright to the works distributed, and this would render the law irrelevant. Moreover, I would argue that the software protections put in place by Snapchat are for reasons of privacy not for reasons to enforce copyright.
glassdoor is inaccurate for google. 200k / yr is too low for a Sr Software Eng. The all in comp is quite a bit higher. And there are a lot of engineers who make a lot more than this...
Couldn't you just ignore the lawsuit? Presumably they are after big bucks, and it is a pain and huge cost to continue with legal proceedings. And you are probably one of a thousand threats they send out. They are in-business too and don't want to waste their time on cases that don't pan out. Do you really think they will actually take you to court? I suspect they may just drop it if you ignore it, unless you are a big name startup with deep pockets. For the patent trolls, this is just a numbers game. If you send out a lot, a certain percentage will settle... Note: I am not a lawyer and this does not constitute legal advice.
For the troll, legal is their business, and the costs much lower because the ARE the lawyers. And they will not easily back off because that news would spread and suddenly everyone would ignore them, which would make their business much harder. It's not the same as frauds that send out tens of thousands of fake invoices for $50 in the hope that many will pay out of laziness and without spending time on research. Patent troll "license fees" are too high for that.
Although trolls are lawyers, there is still a "cost", and in this cost is time and the opportunity cost of spending time elsewhere. Going to court, getting a judgement and collecting fees is a huge time sink. Patent trolls are not dumb. They will litigate when you are a big fish.
Lawyers are disbarred either for violating their professional duties or for committing felonies.
I don't see how that would work. A patent troll's actions are generally perfectly legal; they're exploiting structural weaknesses in the patent system (low cost of getting a patent) and legal system (high cost of defending against a patent lawsuit).
In principle, their professional duties could in some way preclude trolling. In practice, we'd have to get a bunch of lawyers to agree to pass on a crapton of money. But still, it may or may not be easier than getting politicians to pass on a crapton of donations to get the laws themselves changed...
I sympathize with the rather cold response from Google. However that was not a response from Google HR -- it was a response from a contract recruiter, and Google has hundreds of them. Because Google sees so many resumes that they can be picky. You may very well indeed be a top notch candidate so don't take it personally.
That said, as a Googler, I understand why they will hire non-SWE with phds in chemisty, neuroscience, or particle physics or what have you -- it's because Google has unique problems to think about that are not just pure software engineering. For instance, how do you scientifically evaluate the current search quality and ensure that it continues to improve? Google is very research-oriented and data-driven, and this spills over into the SWE work so it's not always 100% about building good software.
I 100% agree with you wrt to their reasoning. It does seem sound given the problems they are trying to solve requiring diverse skills etc. Interesting that they contract it out. Thanks :)
