Amusing Moments in Business Analysis
April 27, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I noted two interesting examples of business analysis crashing into reality. I like to visualize the misstep as a well-dressed professional slipping in a doggy deposit and creating a “smelly shoe in a big meeting problem.”
Let me explain the two examples.
The first is MBA baloney about business change or as it is now jargonized “transformation.” If you are a bit rusty on business baloney, a quick look at the so-far free “Organizational Change Management: What It Is & Why It’s Important.” But McKinsey, a blue chip consulting company with a core competency in opioid-related insights, published its version as “What Is Business Transformation?”
The write up says:
Research by McKinsey has long documented that enterprise-wide transformation is difficult, with less than a third of transformations reaching their goals to improve organizational performance and sustain these improvements over time.
I found this recommendation notable:
Many transformations are enabled by a central transformation office (TO), with the CTO at the helm.
As I recall, McKinsey allegedly worked two sides of the street; that is, getting paid to advise certain companies and government agencies about the same subject. I won’t go into details, but the advice proved problematic, and some connect McKinsey’s input with the firm’s efforts to change.
So, does McKinsey have a chief transformation officer? It appears that a Microsoft veteran occupies that position at the venerable, bluest of the blue chip consulting firms. However, this professional has two jobs according to the McKinsey blog. But I thought the chief transformation officer had to operate according to the precepts outlined in the “What Is Business Transformation?” article? Now the job is not just transformation; it is platform. What does platform mean?
Here’s the answer:
Jacky will accelerate this work by helping our firm further leverage technology in our client work and innovate new platforms to help client organizations transform and grow. She will also lead McKinsey’s internal technology team, which serves our more than 40,000 colleagues across 66 countries.
Does this mean that McKinsey’s chief transform officer has to do the change thing and manage the internal technology staff globally?
If I keep in mind the chilling factoid that one third of transformation efforts fail, McKinsey has to focus to make the transformation work. The problem is that, as I understand how the McKinsey and other blue-chip experts operate, is that incentive plans for those leading practices allow the loose confederation of “partners” to hit their goals. In order to hit those goals, partners will have to generate money in ways that are known to work; for example, work for industry, work for the government, heck, work for any entity with the ability to pay.
Will McKinsey change under the firm and informed hand of a chief transformation officer? Not unless that “hand” writes specific incentive plans to cause change from the pocketbook outwards. I wonder whether McKinsey will be in the 33 percent failure set? ‘
The second example comes from Mr. Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal. The essay (not real news in my opinion) appeared in the April 21, 2023 edition. The article’s title was “Justice Thomas and the Plague o Bad Reporting.” The author, according to my dead tree edition of the newspaper, is James Taranto, who is the Journal’s editorial features editor. What’s amazing about this essay is that it criticizes other “real” news outfits for their coverage of what appears to be some dog-doody moments for one of the Supreme Court justices. Pardon the pun, but I don’t have a dog in this fight.
What caught my attention is that the essay makes zero intellectual vibration of a sentient being in the wake of the Rupert Murdoch settlement of the Fox News and Dominion matter. Paying about a billion dollars for exactly the type of “real” news the WSJ essay addresses makes clear that more than the Foxy folks are intellectually dishonest. Amazing.
Net net: Two classy outfits, and each is happily, willingly writing baloney. Transformation without altering executive compensation plans and excoriating other publications for bad reporting illustrates the stuck dials on some organizations’ ethical compasses. I hate to repeat myself, but I have to end with: Amazing.
Stephen E Arnold, April 27, 2023
The Google Reorg. Will It Output Xooglers, Not Innovations?
April 25, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
My team and I have been talking about the Alphabet decision to merge DeepMind with Google Brain. Viewed from one angle, the decision reflects the type of efficiency favored by managers who value the idea of streamlining. The arguments for consolidation are logical; for example, the old tried-and-true buzzword synergy may be invoked to explain the realignment. The decision makes business sense, particularly for an engineer or a number-oriented MBA, accountant, or lawyer.
Arguing against the “one plus one equals three” viewpoint may be those who have experienced the friction generated when staff, business procedures, and projects get close, interact, and release energy. I use the term “energy” to explain the dormant forces unleashed as the reorganization evolves. When I worked at a nuclear consulting firm early in my career, I recall the acrimonious and irreconcilable differences between a smaller unit in Florida and a major division in Maryland. The fix was to reassign personnel and give up on the dream of one big, happy group.
This somewhat pathos-infused image was created using NightCafe Creator and Craiyon. The author (a dinobaby) added the caption which may appeal to large language model-centric start ups with money, ideas, and a “we can do this” vibe.
Over the years, my team and I have observed Google’s struggles to innovate. The successes have been notable. Before the Alphabet entity was constructed, the “old” Google purchased Keyhole, Inc. (a spin-off of the gaming company Intrinsic). That worked after the US government invested in the company. There have been some failures too. My team followed the Orkut product which evolved from a hire named Orkut Büyükkökten, who had developed an allegedly similar system while working at InCircle. Orkut was a success, particularly among users in Brazil and a handful of other countries. However, some Orkut users relied on the system for activities which some found unacceptable. Google killed the social networking system in 2014 as Facebook surged to global prominence as Google’s efforts fell to earth. The company was in a position to be a player in social media, and it botched the opportunity. Steve Ballmer allegedly described Google as a “one-trick pony.” Mr. Ballmer’s touch point was Google’s dependence on online advertising: One source of revenue; therefore, a circus pony able to do one thing. Mr. Ballmer’s quip illustrates the fact that over the firm’s 20-plus year history, Google has not been able to diversify its revenue. More than two-thirds of the company’s money comes directly or indirectly from advertising.
My team and I have watched Google struggle to accept adapt its free-wheeling style to a more traditional business approach to policies and procedures. In one notable incident, my team and I were involved in reviewing proposals to index the content of the US Federal government. Google was one of the bidders. The Google proposal did not follow the expected format of responding to each individual requirement in the request for proposal. In 2000, Google professionals made it clear its method did not require that the government’s statement of work be followed. Other vendors responded, provided the required technical commentary, and produced cost estimates in a format familiar to those involved in the contracting award process. Flash forward 23 years, and Google has figured out how to capture US government work.
The key point: The learning process took a long time.
Why is this example relevant to the Alphabet decision to blend the Brain and DeepMind units? Change — despite the myths of Silicon Valley — is difficult for Alphabet. The tensions at the company are well known. Employees and part-time workers grouse and sometimes carry signs and disturb traffic. Specific personnel matters become, rightly or wrongly, messages that say, Google is unfair. The Google management generated an international spectacle with its all-thumbs approach to human relations. Dr. Timnit Gebru was a co-author of a technical paper which identified a characteristic of smart software. She and several colleagues explained that bias in training data produces results which are skewed. Anyone who has used any of the search systems which used open source libraries created by Google know that outputs are variable, which is a charitable way of saying, “Dr. Gebru was correct.” She became a Xoogler, set up a new organization, and organized a conference to further explain her research — the same research which ruffled the feathers of some Alphabet big birds.
The pace of generative artificial intelligence is accelerating. Disruption can be smelled like ozone in an old-fashioned electric power generation station. My team and I attempt to continue tracking innovations in smart software. We cannot do it. I am prepared to suggest that the job is quite challenging because the flow of new ChatGPT-type products, services, applications, and features is astounding. I recall the early days of the Internet when in 1993 I could navigate to a list of new sites via Mosaic browser and click on the ones of interest. I recall that in a matter of months the list grew too long to scan and was eventually discontinued. Smart software is behaving in this way: Too many people are doing too many new things.
I want to close this short personal essay with several points.
First, mashing up different cultures and a history of differences will act like a brake and add friction to innovative work. Such reorganizations will generate “heat” in the form of disputes, overt or quiet quitting, and an increase in productivity killers like planning meetings, internal product pitches, and getting legal’s blessing on a proposed service.
Second, a revenue monoculture is in danger when one pest runs rampant. Alphabet does not have a mechanism to slow down what is happening in the generative AI space. In online advertising, Google has knobs and levers. In the world of creating applications and hooking them together to complete tasks, Alphabet management seems to lack a magic button. The pests just eat the monoculture’s crop.
Third, the unexpected consequence of merging Brain and DeepMind may be creating what I call a “Xoogler Manufacturing Machine.” Annoyed or “grass is greener” Google AI experts may go to one of the many promising generative AI startups. Note: A former Google employee is sometimes labeled a “Xoogler,” which is shorthand for ex-Google employee.
Net net: In a conversation in 2005 with a Google professional whom I cannot name due to the confidentiality agreement I signed with the firm, I asked, “Do you think people and government officials will figure out what Google is really doing?” This person, who was a senior manager, said to the best of my recollection, “Sure and when people do, it’s game.” My personal view is that Alphabet is in a game in which the clock is ticking. And in the process of underperforming, Alphabet’s advertisers and users of free and for-fee services will shift their attention elsewhere, probably to a new or more agile firm able to leverage smart software. Alphabet’s most recent innovation is the creation of a Xoogler manufacturing system. The product? Former Google employees who want to do something instead of playing in the Alphabet sandbox with argumentative wizards and several ill-behaved office pets.
Stephen E Arnold, April 24, 2023
Business Baloney: Wowza, Google Management Is on the Ball
April 19, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid
I read “Google CEO Sundar Pichai Broke the Rules on OKRs. Why It Worked.” I looked at this story in Inc. Magazine because Google has managed to mire itself in deep mud since Mr. Pichai (one half of the Sundar and Prabhakar Comedy Act) got top billing. Sucking the exhaust of the Microsoft marketing four-wheel drives strikes me as somewhat dispiriting.
Scribble Diffusion’s imagineering of a Google management meeting with slide rules, computing devices, and management wisdom. Art generated by smart software.
I will enumerate a few of these quicksand filled voids after I pull out two comments from the rather wild and wooly story which is infused with MBA think.
I noted this comment:
…in 2019, Pichai cut out quarterly OKRs altogether, choosing to focus solely on annual OKRs with quarterly progress reports. Pichai’s move might have gone against conventional OKR wisdom, but it made sense because _Google was no longer in startup mode._ [Editor’s note: The weird underscores are supposed to make my eyes perk up and my mind turn from TikTok to the peals of wisdom in the statement “Google was no longer in start up mode. Since I count Google as existing since Backrub, when Mr. Pichai took the stage, the company was 20 years old. Yep, two decades.]
Here’s another quote to note from the Inc. article:
Take shortcuts and do what you need to do to keep things afloat. [Editor’s Note: The article does not mention the foundation short cuts at the GOOG; specifically, [a] the appropriation of some systems and methods from a company to which Google paid before its IPO about a billion dollars in cash and other considerations and [b] a focused effort to implement via acquisitions and staff work a method designed to make sure that buyers and sellers of advertising both paid Google whenever an advertising transaction took place.]
Now the fruits of Mr. Pichai’s management approach:
- Personnel decisions which sparked interest in stochastic parrots, protests, staff walk outs, and the exciting litigation related to staff reductions. Definitely excellent management from the perspective of taking shortcuts
- Triggering a massive loss in corporate value when the Google smart software displayed its dumbness. Remember this goof emerged from the company which awarded itself quantum supremacy and beat a humanoid Go player into international embarrassment
- Management behavior — yep, personal behavior — which caused one Googler to try to terminate her life, not a balky Chrome instance, death by heroin on a yacht in the presence of a specialized contractor who rendered personal services, and fathering a Googler to be within the company’s legal department. Classy, classy.
What about the article? From my point of view, it presents what I would call baloney. I think there are some interesting stories to write about Google; for example, the link between IBM Almaden’s CLEVER system and the Google relevance method, the company’s inability to generate substantive alternative revenue streams, and the mystery acquisitions like Transformic Inc., which few know or care about. There’s even a personal interest story to be written about the interesting interpersonal dynamics at DeepMind, the outfit that is light years ahead of the world in smart software.
But, no. We learn about management brilliance. Those of you familiar with my idiosyncratic lingo I conceptualize Google’s approach to running its business as a high school science club trying to organize a dance party.
Stephen E Arnold, April 19, 2023
Google Is Humming Like a Well Oiled High School Science Club: A Sensitive Science Club
April 18, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I believe everything I read on the Internet. Therefore, I am accepting as the truth inscribed on the floor of the Great Pyramid of Giza. (It’s numbers in case you did not know this factoid.)
The article “Dream Job Nightmare: Google Leaves New Hire Jobless and Without an Apartment” reports this slick personnel move executed with extreme prejudice by the Google. Yep, that Google. I noted this statement in a letter quoted by BoingBoing:
Unfortunately, these [Google internal budget] reviews mean that we have had to make the difficult decision to terminate the contract of employment which you signed with Google UK Ltd, and this letter is formal notice of termination.
What makes this statement interesting is that the never hired but fired Googler is:
- The individual fired before starting the Google job lives in Russia
- Getting in and out of Russia is not a simple nor risk free process
- Getting a job in the gloom of the special operation in Ukraine is more difficult that it was before the tanks got mired on the road to Kiev.
I suppose there is an upside to this story: Opportunities exist to enlist in the Russian armed forces. With computer skills, there are openings in the computer branch of several Russian agencies. In fact the boss of one of the advanced persistent threat units may be seeking his future elsewhere.
I am impressed with the coordination within the Google human resources people unit. I think this is one more example of how Google works to maintain the management panache of a high school science club organizing a field trip to a junior cotillion dance.
Stephen E Arnold, April 18, 2023
Google and Consistency: Hobgoblin? Nah, Basic High School Management Method
April 11, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid
I read with some amusement the story “Google Backtracks on a Business-Disrupting Limitation to Its Drive Storage Service.” The write up explains:
Google recently decided to impose a new “surprise” limitation to Drive, making business customers unable to create an unlimited number of files on the service.
Was there a warning? An option for customers? Nah. The management methods of the Google do not consider these facets of a decision. Is there a management procedure? That’s a question?
The write up reports:
as as Mountain View [Google management] finally confirmed that the file cap actually was a “safeguard” designed to prevent possible misuse of Drive in a way that could “impact the stability and safety of the system.”
Safeguards are good. Customer focused and feel goody.
The write up then states without any critical comment:
the weekend provided enough feedback from dissatisfied users that Google had to reverse its decision.
Thus, a decision was made, users complained, and someone at Google actually looked at the mess and made a decision to reverse the file limit.
How long did this take? About 48 hours.
Does this signal that Google is customer centric? Nope.
Does this decision illustrate a deliberate management method? Nope.
Is this the Code Red operating environment in action? Yep.
I have to dash. I hear the high school class change bell ringing. No high school science club meeting tomorrow.
Stephen E Arnold, April 11, 2023
Google: Traffic in Kings Cross? Not So Hot
April 6, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I saw a picture of a sign held by a Googler (maybe a Xoogler or a Xoogler to be?) with the message:
Google layoffs. Hostile. Unnecessary. Brutal. Unfair.
Another Google PR/HR moment upon which the management team can surf… or drown? (One must consider different outcomes, mustn’t one?)
I did a small bit of online sleuthing and discovered what may be a “real” news story about the traffic hassles in King’s Cross this morning (April 4, 2023). “Unite Google Workers Strike Outside London HQ over Alleged Appalling Treatment” reports:
Google workers have been reduced to tears by fears of being made redundant, a union representative told a London rally… Others clutched placards with messages such as “Being evil is not a strategy” and “R.I.P Google culture 1998 – 2023”.
Google’s wizardly management team allegedly said:
Google said it has been “constructively engaging and listening to employees”.
I want to highlight a quite spectacular statement, which — for all I know — could have been generated by Google’s smart software which has allegedly been infused with some ChatGPT goodness:
It [the union for aspiring Xooglers] also alleges that employees with disabilities are being told to get a doctor’s note if they want a colleague to attend their meetings and “even then, union representation is still prohibited”.
Let me put this in context. Google is dealing with what I call the Stapler Affair. Plus, it continues to struggle against the stream of marketing goodness flowing from Redmond, seat of the new online advertising pretender to Google’s throne. The company continues to flail at assorted legal eagles bringing good tidings of great joy to lawyers billing for the cornucopia of lawsuits aimed at the Google.
My goodness. Now Google has created a bit of ill will for London sidewalk, bus, and roadway users. Does this sound like a desirable outcome? Maybe for Google senior management, not those trying to be happy at King’s Cross.
Stephen E Arnold, April 6, 2023
Google, Does Quantum Supremacy Imply That Former Staff Grouse in Public?
April 5, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
I am not sure if this story is spot on. I am writing about “Report: A Google AI Researcher Resigned after Learning Google’s Bard Uses Data from ChatGPT.” I am skeptical because today is All Fools’ Day. Being careful is sometimes a useful policy. An exception might be when a certain online advertising company is losing bigly to the marketing tactics of [a] Microsoft, the AI in Word and Azure Security outfit, [b] OpenAI and its little language model that could, and [c] Midjourney which just rolled out its own camera with a chip called Bionzicle. (Is this perhaps pronounced “bio-cycle” like washing machine cycle or “bion zickle” like bio pickle? I go with the pickle sound; it seems appropriate.
The cited article reports as actual factual real news:
ChatGPT AI is often accused of leveraging “stolen” data from websites and artists to build its AI models, but this is the first time another AI firm has been accused of stealing from ChatGPT. ChatGPT is powering Bing Chat search features, owing to an exclusive contract between Microsoft and OpenAI. It’s something of a major coup, given that Bing leap-frogged long-time search powerhouse Google in adding AI to its setup first, leading to a dip in Google’s share price.
This is im port’ANT as the word is pronounced on a certain podcast.
More interesting to me is that recycled Silicon Valley type real news verifies this remarkable assertion as the knowledge output of a PROM’ inANT researcher, allegedly named Jacob Devlin. Mr. Devil has found his future at – wait for it – OpenAI. Wasn’t OpenAI the company that wanted to do good and save the planet and then discovered Microsoft backing, thirsty trapped AI investors, and the American way of wealth?
Net net: I wish I could say, April’s fool, but I can’t. I have an unsubstantiated hunch that Google’s governance relies on the whims of high school science club members arguing about what pizza topping to order after winning the local math competition. Did the team cheat? My goodness no. The team has an ethical compass modeled on the triangulations of William McCloundy or I.O.U. O’Brian, the fellow who sold the Brooklyn Bridge in the early 20th century.
Stephen E Arnold, April 5, 2023
Google Economics: The Cost of Bard Versus Staplers
April 4, 2023
Note: This essay is the work of a real and still-alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, just a dumb humanoid.
Does anyone remember the good old days at the Google. Tony Bennett performing in the cafeteria. What about those car washes? How about the entry security system which was beset with door propped open with credit card receipts from Fred’s Place. Those were the days.
I read “Google to Cut Down on Employee Laptops, Services and Staplers for Multi-Year Savings.” The article explains:
Google said it’s cutting back on fitness classes, staplers, tape and the frequency of laptop replacements for employees. One of the company’s important objectives for 2023 is to “deliver durable savings through improved velocity and efficiency.” Porat said in the email. “All PAs and Functions are working toward this,” she said, referring to product areas. OKR stands for objectives and key results.
Yes, OKR. I wonder if the Sundar and Prabhakar comedy act will incorporate staplers into their next presentation.
And what about the $100 billion the Google “lost” after its quantum supremacy smart software screwed up in Paris? Let’s convert that to staplers, shall we? Today (April 4, 2023), I can purchase one office stapler from Amazon (Google’s fellow traveler in trashing relevance with advertisements) for $10.98. I liked the Bostitch Office Heavy Duty device, which is Amazon’s number one best seller (according to Amazon marketing).
The write up pointed out:
Staplers and tape are no longer being provided to print stations companywide as “part of a cost effectiveness initiative,” according to a separate, internal facilities directive viewed by CNBC.
To recoup that $100 million, Google will have to not purchase 9,107,468.12. I want to retain the 0.12 because one must be attentive to small numbers (unlike some of the fancy math in the Snorkel world). Google, I have heard, has about 100,000 “employees”, but it is never clear which are “real” employees, contractors, interns, or mysterious partners. Thus each of these individuals will be responsible for NOT losing or breaking 91 staplers per year.
I know the idea of rationing staplers is like burning Joan of Arc. It’s not an opportunity to warm a croissant; it is the symbolism of the event.
Google in 2023 knows how to keep me in stitches. Sorry, staples. And the cost of Bard? As the real Bard said:
Poor and content is rich and rich enough,
But riches fineless is as poor as winter
To him that ever fears he shall be poor. (Othello, III.iv)
Stephen E Arnold, April 4, 2023
TikTok in Context: It Is Technology, Not the Wizards Writing Code
March 23, 2023
Note: Written by a real, still alive dinobaby. No smart software involved, thank you.
Yep, let’s focus on technology; specifically, online and digitization. The press release / essay “MEMO: TikTok Is a Threat. So Is the Rest of Big Tech” does not name names. The generalization “technology” is a garden spray, not a disciplined Banksy can of spray paint. Yep, technology.
The write up from the Tech Oversight Project states:
Right now, lawmakers are weighing the virtues of a TikTok ban in the United States versus a forced divestiture from Chinese Communist Party-connected parent company ByteDance. Regardless of which direction lawmakers choose, focusing solely on TikTok does not fully get at the heart of the practices every platform engages in to cause so much harm.
And the people? Nope, generalizations and a handful of large companies. And the senior managers, the innovators, the individuals who happily coded the applications and services? Not on the radar.
The document does include some useful information about the behaviors of large technology-centric companies; for example and these are quotes from the cited document:
- Facebook developed a censorship tool in an attempt to court Chinese engagement.
- In an effort to court the Chinese market, Google developed a censored version of its platform for use in China and was forced to backtrack under pressure from human rights organizations.
- 155 of Apple’s top 200 suppliers are based in China.
My view is that specific senior executives directly involved in okaying a specific action or policy should be named. These individuals made decisions based on their ethical and financial contexts. Those individuals should be mapped to specific decisions.
Disconnecting the people who were the “deciders” from the broad mist of “technology” and the handful of companies named is not helpful.
Responsibility accrues to an individual, and individuals are no longer in second grade where shooting a teacher incurs zero penalty. Accountability should have a shelf life akin to a pressurized can of party cheese.
Stephen E Arnold, March 23, 2023
Google and Its High School Management: An HR Example
March 22, 2023
I read “Google Won’t Honor Medical Leave During Its Layoffs, Outraging Employees.” Interesting explanation of some of Google’s management methods. These specific actions strike me as similar to those made by my high school science club in 1959. We were struggling with the issue of requiring a specific academic threshold for admission. As I recall, one had to have straight A’s in math and science or no Science Club for that person. (We did admit one student who published an article in the Journal of Astronomy with his brother as co-author. He had an incomplete in calculus because he was in Hawaii fooling around with a telescope and missed the final exam. We decided to let him in. Because, well, we were the Science Club for goodness sakes!)
Scribbled Diffusion’s rendition of a Google manager (looks a bit like a clown, doesn’t it?) telling an employee he is fired and that his medical insurance has been terminated.
The article reports:
While employees’ severance packages might come with a few more months of health insurance, being fired means instantly losing access to Google’s facilities. If that’s where a laid-off Googler’s primary care doctor works, that person is out of luck, and some employees told CNBC they lost access to their doctors the second the layoff email arrived. Employees on leave also have a lot to deal with. One former Googler, Kate Howells, said she was let go by Google from her hospital bed shortly after giving birth. She worked at the company for nine years.
The highlight of the write up, however, is the Comment Section. Herewith are several items I found noteworthy:
- Gsgrego writes, “Employees, aka expendable garbage.”
- Chanman819 offers, “I’ve mentioned it before in one of the other layoff threads, but companies shouldn’t burn bridges when doing layoffs… departing employees usually end up at competitors, regulators, customers, vendors, or partners in the same industry. Many times, they boomerang back a few years in the future. Making sure they have an axe to grind during negotiations or when on the other side of a working relationship is exceptionally ill-advised.
- Ajmas says, “Termination by accounting.”
- Asvarduil offers, “Twitter and Google are companies that I now consider radioactive to work for. Even if they don’t fail soon, they’re very clearly poorly-managed. If I had to work for someone else, they’re both companies I’d avoid.
- MisterJim adds, “Two thoughts: 1. Stay classy Google! 2. Google has employees? Anyone who’s tried to contact them might assume otherwise.
High school science club lives on in the world of non-founder management.
Stephen E Arnold, March 22, 2023
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
