Google, Please Mine Bitcoins

The price of Bitcoins is skyrocketing. The demand is going up and the supply is limited. In time, the supply will only dwindle (about 10 mil out of 21 mil coins have been mined so far), and as long as there are unstable currencies around the world, the demand for alternative currency such as Bitcoins will likely remain (or maybe even go up, who knows?!?). As I try to grasp the future social and economic impact this new and strange currency has, I started to wonder what the head of Google (who could tap into some of the world's most amazing and abundant servers) thinks about it.

For the greater good of its Shareholders, Employees, and All Earth Bound Slaves of Fiat Currency, Larry should rally the company to mine Bitcoins. Here are some top reasons why:

1. Google has a gazillion of machines on Borg that are on standby, idling, and still eating up electricity. Putting Google servers into Bitcoin mining will generate wealth that could be distributed back to the company and its Shareholders. GOOG to $1000 baby!
2. Disgruntled employees that are forced to work on G+ (hey, I know there are a bunch of you out there) could transition to work on mining Bitcoins. I'm sure they'll be relieved. In addition I think many employees would be proud of #4 (see below). Similarly, unmotivated workers that spend lots of time on misc-mtv@ troll mailing list and memegen will finally feel like they're making a change in the world, and be productive again. Look, if doing something is good for employees and good for Shareholders, why not?
3. Google is in a superior position over other companies at running massive cloud/bandwidth/custom backplane/custom OS/GPU/ASIC/etc at scale. Obviously I didn't run through back of the envelope calculations but if there's a company that can make serious money by making pennies at Google scale, that would be Google.
4. The security of Bitcoins depends on the majority of the clients/miners being honest. If Google starts running miners on its servers, it will help keep Bitcoins even more honest and secure. Therefore, Google doing mine = doing good deeds for everyone, and Do Good >> Do No Evil, right?
5. Similar to the above, if there is an institution that starts owning a huge chunk of Bitcoin shares, I would rather that institution not come from authoritarians (the same that control fiat currency on a whim) or a bunch of wild libertarian/anarchist hackers. I'd rather that institution be Google. Some people say that Google has become evil, but would you rather see Goldman Sachs, Walmart, Monsanto, Chevron/Exxon/Enron-alikes involved? Um, no thanks. In Google I trust [a little bit more]. Dominate me Google. Please!
6. Yeah yeah I know this is an ungoogly thing to say (how dare I criticize my friends/former peers). But more likely than not, many existing Googlers are already running Bitcoin miners on their Google issued machines, which is not much different than how they've been using it for other noble deeds like SETI@Home/Gene-folding/.... Create a new division in GoogleX, or one might as well as make it official in the company and make it a company-wide OKR. Just make sure they deposit back into the Shareholders' Bitcoin wallet pool, m'kay?

Larry, please go boldly where no man has gone before. The needs of many outweigh the needs of the few.  I AM NOT JOKING. Thanks for reading, I will now troll on Reddit. And /.

Recommending a fellow Googler to a startup

Once in a while I get this question: "Hey Kevin, thank you for recommending a fellow Googler. What do you think about X's technical skills?"

My long response is this:
The Google technical interview process is one of the most challenging interviews one can get. There's the resume screening (only one out of 1000 resumes pass through), then email screening, then phone screening, possible secondary phone screening, on-site screening, and finally the hiring committee (from Mountain View) reviews long and very detailed written feedback from 7-10 interviewers. If someone makes it in as an engineer, you are sure that person is way above average over the millions and millions of people who send in their resumes to Google each year. Think about this: if you're an engineer at less-than-stellar company that don't value core engineering (Fox, Yahoo, Citysearch, AT&T Interactive, MySpace) and you think you can do better, you have already at some point in your career applied to Google. It's only human to want to do better. Look. Chances are, an engineer you already know (who never went to Google) already applied and chances are he/she failed. I realize what I'm saying is really harsh, but this is harsh reality. For this reason, even a really bad Googler is still above tech industry average (e.g. especially from what I see in Los Angeles). Secondly, if a person survives the Google culture for a few years, you're sure that person is at least average amongst Googlers because the below average Googlers get kicked out very very fast; 2 to 3 quarters and you're out. I personally know a few that don't survive a year-- usually they're super smart but unmotivated and/or had other issues.

Having that said, technically, almost everyone I know at Google can kick the industry average programmer's ass. Googlers tend to come from top-tier schools or top-tier companies. They made it into the system. They are hardcore, trained under the stringent Google Code Readability process. People strive to get badges on their Moma page by being Googly-- being technically good. I am not exaggerating or bragging, I'm just saying this after observing different people from different backgrounds, and relative to Google, the average tech standard is a pathetically low bar.

Anyways, if I vouch for someone from Google, then that person is almost more than technically adequate. But then again, so is 90% of the other Googlers. There are of course distinctions amongst the group of the Special Force. Some people are slow but precise (they like to work on mission critical code). Some people are fast but sloppy (they like to work on social networking sites). Some like Java. Some like Python. Some like Javascript. Some like C++. Some people are smart, and some people are simply mind blowing brilliant. The Google gene-pool isn't all homogenous.

In the end, you should not have to worry about a Googler's technical skills. You may however, have to worry about many other things, like being able to give them challenging enough of a task, making them feel like they're making a big impact to the world, and providing enough incentives and rewards for keeping them; believe me, everyone is getting poached here and there these days with ridiculous packages. Keep in mind, there's a reason why Google managers tend to come and go very fast-- an x-manager once commented to me that it's really really hard to motivate and manage someone who is clearly much smarter than you are. I wasn't a manager at Google but I can understand why. Some of the smartest people I've met in the world are people I met in Google, and a few are a total pain in the ass to work with.

Repost: Google Buzz Good. Google Wave Bad.

I like Google Buzz. It actually has users, and it's well integrated with something people already use: Gmail. Well done. Kudos. I'm happy that Google finally did something right, and it did it without having to acquire something else. The UI is easy and simple to understand. The flow integration with Flickr, Picasaweb, Twitter, etc is well done. It's not very obtrusive (yet). I like Google Buzz. KUDOS!!!

In contrast to Google Buzz, Google Wave launch a few months back was a colossal failure. See for yourself:

See, even Google search says the Wave a failure, and Google search never lies. It's on the internet, it must be true! You know what the Wave team says in response to criticisms? "People don't get Wave" "It's too far ahead of its time." "It's only for power users." "It makes sense in my corporate niche settings."

That's a lot of spin and crap there. It reminds me of this dude in the oval office recently that made a bunch of hasty decisions based on faulty intelligence, but he would never admit failure. In addition, the way his press engine kept spinning stories left and right made his entire party look really really bad. He lost credibility. I can't believe the Wave team is doing the same thing. It's a total shame people just don't want to admit their failures. For spinning stories, I think they should be penalized with a Reverse-Founders Award; pay back Google millions of dollars they squandered developing Wave, and trying to give it a nice spin.

Humor: Google app, Apple app, and your app