The article was a bit pretentious for my taste, but I agree with the title. I've noticed a small but definite "trickle down" effect to the things I do well from spending time doing things that I'm bad at.
You might find the result less surprising after you solve a riddle by Martin Gardner:
> A young man lives in Manhattan near a subway express station. He has two girlfriends, one in Brooklyn, one in the Bronx. To visit the girl in Brooklyn, he takes a train on the downtown side of the platform; to visit the girl in the Bronx, he takes a train on the uptown side of the same platform. Since he likes both girls equally well, he simply takes the first train that comes along. In this way, he lets chance determine whether he rides to the Bronx or to Brooklyn. The young man reaches the subway platform at a random moment each Saturday afternoon. Brooklyn and Bronx trains arrive at the station equally often—every 10 minutes. Yet for some obscure reason he finds himself spending most of his time with the girl in Brooklyn: in fact on the average he goes there 9 times out of 10. Can you think of a good reason why the odds so heavily favor Brooklyn?
I see an immediate solution to that riddle and it matches the idea of the Wikipedia page you link. But I don't see any connection to Penney's game. Can you explain?
Yup, Penney's game is surprising because at first glance the probabilities of two sequences of the same length are unrelated. But if more than half of the sequences overlap, then one sequence will tend to arrive before the other. As the proportion of overlap tends to 100%, Player B has a 2:1 advantage over Player A: https://i.imgur.com/eKujwrK.png
Could the performance of the lottery winners have been "environmental"? That is, they benefited from being surrounded by competent people (which was, in turn, guaranteed by those people having gone through the interview process) and "leveled up" due to that?
In other words, maybe as long as you let in a small number (but only a small number) of non-performers, you're fine (which is bound to happen anyway - I'm sure there is some noise in the interviews).
Yes. Getting hired by Google is only part of the deal. Actually _succeeding_ when you're already there is much more difficult. It's a high pressure environment with a lot of very smart overachievers. Because of this it's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, and people who don't measure up also don't feel welcome, as it were. Since performance reviews are largely derived from peer feedback, hiring mistakes tend to be self-correcting. Most of the time, though, I've seen great people leave just because they didn't like the pressure. The amount of pressure depends on the team. The higher the profile -- the more pressure (but also more rewards, greater career potential, etc). But the general bar for what's considered "good work" is pretty high, and more uniform than in any other large company I have ever worked at.
Then there's the issue that by the time you even get an on-site, you're already very much not a random candidate. Recruiters actually do look at your track record, etc. You can bullshit there, but I don't recommend it, since references will be spot checked, and they better line up.
Google interviews are largely a roll of the dice above certain level of basic engineering competence. I.e. if you don't know the basics, you will almost certainly not pass them. But if you're a more senior candidate, Google doesn't really know how to interview you, and their interview process turns into a random number generator biased heavily towards "no hire".
They are no longer amongst top choices for top people. Alphabet might be, Google isn't. That's why they are dumbing down their interviews in the past 8 years and repelling even more top people that want to change the world and not be just another cog in the machine.
They certainly still _are_ among the top choices for top people, but they're no longer the _best_ choice for most. I can't in good conscience advise anyone to join any 70K person company. "Cog in a machine" describes it pretty well. Ignore "self driving cars" and "internet balloons" and other BS: there's near zero chance you'll get to work on any of that, particularly if you don't already have a stellar track record at some company Google/Alphabet respects (of which there are very few).
The standard argument is that it is the other way around -- we've settled on a 8x5 scheme _because_ our breaking point is around 40 hours. However, like others in this thread, I'm not sure I agree.
I always thought: we work 40 hours a week because we work 8 hours a day; and we work 8 hours a day because Robert Owen's mantra "Eight hours' labour, Eight hours' recreation, Eight hours' rest" caught on.
There can be legal issues from the candidate's side too -- people on an H-1B visa in the US may not be able to accept payment for work outside of the company they've been hired by.
And also not very enforceable in some areas. I got legal advice on this from my own attorney some 20 years ago. I had created a piece of software on the side while working under a contract that said something similar. The software took off and I was worried about it. He advised me that worst case would be paying the company the money I earned while under that contract, but even that was a stretch.
