The title of the article is very misleading. I would have loved to read how Google changed on the inside over the last 10 years. Or maybe even how the author changed. Instead, we get some spam about some tool that is neat.
I can't tell if you're parodying HN here. This is from someone's blog and is a personal reflection on his most important work of the past 10 years. Do you expect everyone to be an historian?
I expect an article titled "Ten years at Google" to talk about someone's experience at Google over the last 10 years, not a project that started in the last 5. If that's "being a historian", tell me why that's bad.
There's nothing bad about being a historian nor is there anything bad about writing about your most significant project in ten years. Both are aligned with the title.
Really? I found it quite refreshing. I'm tired of reading articles about people's experiences at so-and-so company for so-and-so years. Anyone working there for 10+ years can write about that.
It's awesome that Neil did something he's proud of and shared it on his personal blog. Good for him.
I'd like to see some articles like that, too though I have heard stories a few times from a few old timers I've met at company events, I couldn't hope to summarize them nor could I legally, I'm sure. There's not, imho, a massive difference in the company over the 5 years I've been there (albeit in a 'remote' office), but the people who have been there over a decade definitely saw a different kind of company.
