My Internship Experiences at Pixar, Google, and Two Sigma | Hacker News Reader

My Internship Experiences at Pixar, Google, and Two Sigma

evjang.com

138 pointsericjang67 comments

> you'll see lots of edges going from Goldman, Microsoft, Google, and Facebook to Two Sigma. There are very few edges going the other way.

Perhaps one reason for it that they don't advertise is the ridiculous non-competes that their employees have signed and it's limited their future career options. I have first hand experience with this. They had the audacity to ask me sign a 18-month IP assignment (basically with FROR), a 1-year non-compete, and a fucking 5-year non-solicit (much stricter than the non-solicit in a Google's contract) clause. They want slaves, not employees. Of course I threw up on that contract, especially considering their history of bringing criminal lawsuits against their former employees. Avoid.

Sorry, what is FROF?

(Misspelled, corrected.) "First right of refusal". I'm not sure if it is the right phrase in the context of IP assignment, but it was a good analogy to what they asked: basically they'd say whatever you'd invent in the next 18-months after your employment, you have to show us first and we decide if it is related to our business and therefore ours.

It's generally "Right of First Refusal" or ROFR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_first_refusal

I went from TS to Google and personally know quite a few: - They only enforce non-compete if you actually go to a competitor (like rentech, KCG, Citadel). You also get paid your normal salary during those time (just to chill around). One of my friends is using that to travel all over the place. If you go to other tech company like FB or Google then you can start the next day (which I did) - I only have 2 years non-solicit so may be that's a recent change. It doesn't affect you that much though (you can't refer people you know from TS or give them recommendation, that's it). - If you actually follow the law suits, those people actually tried to upload model to external servers. If you try to do that with Google's HIP code I'm pretty sure they would do the same to you.

I picked TS offer over Google offer before and now that I'm on the other side I regretted nothing. Both are great place to work.

> They only enforce non-compete if you actually go to a competitor (like rentech, KCG, Citadel).

Does the contract say that?

Never trust anyone who asks you to sign away your firstborn, but says "Don't worry, it's just legal boilerplate, we don't enforce it!" If it's not enforced, it shouldn't be in the contract.

They have to pay you not to work if they elect to enforce it; the contract actually says that. They don't actually enumerate who is a competitor, but in practice they aren't interested in enforcing against Google, Facebook etc.

Yes. One MD told me that non-compete is not enforceable if you don't pay. I don't think anyone want to pay six figures and lots of good wills for no good reasons.

No, they don't say that. But non competes are never enforced for low level folks. It's usually for upper management.

Why did you leave?

No real good reason from either TS or Google, just want to try/learn something new. I still hangout with my old manager/teammates and might come back some days, who knows.

You left Google as well?

I don't want to engage in legal interpretation of the contract here, but based on readings of my contract on my side, I feel like making a comment:

> They only enforce non-compete if you actually go to a competitor (like rentech, KCG, Citadel).

Not what the contract says. Just like most noncompetes is much more loosely defined. When it comes to sue, almost everything in technology can be argued to be related to everything else. Google or anyone running an ad exchange/real-time auction can definitely be argued to be a competitor.

> You also get paid your normal salary during those time (just to chill around).

Not factually correct. You only get your base salary which can be a small portion of the total compensation.

> One of my friends is using that to travel all over the place.

Well, if you enjoy a forced vacation, good for you. I don't think everyone does.

> If you go to other tech company like FB or Google then you can start the next day (which I did)

Even if they ignore the explicit non-compete clause, the separate IP assignment provision is troublesome for the target company. I wonder how the destination company would react to that if they read it carefully. For me, the period of that even exceeded the explicit non-compete, and that was super problematic. Also, they have this weird clause to extend the noncompete period if you are found in violation of it, which makes zero logical sense in a fair contract. In effect, it also has the side effect of being a theoretical legal risk to you, forever, even beyond the explicit non-compete period (due to the possibility of recursive extension).

> It doesn't affect you that much though (you can't refer people you know from TS or give them recommendation, that's it).

Not true. The non-solicit covers investors as well as employees. You are not allowed to solicit or take money any of their investors for any purpose, which means you cannot start a simple tech startup. Since you have no idea who their investors are, you are risking a violation by talking to any investor. Even the language of the employee non-solicit clause is much stricter than Google's.

> If you actually follow the law suits, those people actually tried to upload model to external servers. If you try to do that with Google's HIP code I'm pretty sure they would do the same to you.

There are two lawsuits I am aware of. This is factually incorrect about one of them. For the other one, if you actually read the documents and testimonies on both sides, it is hard to reach the conclusion that it was anything but a non-compete issue. Based on what I read in the media, it seems the judge in NY court apparently didn't feel like the fact that they made a criminal lawsuit out of it was just, so I have serious doubts about the speculation that Google would have done the same in this exact scenario. Of course, this is my interpretation. I encourage people who are interested to look it up themselves on the court website. You can find an older version of the employment agreement there as well (mine was definitely worse). It's an amusing read, actually. It shows how arrogant and evil an employment contract can get:

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/CaseSearch

Solve the captcha and search for Two Sigma Investments. Specifically, Exhibit B under Kang Gao's lawsuit is an older version of their employment agreement, but it's close enough I think.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and the above is simply my opinion.

The writer seems mature and should go far.

If he wants advice from someone in finance, I'd steer him towards Pixar. The math might be harder and the prestige may be greater at the hedge fund, but making beautiful things is inherently satisfying. Sweating to make a big number get a bit bigger isn't good for the soul in the long term.

> Sweating to make a big number get a bit bigger isn't good for the soul in the long term.

Depends on how beautiful you find the numbers you're using to get there.

edit

To clarify, there are personalities that derive quite a bit of pleasure from the puzzle without much regard for the picture it makes in the end.

For sure. But I thought he seemed pretty struck by the power of the art Pixar was making, talking about tearing up in the cinema. He made a few other comments about meaningfulness too - like not wanting to be eating stuff from Slice while cranking away on some obscure thing.

But as others say it's totally his decision. He's clearly smart and fortunate; I'm happy for him.

> The math might be harder and the prestige may be greater at the hedge fund

Ehhhh, Black–Scholes vs. Navier-Stokes. Six of one, half a dozen of another...

Yes - remarkably, options are priced using the mathematical physics of heat diffusion. (& GPUs are used to speed up the calculations)

This guy integrates!

> Sweating to make a big number get a bit bigger isn't good for the soul in the long term.

I've been working as a programmer for the last 5-6 years, and I strongly disagree.

Pixar, Google and Two Sigma, and many similar companies in these industries, are ultimately absolutely pointless and empty. Entertainment (distraction), ads (mind pollution), and arbitrage (stealing) is essentially what they do. Working for any of them will become mind-numbingly boring and damaging to the soul very soon.

There are only two things that keep me motivated; (1) hard problems, and (2) money. (1) are hard to come by, most of my time I spend dealing with stupid problems caused by stupid people. (2) is why I work on pointless problems, the more I earn the sooner I can retire to do something actually useful.

Therefore, I think that working for a hedge fund in a money-generating role can do wonders to one's motivation; the better you are, the more you earn. Not many roles, in general and in software development, offer such direct payoff.

Be that as it may, it's worth noting Google does other things as well. You could always try to get a job there working on self-driving cars (saving lives) or solar energy (saving the world).

There is also Google's charitable arm Google.org[0][1].

[0] https://www.google.org/

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google.org

Obligatory nit: those are now things that Alphabet does, not Google.

Google is the brand still.

Plus, it's Google[X], which is a subsidiary of alphabet. So nitpick that if you want to nitpick. It still wouldn't be called Alphabet.

Also you still apply to Google for the job.

And how much money does the non-ads part of Google make?

boatloads. smaller boatloads than ads, but still boatloads.

I would not categorize being able to search for almost any piece of information in the world within a second to be pointless and empty. Nor would I think that for digital maps, real time traffic updates, email with more storage than you know what to do with, smartphones software...etc.

The revenue model and the incentives it creates for certain aspects of the above creations is not ideal, I agree, but that's a separate issue than these companies' creations are absolutely pointless. It is a valid reason to not work for them though, as you are just advancing their advertisement driven business.

> arbitrage (stealing)

You've never bought something for less than it's worth or sold something for more than it's worth?

Or, maybe better phrasing, bought low and sold high? Because 'what something is worth' is a dynamic variable affected by time and circumstance. Arbitrage is understanding that variable, nothing more.

Holy crap, what generalization!

Do you honestly only see art's place in human society and our history as nothing more than distraction? Do you honestly believe Google only has done mind pollution to the world? Are all financial services nothing but stealing to you.

Your above statement only shows one thing: you are either extremely ignorant or you are extremely sanctimonious, probably both.

You are fully entitled to your own opinions, but you don't have the right to belittle other people's passion and interest.

To be honest what motivates you seems like nothing but vanity to me, good for you I guess, but I'm glad there are lots of people who don't share the same mind set.

>Pixar, Google and Two Sigma, and many similar companies in these industries, are ultimately absolutely pointless and empty. Entertainment (distraction), ads (mind pollution)

I'm curious what you consider "worthwhile" endeavors, both personally (personal satisfaction/happiness) and globally (something society should strive for), and how or if they differ.

Doctors, farmers, garbage men. Research in energy, health, basic science. Companies like SpaceX and Theranos. Potentially Google's side businesses.

Why does the doctor administer the treatment that keeps their patient alive? For at least one dying ten-year-old girl, the answer was "to see the new Pixar movie."

http://www.today.com/id/31448115/ns/today-today_entertainmen...

>but making beautiful things is inherently satisfying.

I like, perhaps love Pixar, but I'm not sure if I'd call, what are essentially kids movies, "beautiful things." Especially when a lot of the art design is fairly formulaic (see the Pixar face: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/inside-out/disney-pixar-char...) Story-wise there are maybe four kid movie plots that get recycled as well. I could see a very smart and creative person feeling hamstrung in such an environment. Especially considering as kids movies they cannot explore adult topics and will always be fairly limited in scope.

I also dislike that idea that automation, code, math, finance, etc can't be beautiful on its own. I'd love it if we could sell young people on the beauty of these things. Getting things like this right can be incredibly satisfying. I know its a hard sell, but most thing worthwhile are. Honestly, the worlds need less impassioned animators and comic book artists and rock stars. It needs more people able to solve hard problems, sometimes in fairly unsexy ways to an audience that may not even understand what the problem was or how difficult it was to solve. Entertainment shouldn't be a brain drain from other fields.

I'm not sure how I would classify Toy Story 3 under any recycled "kids movie" plots. The ending (the real ending, not the climax, as described in the article) is one of the most poignant moments in film I can recall. Similarly, Wall-E does a good job illustrating the human need for companionship. And the need for purpose within our lives. And at the very shallowest and most obvious level, over-consumption. Pixar often makes very "smart" animated movies, and they generally work at quite a few levels, in my opinion.

> Especially considering as kids movies they cannot explore adult topics and will always be fairly limited in scope.

I disagree. I've seen many masterful "childrens" movies that have done masterful jobs at exploring adult concepts, as long as by "adult" you don't just mean sexuality. While childrens' movies may be constrained on some axis, they are often freer on others. Additionally, there is the chance to speak to people that wouldn't normally go to a movie about some of these adult messages, or to reach them when they aren't expecting it and are less cynical. Who goes to see an animated film about a family of super heroes to see a touching rendition of mid-life crisis?

Yeah, one of my favorite reasons why I like Pixar films is that their central conflicts are inspired by some deep-seated adult fear: fear of being replaced or forgotten (TS1-TS3), of children growing up and leaving (Nemo), midlife crisis (Incredibles), the fragility of newborn children (Monsters Inc), of change (Inside Out).

That said, I do think there are a lot of creative frontiers to be explored with material suitable for older audiences only. If they wanted, Pixar could make the most terrifying psychological horror known to Man, or a tragedy so heart-wrenching that everyone heads to the bars afterward.

Maybe, but I suspect that the subtlety required in childrens' movies may actually help the delivery. I don't doubt Pixar could make good movies centered around more adult stories, but I think what takes from from "eh" to "good" or even "great" is when there are multiple layers to them, and the layers are subtle but powerful. I think these subtler themes resonate with people as they have experiences that they can relate to them (which is why we can put them in kids movies with a more overt story, the kids usually don't notice them because they don't have an experience that resonates), but when they are overtly part of the plot, it comes across as heavy handed.

> Sweating to make a big number get a bit bigger isn't good for the soul in the long term.

Speak for yourself. I've worked in finance for more than 10 years and like my job. Most of the time I work on interesting problems with smart people under good work conditions, and get paid well to do it.

It helps that I work in an area of finance I feel does have positive social value, although doing work I am good at and find interesting is more of a motivation.

Do you feel comfortable discussing your work a bit more? It's not often I see the words "finance" and "positive social value" used in the same sentence.

One example: TS and many hedge funds manage portfolios for large charities, university endowments, and pension funds, among other clients. This means more money for clients who do good for the world.

Does TS actually do that? Aren't they doing proprietary trading (exclusively or almost so)?

"Our clients are real people and include some of the world’s largest public and corporate pension plans, sovereign wealth funds, research institutions, educational endowments, healthcare systems and foundations."

http://www.twosigma.com/impact

I think that well functioning financial markets have huge social value. Let's contrast the mortgage market in 2007 (finance gone wrong) with the stock market when it functions normally. This description is idealized and somewhat self-serving, but I think it is a useful model.

In 2007 key players (mortgage originators, banks, ratings agencies, governmental agencies and investors) only had incentives for mortgage prices to go up. It was hard to bet on prices going down, and even when you could it was hard to get enough information to realize how overpriced mortgages were. This poorly functioning market resulted in disaster.

The stock market has much more information available, and it is usually easy to bet against prices that are too high. The collective intelligence of many smart people determines stock prices using money, a powerful incentive to get things right. This results in a liquid, well-functioning market with many positive social effects. Google exists today in part because an angel investor knew that if the company succeeded there were well-functioning public markets to sell into. While it's popular to say that the stock market influences company behavior negatively, and causes "short-termism", I believe the opposite:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/24/the-short-termi...

The market often imposes discipline on managers who would otherwise run companies for their own benefit at the expense of everyone else.

You can tell a similar story for the social benefits of lending money, and the importance of doing it well.

The world has seen a vast improvement in wealth, health, education, and safety in the last 100 years, and I think a large contributor is a financial system that has enabled and rewarded socially useful enterprises.

As I said, this is an oversimplification, and a lot of smart people completely disagree. I don't deny that there are jobs in finance that seem to me to be pure rent-seeking, with negative social value. However, I think that overall the system works well, and that the work I do makes it run a tiny bit better.

This made me laugh:

> What I did in my spare time Browse the intranet for juicy info Browse the intranet for juicy info Browse the intranet for juicy info

Very objective write up Eric. I'm an Xoogler with good friends working/worked at Two-Sigma, and it's pretty much what you described. Good luck on whatever you decide to do, don't stress out too much on your first job choice, there are no wrong decisions here.

Mirror (down at 4:54EST 8/17/2015)

http://pastebin.com/8t0BquQg

^^^ This is why I love HN.

Thanks!

Hi all, author here. thx for the upvotes. Webpage is back up.

"If you care most about raising a family, work life balance (i.e. work the least hours) and job security, you really can't go wrong with Google."

This is such at odds with everything I've heard and read about Google, I'd like to know if there's a typo in that sentence, and if not, how to you square the wider perception with your perception?

I also interned there, and my team was working 50ish hour weeks on a relatively flexible schedule (e.g. come in 7am-11am, leave 3pm-7pm). Search-related team. I know some teams might be working far more, but that wasn't common as far as I could tell.

Unlike (say) Amazon, Google does not require you to work long hours, and in many teams it's actively discouraged. Now of course you get some competitive types who like to burn the midnight oil in a mostly misguided effort to get promoted, but these are the exception rather than the rule, and Google's promotion processes are explicitly geared to attempt to reward initiative and results, not hours worked.

Disclaimer: I work at Google, pretty much 9 to 5. But it's a huge company and I'm sure you can find pathological microcultures somewhere.

All I had to compare Google to were my limited experiences in the other two. I thought Google was the most laid-back of the three.

No doubt you've heard about dinner cafes opening late to keep employees at their desks, but the reality is that a lot of people's productivity slows down from 5-6 anyway (that was ping pong hour for me). Go! cafe is open all day, and lots of people grab a sandwich before skedaddling at 5pm sharp.

Maybe there's more pressure at some teams to put in more hours. I have no data on that.

I think overall vacation benefits, hours, and pa/maternity leave are slightly better, but I'm not certain.

TS's medical plan beats Google handedly, no copay, no deductible for a minimal $7/paycheck (just so you can refuse it if you want). TS also starts out with 20 days vacation compare to Google 15. Hours is the same, you do whatever you want to get it done.

ok! thanks for the info ;)

Googler here. Having just returned to the office from my second paternity leave (for which I was granted up to 12 paid weeks plus a small "baby bonding" bonus), I can say that my org, at the very least, has so far been extremely comfortable for raising a family. Like the author points out, Google's a big company and your mileage may vary, but I have found it to be fantastic for me in this regard.

Of course, I originally worked for Amazon.com, so my baseline for a good work/life balance may be skewed, and I don't work in Mountain View, so I can't speak to the culture at headquarters.

This completely aligns with my experience working at Google. I work roughly a 9-5; most of my coworkers do the same. Sometimes I will read e-mail on my phone and triage it, but I never reply. My laptop comes home with me out of habit but very rarely leaves my messenger bag.

Maintaining healthy work-life balance has also been pushed by the company fairly heavily in my time here. Yes, there are workaholics, but in my experience they are not the norm. Moreover, it doesn't seem to give them an edge over those of us who prefer a saner schedule.

How do you even manage to land such internships? It baffles me. How can somebody after their first year of CS bachelor's education get an internship with Pixar, and then with Google in the second year, and then with (bloody) TWO SIGMA in the third year? Stuff like that is just ... incomprehensible here in Europe (Netherlands). Crazy!

It helps to be a student studying at an elite american university - pedigree opens a lot of doors, for better or worse. Also, I had a shit ton of luck with interviews and recommendations.

This is a cool post, but I hope it doesn't get him blackballed by any of the mentioned companies.

I highly doubt it will happen. He is very objective about the pros and cons, in fact if I were running the internship program at those places I'd take these as valuable feedback.

And he put all of them under a positive light anyway (probably well deserved too).

I am amazed at how awesome the projects page of his website is. I see so many successful people on here, I just... wow..

I had a similar reaction. It's incredible. He definitely deserves his success.

Someone like this working on iOS Play Books is the biggest downside to working at Google.

> you'll see lots of edges going from Goldman, Microsoft, Google, and Facebook to Two Sigma. There are very few edges going the other way.

Is this surprising? Big tech companies employ orders of magnitude more technologists. In many small tech companies you'd expect to find a similar pattern.

> At Google and Two Sigma, interns are kept in an "intern container"

As an employee of Google who has hosted numerous interns, I can say this is not true. Interns have broad access to information at Google.

The author was definitely most passionate about Pixar. But he'll probably decide based on prestige and go with Two Sigma. For most programmers, Google is probably the best of the three for future career opportunities.

Website over quota. :/

i use ios play books! your work is not in vain!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com