[hectorr1]

No, but Google needs to worry about a much more important constituency. There are not that many people who know how to build something like this.

Most are probably wealthy, to the point they don't really need to work. All of them can figure out how to covertly contact journalists. And at least a few of them are starting to have qualms about the negative consequences of industry ignoring the social implications in pursuit of profit.

[belltaco]

I think you're overestimating this because of the bubble we are in. I remember similar things said about govt hiring after Snowden's revelations, and nothing has changed. No one even talks about it anymore, even on this site.

[jdc]

Re: Snowden, I wonder if it's that we've forgotten or more that we've adjusted our expectations and sense there's nothing we can do about it.

[RestlessMind]

> Most are probably wealthy, to the point they don't really need to work.

I have been working at one of the FAANGs in SV for almost 15 years and no, this is absolutely not right. Only less than 5% of my colleagues "don't need to work". A lot of smart people I know would happily work for Google even after it goes ahead with China plans.

> And at least a few of them are starting to have qualms...

This is true. But that number is just a tiny, albeit loud, minority.

[ben_jones]

Sophisticated software can be written by anybody and is not solely in the purview of Google's flawless hiring system. Operating systems, physics engines, 3d graphics applications, have been created by many not-a-stanford-degree-toting individual.

[kodablah]

> Sophisticated software can be written by anybody

Well that's just not true.

> is not solely in the purview of Google's flawless hiring system

Well that's not what was asserted at all.

> [...] have been created by many not-a-stanford-degree-toting individual

And neither was that.

[Retric]

It's less likely sure, but possible is a very low hurdle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

[Humdeee]

The 'anything is possible' rebuttal only dampens conversation. We can roll a bowling ball back and forth over a keyboard to the same effect. Truly sophisticated software is written by developers very few and far between.

[Retric]

You might feel that way, but sophisticated software has been written by average developers in the past and it will happen in the future. The odds are not great but the industry is well into the 100’s of millions of man hour territory and unusual things happen accidentally if nothing else more often than you might think.

PS: However, when what you say is literally wrong I don’t think it deserves a detailed response.

[Humdeee]

I wholeheartedly disagree, as do many others evidently. But thank you for pointing out how I must feel and then passing off your opinion as fact. Perhaps we have different definitions of sophisticated software, that's all.

"PS:" Since we're critiquing responses, your initial response should have never existed. It provided nothing of value to the conversation. Odd that you would provide assessment of other's comments... but thank you.

[s73v3r_]

Anybody? Clearly not. But you are right that the people capable of doing that are not just from Stanford. That just doesn't change the parent's point.

[emodendroket]

I'm not going to hold my breath on that count.