Re-read it. #1 the recruiter (Maxine) didn't really work for the famous googler she claimed to work for. She worked for #2 who was just a regular old manager.
I see the claim that she is a recruiter in the article. I do not see the evidence for that claim.
I don't think the article establishes that googler #1 (with the name MARXXXXX) is Maxine. It's all very confusing; why mask out the name in one place, then use it elsewhere? And why would a web search turn up that MARXXXX exists and then we decide that Maxine may not exist "Max will never meet Maxine; she probably doesn’t even exist".
Where is the evidence that #1 works for #2? I see the claim, but what is it based upon?
"Maxine" and "MarXXXX" are different people, I think. The article is confusingly written. I think "Maxine" is a third person (or non-person) brought in by #2 (DavXXXX) to do the first in-person meeting with Max (the author); #1 (MarXXXX) was never going to meet with Max, at least outside of Mountain View.
Her comments questions and tone in the first phone call were totally that of a recruiter and not at all those of someone in M&A trying to start talks for an acquisition.
I don't think the article establishes that googler #1 (with the name MARXXXXX) is Maxine. It's all very confusing; why mask out the name in one place, then use it elsewhere? And why would a web search turn up that MARXXXX exists and then we decide that Maxine may not exist "Max will never meet Maxine; she probably doesn’t even exist".
Where is the evidence that #1 works for #2? I see the claim, but what is it based upon?