Engineers can laterally move to more prestigious or challenging projects if they prove worthy based on their skills and connections. One former staffer tells WIRED that this made the company feel like a meritocracy where the best people, and the best ideas, naturally rise to the top.

I am very interested in the culture and psychology of these supposed “meritocratic” companies. Personally, I don’t believe we have a reasonable approximation of the hyper-efficient merit-based resource allocation that is promoted by the ultra-rich.

Usually I find these so-called “meritocratic” policies do not encourage good ideas, but enable hyper-competitive environments.

These kind of environments likely do not support solid well-thought-out proposals; instead, pushes the quick implementation of mediocre ideas (a.k.a move fast and break things). A hyper-competitive environment can also discourage collaboration, which often can be crucial to “solve the hard problems”.

And the article mentions that this environment boosts employee retention, which I find extremely interesting. I wonder if the constant competitions can keep triggering a sense of “winning” and “accomplishment” in a perhaps mundane job.

It seems like they have replied and said they won’t repel the act.

Unfortunately, even EU’s solution doesn’t support non-google-backed android.