Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 305 posts

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#291

Post by jacquesm »

dllthomas wrote: post #281
jacquesm wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you invest in / buy a company for its IP then you normally - especially when the field is 'hot' and the IP is voluminous and created in record time - do some research to verify the origin of the IP is in fact what the company says it is. If you forgo such a check then you open yourself up to two potential problems: - if the IP ends up being stolen then you may not have recourse against the person that sold it to y…

While that's all true, it seems entirely unrelated. If Levandowski stole "a large treasure trove of files" but then drew information judiciously from those files in creating Otto's IP, Uber might not have been much able to pick that apart - and in particular, your characterization would be grossly misleading.

There would still be a discrepancy in that they would be moving much faster than they would have if they started from scratch. The difference is usually very easy to tell, you'd have to be extremely good at covering your tracks if you wanted to start from another code base and you copy bit-by-bit. Copying gives a completely different pattern than writing does.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#292

Post by jacquesm »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #290
jacquesm wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Happens all the time, I wouldn't worry about it, just ignore it.

Ok, I wrote a tampermonkey extension to hide the effects of being downvoted: https://gist.github.com/anonymous/9d681310f4714277a37832643c... It removes scores from your comments and replaces your karma counter with "(9999)". HN is much more pleasant now.

Hah, that's a cool solution.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#293

Post by amyjess »

watwut wrote: post #265
huebnerob wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to get 'put on the roof' like that, but I think the Japanese policy also states that you're not allowed to do anything outside of the ridiculously mundane task they assign you, and they actually watch you like a hawk to ensure as such. Pretty smart, most people aren't going to stay in that situation for long.

Why they don't fire the person? This is ridiculously sleazy.

It's a huge cultural taboo to fire anyone without cause in Japan. And even if you do have cause, there's a pretty high bar for what actually constitutes cause. It would be a huge scandal if a Japanese company, especially a large salaryman-style company, fired an employee for anything less than stabbing a coworker.

Hell, even in the entertainment industry, where employment is gig-based, Masashi Tashiro didn't get blackballed until he was convicted twice for voyeurism, twice for drug abuse, once for nearly crippling a guy in a car accident he caused, and once for posessing an illegal weapon [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masashi_Tashiro#Second_trial_f...

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#294

Post by amyjess »

CydeWeys wrote: post #275
wutbrodo wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If firing is an option, why wouldn't they do so in the first place?

Presumably it's the difference between firing with cause and firing without cause. There are many positions where performance is measured pretty ambiguously, so if you want to get rid of someone you couldn't demonstrate strong cause for doing so. Make them do pointless simple make-work, though, and you can easily find cause for firing if they don't do it.

Firing someone for performance isn't a thing in Japan.

The "pointless simple make-work" isn't to build up cause, it's to abuse and degrade them until they have enough of it and quit. The technical term for this is "constructive dismissal".

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#295

Post by CydeWeys »

amyjess wrote: post #294
CydeWeys wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably it's the difference between firing with cause and firing without cause. There are many positions where performance is measured pretty ambiguously, so if you want to get rid of someone you couldn't demonstrate strong cause for doing so. Make them do pointless simple make-work, though, and you can easily find cause for firing if they don't do it.

Firing someone for performance isn't a thing in Japan. The "pointless simple make-work" isn't to build up cause, it's to abuse and degrade them until they have enough of it and quit. The technical term for this is "constructive dismissal". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal

Your explanation is missing a nuance in the comment I was replying to -- namely, that people were being fired for not doing the pointless simple make-work. If you're going to fire them for that, why not just fire them in the first place and skip that entirely.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#296

Post by TallGuyShort »

CydeWeys wrote: post #295
amyjess wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firing someone for performance isn't a thing in Japan. The "pointless simple make-work" isn't to build up cause, it's to abuse and degrade them until they have enough of it and quit. The technical term for this is "constructive dismissal". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal

Your explanation is missing a nuance in the comment I was replying to -- namely, that people were being fired for not doing the pointless simple make-work. If you're going to fire them for that, why not just fire them in the first place and skip that entirely.

Not familiar with the culture or mindset, but I'm guessing it's simply because "you're fired because you intentionally didn't do your work" is easier to accept mentally / emotionally then "you're fired because you're just kinda stupid and slow."

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#297

Post by dllthomas »

jacquesm wrote: post #291
dllthomas wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While that's all true, it seems entirely unrelated. If Levandowski stole "a large treasure trove of files" but then drew information judiciously from those files in creating Otto's IP, Uber might not have been much able to pick that apart - and in particular, your characterization would be grossly misleading.

There would still be a discrepancy in that they would be moving much faster than they would have if they started from scratch. The difference is usually very easy to tell, you'd have to be extremely good at covering your tracks if you wanted to start from another code base and you copy bit-by-bit. Copying gives a completely different pattern than writing does.

There are ways of using information other than copy-pasting it in. A reference here and there when you get stuck, reading ahead to avoid dead-ends. They would also be moving much faster if they were just very good, and Google was already paying this guy on the understanding that he was the best. Picking that apart could be difficult-to-impossible.

Or maybe Uber's just complicit. But you're introducing facts not in evidence based on your assumptions about how this went down.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#298

Post by CydeWeys »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #296
CydeWeys wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your explanation is missing a nuance in the comment I was replying to -- namely, that people were being fired for not doing the pointless simple make-work. If you're going to fire them for that, why not just fire them in the first place and skip that entirely.

Not familiar with the culture or mindset, but I'm guessing it's simply because "you're fired because you intentionally didn't do your work" is easier to accept mentally / emotionally then "you're fired because you're just kinda stupid and slow."

Yeah, that's in the same vein as to what I was trying to get at. Being fired because you refuse to do stupid make-work is certainly less psychologically damaging than being fired because you were no good at your real work.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#299

Post by TallGuyShort »

CydeWeys wrote: post #298
TallGuyShort wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not familiar with the culture or mindset, but I'm guessing it's simply because "you're fired because you intentionally didn't do your work" is easier to accept mentally / emotionally then "you're fired because you're just kinda stupid and slow."

Yeah, that's in the same vein as to what I was trying to get at. Being fired because you refuse to do stupid make-work is certainly less psychologically damaging than being fired because you were no good at your real work.

And I think it goes both ways. The firee takes it less personally, the firer doesn't feel as rude.

Re: Uber Fires Anthony Levandowski

#300

Post by dang »

Arizhel wrote: post #181

>So yeah, it happens; it's just a spectacularly bad idea for the police to do it. If they hadn't declined to file charges, my friend and another murder victim would probably still be alive today Sorry about your friend, but why is it a "spectacularly bad idea" for police to do so? What alternative do they have? If the sole victim is unwilling to cooperate with the investigation and subsequent trial, their chances of…

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14448155 and marked it off-topic.
Post reply on HN