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

About This Googler's Manifesto

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 404 posts

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#61

Post by interpol_p »

searealist wrote: post #45
interpol_p wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for the fact that it implies that men are in higher, more well paid positions because of inherent biological traits. If you truly believe people are equal and deserving of equal treatment then you must see a society where white men are the most powerful, most privileged class, as a failure of society. The author cannot claim to believe in equality and then go on to justify inequality with biological traits.

The manifesto author is arguing for equality of opportunity. It's possible to have this and end up with different outcomes because of differing abilities or priorities. Also, Whites are _underrepresented_ in tech relative to their percentage of the population. edit: The parent edited their comment to remove the "white" qualifier from "men".

And women are much more severely underrepresented in tech. So why argue against fixing that? It will simply make the tech industry better.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#62

Post by smsm42 »

zorpner wrote: post #4

Perhaps more interestingly, the author does not appear to understand engineering. This guy gets it. It's a deep temptation to abstract engineering away from humanism, but the idea that code can solve problems is an immature understanding of software. People have the problems; people provide the solutions. Code is a tool & intermediary, and hardly essential to the act of problem-solving.

Yet, if we look at Google's track record, they have much better luck with technical problems than with people-interaction problems. Search driven by algorithms - excellent. Social networks - epic fail. Advertising backend - money juggernaut, mostly driven by clever algorithms, as I understand? Mobile OS backend - great (well, ok, not too bad). Mobile OS frontend - meh. Chrome is kinda borderline, but I think technology has much more to do with its success then it having the best UX on the market. Shopping experience (outside of captive market of mobile users) - not too hot. Goggles - a flop.

In general, I feel if I am talking about a product from Google, I could expect a lot of very clever technology, but kinda basic UX. Sometimes it works - e.g. search works with basic UX just fine, that's what most people need. Sometimes people would just take the technology and add their own UX and that'd work fine too. But I personally get a feeling that Google's core competence is exactly in places that you are calling "hardly essential". Am I wrong?

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#63

Post by smsm42 »

interpol_p wrote: post #61
searealist wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The manifesto author is arguing for equality of opportunity. It's possible to have this and end up with different outcomes because of differing abilities or priorities. Also, Whites are _underrepresented_ in tech relative to their percentage of the population. edit: The parent edited their comment to remove the "white" qualifier from "men".

And women are much more severely underrepresented in tech. So why argue against fixing that? It will simply make the tech industry better.

I don't think the original author argued against fixing it, I think he advocated different approach to fixing it, based on different understanding of what "it" is.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#64

Post by smsm42 »

CalChris wrote: post #60
hindsightbias wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have this thing about reading footnotes first: "I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason." I miss the days when libertarians weren't ashamed to admit so. But back then, they could debate the difference between von Mises and Hayek. Today... not so much. Ideology isn't Book Deep, it's Google Search Deep.

There are no libertarian issues involved in this kerfuffle. This is a corporation, a free association of people, and an individual. If Google wants to shitcan the OP, von Mises is silent on the subject. The big bad state of CA is silent on the subject as well. And I don't think any classical liberals would find a kindred spirit in him regardless of how he labels himself. Also, he does say Stop alienating conservative…

Your presumption is that only a conservative can be against alienating conservatives, and a true libertarian would be OK with whatever is done to conservatives - after all, he's not one, so who cares about those people?

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#65

Post by Eric_WVGG »

CalChris wrote: post #41

[flagged] Mods, you can have all of my points if you'll unflag this story. It is extremely well written by someone who could well have been in the OP's chain of command and who knows the company culture. Edit: thanks mods, the article has been unflagged.

Same. This reflects very poorly on YC/HN.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#66

Post by CalChris »

smsm42 wrote: post #64
CalChris wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no libertarian issues involved in this kerfuffle. This is a corporation, a free association of people, and an individual. If Google wants to shitcan the OP, von Mises is silent on the subject. The big bad state of CA is silent on the subject as well. And I don't think any classical liberals would find a kindred spirit in him regardless of how he labels himself. Also, he does say Stop alienating conservative…

Your presumption is that only a conservative can be against alienating conservatives, and a true libertarian would be OK with whatever is done to conservatives - after all, he's not one, so who cares about those people ?

You're kind've chasing your tail there. I wasn't aware that libertarians would be against alienating conservatives but then totally ok with alienating women because Hayek.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#67

Post by smsm42 »

philwelch wrote: post #42
maehwasu wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To quote the original manifesto would be to normalize hatred.

You're getting downvoted for now, but you bring up an interesting point that's worth making more explicit. If some set of ideas is so repugnant that quoting it, even in a rebuttal, "normalizes hatred", then why try to rebut it at all? Shouldn't it be enough to simply use social norms to shame the author into submission without addressing his arguments? Nobody feels the need to write rebuttals against NAMBLA, because…

> Shouldn't it be enough to simply use social norms to shame the author into submission without addressing his arguments?

That's exactly what many people are trying to do. Fortunately, some are smarter than that.

It is very pleasant and convenient to declare dominating point of view the eternal truth and any challenge to it taboo. It is done a lot by a lot of people - disagree with them, and you not just disagreeing - you are a hateful bigot and a despicable worm of a person, worthy only of derision. And that works too, especially with good peer support. The only problem with it shaming is good at silencing, but is not so good at convincing. So if you are ok with people being afraid to talk about certain topics and challenge whatever ideas are in power - it works wonders. If you want people to actually get the point, get onboard and not just be afraid to say what they truly think - there's a bit more work needed.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#68

Post by letalvoj »

smsm42 wrote: post #62
zorpner wrote: post #4

Perhaps more interestingly, the author does not appear to understand engineering. This guy gets it. It's a deep temptation to abstract engineering away from humanism, but the idea that code can solve problems is an immature understanding of software. People have the problems; people provide the solutions. Code is a tool & intermediary, and hardly essential to the act of problem-solving.

Yet, if we look at Google's track record, they have much better luck with technical problems than with people-interaction problems. Search driven by algorithms - excellent. Social networks - epic fail. Advertising backend - money juggernaut, mostly driven by clever algorithms, as I understand? Mobile OS backend - great (well, ok, not too bad). Mobile OS frontend - meh. Chrome is kinda borderline, but I think technolo…

First of all failure of the Google+ shows absolutely nothing important for this discussion. Secondly it's just your personal opinion that the Android is ugly.

Anyway, how can you even compare UX/UI design decisions with the companies ability to handle work-place environment and stuff diversity?

So yes... You are wrong like lightyears away wrong.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#69

Post by [deleted] »

evangelista wrote: post #58

I do not like this article or the author's approach to argumentation. The author attempts to argue like this: "I am so right I do not have to argue why I am right and even if I did, you would be too dumb to understand it. waves hands around vaguely there is lots of science proving everything I think is true. I am too lazy to cite any of it or even indicate what arguments you made specifically are wrong, online people…

[deleted]

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#70

Post by smsm42 »

CalChris wrote: post #66
smsm42 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your presumption is that only a conservative can be against alienating conservatives, and a true libertarian would be OK with whatever is done to conservatives - after all, he's not one, so who cares about those people ?

You're kind've chasing your tail there. I wasn't aware that libertarians would be against alienating conservatives but then totally ok with alienating women because Hayek.

> I wasn't aware that libertarians would be against alienating conservatives

Because it's only not OK to alienate people who we agree with, but the idea of having civil discussion with people we disagree with... who needs that? Just call them names, chase them out and be done with it! Do you think this is the libertarian way? Where did you meet libertarians like these?

> then totally ok with alienating women because Hayek.

Err what? Who you are arguing with here? Nobody said it's "ok with alienating women" and Hayek has nothing to do with it. Could you please leave that strawman alone, he needs a well-deserved rest.

Post reply on HN