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

231–240 of 404 posts

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#231

Post by runamok »

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…

I would say their search engine definitely has improved to the point you no longer need "google-fu" and can just type in a question as if you were asking an all knowing Oracle. So yes, I think they now have a deep understanding of how humans think and articulate...

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#232

Post by [deleted] »

muninn_ wrote: post #202
irl_zebra wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe he's talking about punishing the overt act of publishing this large manifesto and the negative consequences that flow from it. Not the thinking or discussing his views.

Shouldn't even be talking about it. It's simply not an option. Violence is not acceptable. Period. Discussing it as a repercussion for a possibly misguided manifesto is not an option. It's disgusting.

[deleted]

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#233

Post by runamok »

codeisawesome wrote: post #161
jogjayr wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're forgetting important Google products where design or user experience played a crucial role in winning. Gmail - the dominant webmail platform that made pioneering use of AJAX; before it you had to refresh the page to check if you had new email. And whose inbuilt chat client crushed Yahoo Messenger/MSN/AOL. People came for the 1GB of free storage, stayed for the friends they made on chat. YouTube - Video juggern…

Don't completely disagree with you. But, Gmail: From my hazy memory of the time it was released: 1. Best usage of AJAX and providing complex interaction without refreshing the page. 2. More storage space than any other provider. Both, technical feats of excellence? Youtube: It was an acquired product, and there were quite a few points at which the YouTube community reacted angrily to Google driven changes, prominentl…

Gmail in my opinion was powerful because it was used search vs. painstakingly moving messages into folders. It also had auto-threading so you would not have the clutter of re:re:re:re: ad nauseum... And most of all it was very fast.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#234

Post by fucktech »

mcphage wrote: post #219
scarmig wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you seriously stating that insulting/offending people is equal in moral gravity to punching them? I read the manifesto and thought it was stupid in most of its claims. But it's not hard to feel like thoughtcrime has become a real thing nowadays.

> Are you seriously stating that insulting/offending people is equal in moral gravity to punching them? Am I seriously stating that abusing people verbally and emotionally is equal in moral gravity to abusing them verbally? Yes.

Even worse sometimes. But don't tell these privileged little cunts who haven't had anything bad happen to them ever.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#235

Post by fucktech »

mcphage wrote: post #219
scarmig wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you seriously stating that insulting/offending people is equal in moral gravity to punching them? I read the manifesto and thought it was stupid in most of its claims. But it's not hard to feel like thoughtcrime has become a real thing nowadays.

> Are you seriously stating that insulting/offending people is equal in moral gravity to punching them? Am I seriously stating that abusing people verbally and emotionally is equal in moral gravity to abusing them verbally? Yes.

Dang loves to cultivate the privileged cunt mentality here if you haven't noticed

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#236

Post by thehardsphere »

nl wrote: post #173
Inconel wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, I'm not a native English speaker, although I do consider myself fluent at this point, and I'm not terribly bright, so I fully admit I could be misinterpreting things, but the quote didn't seem particularly philosophical to me, it read quite literal. I suppose I might categorize it as hyperbole, although even in that case, I typically don't like the use of such hyperbole when it comes to violence. It has a habit…

I agree it has clearly detracted from the point as this discussion shows. But it's pretty important to realize that "punching someone in the face" is a crime, and no company can allow that.

Maybe you missed it, but there's been a distinct trend in America lately to suggest that violence can be OK in political contexts. I would not assume that the author was apeaking figuratively, because many authors who would likely agree with the author would not be.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#237

Post by ue_ »

int_19h wrote: post #95
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.

In general, I see people self-identifying as "classic liberal" when they want to underscore that they're not ancap, and value strong (but limited in scope) governments to protect property rights.

It's a shame that people (especially propertarians and "classical liberals") seem to be more concerned about property rights than fostering individualism.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#238

Post by [deleted] »

scarmig wrote: post #207
mcphage wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh, some people respond to insults with violence. It's not great, but the idea that attacking people verbally is somehow "better" than attacking them physically is wrong.

Are you seriously stating that insulting/offending people is equal in moral gravity to punching them? I read the manifesto and thought it was stupid in most of its claims. But it's not hard to feel like thoughtcrime has become a real thing nowadays.

[deleted]

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#239

Post by thehardsphere »

Goladus wrote: post #195
searealist wrote: post #30

> You have probably heard about the manifesto a Googler (not someone senior) published internally about, essentially, how women and men are intrinsically different and we should stop trying to make it possible for women to be engineers, it’s just not worth it. This sets the tone for the entire article: An emotionally driven rant that refutes nothing and argues against a strawman.

And yet, it has 178 upvotes at the time of posting.

We have to signal our virtue somehow.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#240

Post by ue_ »

cropsieboss wrote: post #115
kyrre wrote: post #101

> (1) Despite speaking very authoritatively, the author does not appear to understand gender. > I’m not going to spend any length of time on (1) ... I am neither a biologist, a psychologist, nor a sociologist, so I’ll leave that to someone else. heh

Yeah, and somehow he knows it goes against nearly all research. That manifesto is obviously inspired by recent rise in popularity of Jordan B Peterson. That guy is a very good psychologist.

He may be a good psychologist, but he frequently speaks on political issues in which he appears to be consistently misinformed, especially his conception on postmodernism, Marxism and the nature of proof[0].

[0] https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/40520012623631155...

Post reply on HN