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

351–360 of 404 posts

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#351

Post by s3cur3 »

dictum wrote: post #300
edison85 wrote: post #278

Having read the full manifesto, I find myself agreeing with the author's thought process for a bunch of his points and clearly disagreeing with others. He presented them well, not offensive at all, and if I had a discussion with him I'm sure he seems open to change certain beliefs if presented with ample evidence. I would generally love talking to this guy. Instead everyone shames him, tells him his mostly very valid…

> Instead everyone shames him, tells him his mostly very valid thought process is sexist and his career is done. It's a method: https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session

Broken link (missing a colon): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#352

Post by dang »

mcphage wrote: post #291
carsongross wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comment 1: > It's not great, but the idea that attacking people verbally is somehow "better" than attacking them physically is wrong. Comment 2: > Solving disagreements through discussion is better than solving them through violence lol, always amusing when I assume both intelligence and good faith when discussing things on the internet. You think I'd learn.

Wait, are you actually equating discussions, with verbally attacking someone? And then you have the gall to accuse me of acting in bad faith?

Would you please not do the flamewar thing on HN? It's tediously off topic and damages the site.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#353

Post by dang »

mcphage wrote: post #203
tibiapejagala wrote: post #144

I might partially or totally disagree with the original manifest, but this reply is repulsive. I would never want to have a "senior" like this. So much emphasis on how senior he is, how junior you have to write something so wrong. How OP's career is over. The 3rd point reads like navy seals copypasta but with HR instead. If you don't see any other way to deal with OP's views than described in this belittling rant, th…

> >Essentially, engineering is all about cooperation, collaboration, and empathy for both your colleagues and your customers. > Replace 'engineering' with science, medicine, finance, customer service, politics, retail, programming etc., and it will sound as correct. Why, so it would! How about that. It's like watching a lightbulb is slowly turning on above your head.

> It's like watching a lightbulb is slowly turning on above your head.

Perhaps I'm misreading this, but if not: personal attacks will get you banned on HN. Please don't do this again.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#354

Post by Lagged2Death »

philwelch wrote: post #350
Lagged2Death wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this guy might lose his job. His career. All for voicing his opinion. This has always been true and I can't understand how you would imagine it was ever otherwise.

I'm not sure if you're being defensive or cynical here. It's true that people have always lost their jobs and careers (sometimes lives!) for voicing unpopular opinions. What's interesting is how people's moral judgment of that correlates with their sympathy for the particularly unpopular opinion in question. Lots of people lost their jobs and careers for voicing opinions that were sympathetic to Communism, and we cal…

I don't know that much about McCarthyism but I think it's safe to guess that you know less. It was considered a witch hunt because nobody cared about facts or evidence, the spectacle was the point. Victims we're persecuted because they were juicy, suceptible targets, not because of anything they did or didn't do.

The situation we're discussing here is pretty different.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#355

Post by adrienne »

muninn_ wrote: post #201
pacala wrote: post #199

> And as for its impact on you: Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them. You have just…

Tell me about it. Reading that made me sick. I don't necessarily agree with the original manifesto, but the idea that "a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face" is an acceptable thing to say is ridiculous. If this "manifesto" was actually racist and bigoted, it still doesn't excuse violence, or the suggestion of violence. That is FAR worse. It's un-American. We tolerate…

Boy, you really show your true colors when you put the Black Panther Party in with the KKK and Westboro. It's pretty disgustingly racist, in fact, but that's par for the course around here.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#356

Post by nxmehta »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #262

I'm deeply troubled by the response to this "manifesto". Pitchforks are out for this guy, and when they find him, it won't be pretty. I think that's wrong. He has expressed his opinion, and people are free to confront, and denounce him all they want. But this guy might lose his job. His career. All for voicing his opinion. I don't think it matters that he did this internally. Had he stood up at a discussion in Palo A…

> But this guy might lose his job. His career. All for voicing his opinion.

Perhaps you aren't employed in the United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

If you are in fact aware of this concept, then I really don't understand your hyperbole.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#357

Post by zwischenzug »

'I’m not going to spend any length of time on (1); if anyone wishes to provide details as to how nearly every statement about gender in that entire document is actively incorrect,¹ and flies directly in the face of all research done in the field for decades, they should go for it. But I am neither a biologist, a psychologist, nor a sociologist, so I’ll leave that to someone else.'

Ironic that he confuses gender and sex here, further emphasizing his ignorance.

The general point about flying 'directly in the face of all research done in the field for decades' is not only not true, it's absurdly so:

https://www.google.com/search?q=autism+extreme+maleness+baro...

https://iancommunity.org/cs/understanding_research/extreme_m...

and this exactly is in the area of 'systematising' and 'empathy' that the original author tries to provoke discussion on.

I also find it interesting that the original memo discusses supposed gender differences arising from sex that 'women in tech' discussion frequently puts forward, viz that women are less likely to ask for pay rises.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#358

Post by CalChris »

Aunche wrote: post #153
CalChris wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article quotes “ideological echo chamber.” It also further quotes: > The manifesto talks about making “software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration” but that this is fundamentally limited by “how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be;” and even more surprisingly, it has an entire section titled “de-emphasize empathy,” as one of the proposed solutions. So basical…

While those are technically quotes, it looks like they're there just for the Medium author to mock them.

No, those are actually quotes and they're there to give the OP's voice. He said "ideological echo chamber". He said "de-emphasize empathy". Those are his words.

You might be reading it differently than I am. I don't see a knowing nod and wink between a liberal writer and his liberal readers about one of them. I see an engineering manager genuinely angry about another worker.

You might want to re-read his last paragraph and ask yourself if the author is mocking the OP.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#359

Post by smb06 »

MichaelGG wrote: post #307
smb06 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diversity is about giving people equal opportunity. The core sentiment is that in the work place, in social environments, people should have equal access to show that they can excel to the best of their ability.

Having diversity goals/quotas isn't equal opportunity (see medical admissions being way more strict on Asians than blacks). Plus, as the original doc points out, it's one sided. Underrepresentation of whites/males is fine. No one says hey, there's too many minorities. Just like no one cares that police almost exclusively kill men, with only a handful of women. Why do they aim for a 50/50 gender balance? What if women…

Diversity quotas are not the same thing as promoting diversity.

I support promoting equal opportunity for all races and genders, not race based quotas.

There is a huge difference between the two things.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#360

Post by smb06 »

asciicircum wrote: post #328
smb06 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are saying what the guy posted wasn't offensive and also that everyone is finding it offensive. That makes no sense unless everyone is stupid.

> You are saying what the guy posted wasn't offensive and also that everyone is finding it offensive. This is exactly what's been going through my mind following the threads on this issue today. > That makes no sense unless everyone is stupid. I think this is a false dichotomy. The offended comments seem to be offended by arguments similar to those in the manifesto rather than those in the manifesto. E.g. offense is…

Actually, what I was trying to say was that the document cannot be simultaneously non offensive and yet offend everyone reading it unless "everyone is stupid = has bad reading comprehension"

I don't think everyone has bad reading comprehension, tbh. It is what parts of the document that you focus on - the ones that align with your existing world view - that cause you to agree with it or get offended by it.

Some see it as "just sharing an opinion" and others see it as "questioning my capability of doing the tech job"

Both sides are reading the same document.

Post reply on HN