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

Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 507 posts

Re: Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O

#461

Post by manigandham »

ltrcola wrote: post #456
ghaff wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately college campuses don't protect free discourse for certain stripes of political opinion very well these days either. I agree with your broader point though. Different companies are more or less tolerant of free-wheeling discussion that may not reflect an official company position. But, at the end of the day, if you cause embarrassment (especially as a non-exec, non-critical employee) at most companies, y…

I don't think they necessarily can, in the interest of fostering a welcoming and safe environment for students to learn. Example: "Let's not be scared of having an open, honest, and frank discussion of how Jews have caused the decline of the country." Do you see how ridiculous that sounds and why a university could not in good faith legitimize the proponents of that theory? Now I'm not saying all issues are as black…

> welcoming and safe environment

Words are not going to hurt anyone, actions will. Students (and all people) should absolutely be protected from harmful actions but we cannot stop discourse just because it sounds offensive to someone, no matter the subject.

Re: Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O

#462

Post by novembermike »

clavalle wrote: post #452
Spivak wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but the issue right now is that everyone is pushing an agenda. The only constant is the literal text and the current research which, by accounts from qualified people, don't seem to be in conflict. In the conversation of this issue the facts, what tribe you belong to, and what ought to be done in response to them have been tied together. Unless we can disconnect those everyone's reality is going to be shaped b…

It's strange to me that people don't recognize the disconnect within the memo itself: Basically, it starts off by saying 'Statistics of the general population don't have anything to say about individuals.' Then turns around and says 'Here's a bunch of statistics on the general population that show why there are fewer individuals in various sought after positions.' It's like a spouse saying "I know being poor doesn't…

An individual is an individual. Individuals make up a group. You can apply statistics to individuals in a way that you can't apply to an individual.

I'm repeating the word to make a point. Your second quote might say "individuals" but it's talking about a group.

Re: Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O

#463

Post by davrosthedalek »

ballenf wrote: post #91
Amezarak wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incidentally, what Damore did is probably a 'concerted protected activity' (his stated goal is to take actions that improve working conditions by making the job less stressful, increase diversity, etc) covered by the NLRB, and thus Google quite possibly broke the law in firing him for the memo. That's not protecting the company. EDIT: I forgot to add that from the coverage I've seen, there are also claims that Google…

Unless the fine/settlement is cheaper than keeping him, which it likely will be unless it results in some larger investigation or monitoring program.

If somebody elects to break the law because it was cheaper (even if caught), the law has to change to make it more expensive. Also, if it is perceived widely that Google broke the law, "do no evil" is out the window. That would cost them dearly.

Re: Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O

#464

Post by hrktb »

MagnumOpus wrote: post #428
hrktb wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not familiar enough with the field, but from what I get scanning payscale.com: - general physician: 60% women, 137k in average - pediatricians: 80% women, 144k in average - obstetricians/gynecologists: 70% women, 205k in average - radiologist: 20% women, 300k in average Basically, in the doctors field pediatrician or gynecologist are middle range salary. Nothing to sneeze at, but the more lucrative areas pay way…

Since there isn't much difference in required skill or credentials or prerequisites (let's assume there isn't) we are back to preferences. What do we observe? The top three are high-social-interaction, nurturing-type jobs, the bottom one is technology-heavy and more solitary. So we are back at the point that the document made - differing preferences are a far more likely explanation than discrimination.

I don’t think there is much social interaction difference or technological investment difference between the jobs...but lets assume there is.

Wouldn’t it seem reasonable to you that a young single woman getting out of years of heavy training would want a shot at the 300k job instead of the 200k one ?

Even assuming she is not that interested in radiology, the gap is wide enough she could go the 300k way for a decade or so to amass FU money and just retire or move to a more fun but less paying job afterward (I personally know medical staff going this route and semi-retiring at 35)

I mean, people have preferences, but more than half of the woman in the medical course giving up on 100k of revenure just to have a “nurturing” job seems highly artificial to me. I would highly expect a dozens of other factors pushing them that way, instead of it just being pure personal preference.

Re: Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O

#465

Post by jshevek »

mathattack wrote: post #189
agentultra wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By firing him they made him a hero to enormous groups, To a small, vocal group. > By doing it in an anti-science, anti-evidence way There were good reasons for doing it that had nothing to do with science or evidence. There are women working at Google who do not need to be reminded of the genetic and biologic differences they have from their cishet male counterparts. If Damon had issues with the policies at Google…

Unfortunately I don't think it's that small. It's similar to saying "The Trump base is a small vocal group" - perhaps it's really larger than we care to admit?

Yes.

Of course we can't reasonably assess how large these groups are, when we are all - liberals and conservatives alike - being told not to express our opinions by leaders in universities, media, and tech companies.

It's like Sundar declaring that most employees supported him - after he fired someone for questioning management.

Did he really expect honest answers?

Re: Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O

#466

Post by jshevek »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #187
jressey wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No matter what he intended the thesis to be, that thing was just a bunch of dog whistles that sounded an awful lot like ignorant alt-right bullshit to me.

And he basically confirmed it by doing his first interview with Stefan Molyneux.

This sounds a lot like an accusation of guilt, based purely by association.

Which part of the parent's comment do you believe he "confirmed" by allowing himself to be interviewed by SM?

Re: Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O

#467

Post by jshevek »

evolve2017 wrote: post #272
GreaterFool wrote: post #117

This is the first fair and balanced article on this topic I've seen. > In his memo, Damore cites a series of studies, making the case, for example, that men tend to be more interested in things and women more interested in people. (Interest is not the same as ability.) I've been trying to hammer this point to all my colleagues (in private of course, I wouldn't dare to post it on public channel due to high probability…

I'm finding this to be a fascinating look at how people, as a group, do literary criticism. I think, if we step back from the actual words on the paper and examine the author's intent, his choice of evidence, and the mere fact that he chose to write this, we can learn just as much as from trying to decide whether or not he was talking about a population effect when talked about women before mentioning Google employee…

"examine the author's intent"

That's tricky.

Do we take the author at face value when they make claims about their intent?

Many critics seem to think they can see the author's "true intent", and when they can't substantiate their claim, blame others for failing to see what they see.

Re: Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O

#468

Post by MarkMc »

peoplewindow wrote: post #77

I am minded to agree. And that's a shame, because Pichai has done good things for Chrome and Android when he was leading those. The article doesn't really touch on Pichai's biggest mistakes here. Mistake one: Damore's memo alleged discrimination, both against men and conservatives. Gender and political affiliation are both protected classes in California and they just fired him for whistleblowing. He has now filed a…

Let me add one more mistake: Pichai was quoted as saying that the vast majority of emails he has received from Googlers have been in support of Damore's firing. How can he be so clueless to think this is a representative sample? After such a huge drama, he still doesn't realise that some people are afraid to say what they think.

(Despite all this I don't think these mistakes are enough to cost him his job, given excellent leadership of Android and Chrome)

Re: Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O

#469

Post by evolve2017 »

jshevek wrote: post #467
evolve2017 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm finding this to be a fascinating look at how people, as a group, do literary criticism. I think, if we step back from the actual words on the paper and examine the author's intent, his choice of evidence, and the mere fact that he chose to write this, we can learn just as much as from trying to decide whether or not he was talking about a population effect when talked about women before mentioning Google employee…

"examine the author's intent" That's tricky. Do we take the author at face value when they make claims about their intent? Many critics seem to think they can see the author's "true intent", and when they can't substantiate their claim, blame others for failing to see what they see.

I think that's an issue that a lot of science-minded folks disagree with.

I happen to think there's a lot about the author's time/mental state/life circumstances that one can find in the words themselves.

A much more light-hearted example is Quentin Tarrantino's insistence that he hasn't watched the Truffaut film 'And the bride wore black' - even though Kill Bill is an eerily similar remake.

Should I believe the author's product or his rationalization?

Re: Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O

#470

Post by luckydude »

ltrcola wrote: post #458
wonderwonder wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty amazed how badly google dropped the ball on this. They could have easily made the problem go away, likely with a few conversations where they agree to sit down and listen to his concerns upon his first submission of them to the diversity team or as you suggested a check and NDA. Whoever runs the diversity team should absolutely lose their job for letting this get to this point. Following that whoever decid…

I actually find that highly unlikely. Look how fast Damore has been involved with the conservative media. That aside, if he was really convicted in his opinion, do you think he would take the money?

My take, and it's worth what you paid for it which is nothing, is that he was genuine in his opinions. I didn't get that he had a conservative axe to grind (I did get a sense that he might lean that way) but it didn't seem like he was trying to move the needle to the left or to the right, he was trying to find a better way to do what google was trying to do.

What I'm trying to say is that I think the conservative media picked him, he didn't pick them.

So yes, I think he would have taken the money. Google could have made this go away for what was a rounding error to them but retirement money to him. Nobody says no to their retirement even if they don't want to retire. It's called fuck you money for a reason, you never have to put up with a crap job again if you have that backstop.

Post reply on HN