71–80 of 115 posts
Well they learned the perfect team should be composed of the best breed of white males, between 25 and 45, and that they should be sufficient, arrogant, and leaning to the far-right when possible - but using progressive rhetorics. Lol.
I read through the HN comments of this very same article from almost two years ago wondering whether the message of the article would have been interpreted any differently. It is really surprising how much negativity there is in today's comments as opposed to the older topic. In 2016 people were calling this article enjoyable and even "Their favorite Google-related article of the year". I found suggestions on how to…
I wonder if it's simpler than that: Google (Alphabet) has destroyed a lot of good will in the past two years, and the comments in the section reflect that. I can think of several instances in the past two years that makes me mistrust them more, such as taking down accounts at random and taking a peron's entire digital life with it (causing me to move as much as possible off of Google), the random flagging of document…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if it's simpler than that: Google (Alphabet) has destroyed a lot of good will in the past two years, and the comments in the section reflect that. I can think of several instances in the past two years that makes me mistrust them more, such as taking down accounts at random and taking a peron's entire digital life with it (causing me to move as much as possible off of Google), the random flagging of document…
Ranking documents by quality and choosing what to index has been Google's mission since Day 1. That never changed.
TL;DR: "…the good teams all had high ‘‘average social sensitivity’’ — a fancy way of saying they were skilled at intuiting how others felt based on their tone of voice, their expressions and other nonverbal cues. One of the easiest ways to gauge social sensitivity is to show someone photos of people’s eyes and ask him or her to describe what the people are thinking or feeling — an exam known as the Reading the Mind i…
What isn't mentioned is that the 'Mind in the Eyes' test is used to assess autism and spectrum conditions.
If that kind of empathy is necessary for good teamwork then the neuro-diverse are at a disadvantage in that type of work and systematically excluded from companies that do all of their work in teams. Companies that take this seriously could assess where teamwork is important - and where it isn't - and hire appropriately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's very clearly culturally biased too. If you have ever done any training in this area you know that different cultures (even if they appear racially similar) do facial expressions, eye contact, and so on differently. Maybe all we are seeing here is that white people can read the facial expressions of white people... I'm under the impression that the cultural differences are largely in how much you let out, not i…
I'm under the impression that the cultural differences are largely in how much you let out, not in what the expression looks like when you do. Annoyance vs anger is all in how much you let out, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> by the same group of people Don't think it's the same group of people, it feels like intelligent and mentally healthy individuals have been opting to abstain from online discussions in general over the last few years in droves after realizing their time and energy and better spent elsewhere. Especially with the trend of comments being taken out of context to attack individuals employers/livelihood. That leaves the…
Ah! I think you are onto something there. I noticed it as well; Reddit is the worst offender as even serious and well founded comments are butchered and lighthearted/funny ones are upvoted in the 10000s. If you have better stuff to do, you will just think; fuck it then I don't answer. I would love to have good discussions with new peers online, but doing that in open court seems to attract the weirdos so I just go do…
Maybe that's just a sign of my growing older, but I think some of it might be the degradation of the community's general moral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sure it's not because you're better educated and harder to impress? I thought the same thing until I did a deep dive on some old articles and the comments weren't noticably different.
Probably a factor, I also think it's partly because the forums I use at the moment used to be programming centric, but have since broadened their appeal. Hn to Tech business, reddit to literally everything. Lobste.rs has been a fantastic alternative for decent discussion
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh please. Everyone online is far stupider and more insane than before? There's an assertion wanting for evidence.
As the internet population increased the mean intelligence went down. Such an obvious and expected trend, I have to wonder if you're ok. Maybe you're so well-trained that you stop thinking when you jump to a conclusion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you work at Google, or what are you basing these bold assertions on? FTR, I'm a manager at Google. I don't feel qualified to comment on the research or the specifics of this article, but I can assure you Google takes building effective teams pretty darn seriously.
Are you suggesting that working at google somehow impacts OP's ability to read the article and determine if the article cites data?
OP made some very bold claims about how Google works internally and unless he's a first-hand witness (Google employee), he really needs to provide some data of his own to back his assertions up.