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

Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

breitbart.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 486 posts

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#261

Post by flukus »

gizmo686 wrote: post #151
wyldfire wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is literally what Google was founded on. Hooray! Pre-Google search sucked. It was really bad. > The alternative is to go back to human gatekeepers. I don't know what this means. Humans have never audited/controlled what gets indexed by crawlers. It's always automata unleashed on the data. It would be terribly unproductive to prune or tune the index with humans. However, using humans as a part of a feedback loo…

Digital computers aren't even 100 years old. Human civilization has existed for thousands of years. We have been able to curate and distribute information without computers, and it involved human gatekeepers. Even in the early days of the internet, there were manually constructed listing of pages. Then, as the internet grew, there were manually curated listings. Then, these manually curated listings started to compet…

> the manual curation was delegated to a smaller niche of the information distribution market

I'd say manual curation is bigger than ever, at least for news, it just happens via sites like reddit and HN.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#262

Post by malandrew »

comesee wrote: post #232
jacquesm wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have no reason to believe the people at Breitbart don't sincerely believe in the issues they report on. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt by staking the claim that they are doing this because they are a bunch of cynical bastards. You are making things worse for them by claiming they really are that stupid, and while I can't rule it out 100% it borders on the unbelievable. But if you want to go down that…

I don't think that conservatively biased media is necessarily either stupid or cynically manipulative. Bastards is a strong word. Can you really not imagine an intelligent decent person genuinely holding conservative beliefs? You seem to have strong feelings against Breitbart. Why?

The National Review and the American Conservative are two examples of news sources that lean conservative whose writers and audience are intelligent, decent persons genuinely holding conservative beliefs.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#263

Post by mciancia »

didibus wrote: post #250
randomposter44 wrote: post #89

Part of my decision for leaving Google was the insane left leaning bias within the company. I never outed myself as a conservative person because I've heard coworkers equate republicans to monsters.

I find it reasonable, even somewhat logical, to label racists, sexists, homophobes, trans-phobes, immigrant-phobes, xenophobes, anti-semitists, islamophobes, etc. as monsters. Don't you? I'd be interested to hear why not? Personally, anyone who is actively seeking to enact hurtful policies against targeted individuals who have committed no crimes and shown no treat, in order to benefit themselves, could be logically…

Aaand that is just another example of what OP is talking about ;)

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#264

Post by threatofrain »

slg wrote: post #59
roenxi wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I value political neutrality in the workplace, so I have a lot of in-principle issues with what is being shown here right from the get-go. I didn't wind the video back to find the exact quote, but we now have publicised evidence of senior leadership at Google who stood up and said 'obviously our values are not the same as a big chunk of Americans'. Clearly a lot of them are specific Hillary supporters, a candidate so…

>I value political neutrality in the workplace Political neutrality is just political support of the status quo. That is a perfectly acceptable political stance to take, but you should recognize it is still a political stance.

Granted, most people say political neutrality and they mean a homeostasis for what they like, but some people can say the word and mean it -- such as a YouTube platform that really just doesn't look at what gets posted.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#265

Post by jacquesm »

comesee wrote: post #232
jacquesm wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have no reason to believe the people at Breitbart don't sincerely believe in the issues they report on. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt by staking the claim that they are doing this because they are a bunch of cynical bastards. You are making things worse for them by claiming they really are that stupid, and while I can't rule it out 100% it borders on the unbelievable. But if you want to go down that…

I don't think that conservatively biased media is necessarily either stupid or cynically manipulative. Bastards is a strong word. Can you really not imagine an intelligent decent person genuinely holding conservative beliefs? You seem to have strong feelings against Breitbart. Why?

> Can you really not imagine an intelligent decent person genuinely holding conservative beliefs?

Sure, but that has nothing to do with the heady mix of garbage and conspiracy that the likes of Breitbart like to stir up in order to appeal to emotion rather than to ratio.

> You seem to have strong feelings against Breitbart. Why?

By trying to frame this as an emotional affair you've just killed my appetite for continued discussion. See, I am not going to let you goad me in the same way that Breitbart does to its visitors. It's cheap and in the end does not serve any purpose other than to derail the discussion. It's Schopenhauer 101.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#266

Post by mavhc »

hotpockets wrote: post #100
tzs wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What media are you talking about? I Googled in Google News for Alexandria ocasio Cortes, and almost all of the coverage I found from mainstream publications was positive.

I checked and results are very different if you spell her name with a z, as she does.

I don't see a difference, or much in the way of attack articles

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#267

Post by tomohawk »

panarky wrote: post #55
roenxi wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I value political neutrality in the workplace, so I have a lot of in-principle issues with what is being shown here right from the get-go. I didn't wind the video back to find the exact quote, but we now have publicised evidence of senior leadership at Google who stood up and said 'obviously our values are not the same as a big chunk of Americans'. Clearly a lot of them are specific Hillary supporters, a candidate so…

> I value political neutrality in the workplace If you're doing meaningful work, you're changing things in the world. Changing things in the world is necessarily and inevitably political. If the workplace appears politically neutral, then one of two things must be true. Either what you're doing doesn't affect the outside world, or there are hidden, unstated political motives at work. I would much prefer my company's…

Everything is political. This was partisan, though. There's a big difference between being political and being partisan.

Additionally, advocating for policy changes is far different than acting out like this about specific candidates.

Finally, the fear on display here is mostly the fear that comes from ignorance. It is astounding that a company that prides itself in knowing things would be so ignorant of such a large part of the US population, and would apply such unsavory labels to them and their intentions.

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#268

Post by swebs »

akhilcacharya wrote: post #173
monochromatic wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Considering he continues to have a severely underwater approval rating I’d wager it’s less derangement and more the majority view. If anything the “it’s all normal, everything is fine” folks whose reactions are more interesting here. It’s certainly not the consensus view.

His approval rating has been hovering around 45-50%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trum...

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#269

Post by dragonwriter »

quotemstr wrote: post #107
panarky wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I value political neutrality in the workplace If you're doing meaningful work, you're changing things in the world. Changing things in the world is necessarily and inevitably political. If the workplace appears politically neutral, then one of two things must be true. Either what you're doing doesn't affect the outside world, or there are hidden, unstated political motives at work. I would much prefer my company's…

You are part of the problem. Is antibiotics development changing the world? I should hope so. Do bacteria care about which presidential candidate won? Absolutely not. Most fields, in fact, do not involve the acrimonious political issues of the day. The idea that "everything is political" is a lame excuse that activists use to hack politics into spaces where it doesn't belong. Even if a field has some tenuous connecti…

> Do bacteria care about which presidential candidate won?

Bacteria don't care about anything, but the people developing and prescribing antibiotics very often do care, for reasons directly connected to their work (and those concerns may not be in the same direction.)

Re: Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video]

#270

Post by Janeman544 »

fallingfrog wrote: post #60

Wait, you mean there's bias in our media? All joking aside- I remember watching ed Snowden go from being a "whistleblower" to a "leaker" in the space of 8 hours. I watched Alexandria ocasio Cortez go from a bold new voice to being portrayed as a know-nothing (in a pretty sexist way) in about 6 hours. I remember how all the media were creaming themselves with excitement over the wmd's they were going to find in Iraq.…

Cortes's portrayal however seems pretty spot on to me.
Post reply on HN