Google’s first all-hands after 2016 election [video] • Hacker News Board

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

#381

Post by jbattle » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 2:39 PM UTC

bitlax wrote: post #331

cromwellian wrote: post #319

Seems no one understands Popper's Paradox. Lots of talk about it being unfair that a workplace is intolerant of people who are intolerant. There are just some values that are not negotiable for a modern, civilized, homogeneous society. We're not talking about debates about the level of social welfare, or regulation, we're talking about common decency of treating people equally, regardless of gender, sexuality, or eth…

Modern intersectionality dictates that people be treated very differently based on their gender, sexuality, and ethnic origin.

Modern intersectionality starts from the observation that people ARE treated differently based on their gender, sexuality, and ethnic origin.

I don't know who the pope of modern intersectionality is, so I don't know what It dictates. But your formulation, if applied to abolitionists, would read like "Abolitionists dictate that people should be treated very differently based on whether they are currently enslaved"

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

#382

Post by quotemstr » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 2:45 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #229

quotemstr wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> You are part of the problem No personal swipes, please. Your comment would be fine without that.

Noted. Would "This attitude is part of the problem" have been acceptable?

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

#383

Post by quotemstr » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 2:45 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #230

quotemstr wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bacteria absolutely care Seriously? > Political policy determines how the FDA regulates... That's exactly what I mean when I talk about a tendentious excuse for putting activism where it doesn't belong. A drug company might have a lobbying arm that has to care about policy (and that, for pragmatic purposes, talks to all sides!), but a researcher looking at chromosomal recombination isn't going to do a better job of…

> So, according to "crazygringo", neutrality is "by definition" supporting the opposition. Much George Bush. Very "with us or against us". Wow. Would you please stop breaking the site guidelines like this? They include: " Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Noted.

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

#384

Post by danharaj » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 2:50 PM UTC

bitlax wrote: post #370

danharaj wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bad faith interpretation of intersectionality.

It's an accurate one, but you're welcome to add any nuance you feel is necessary and let people respond to it.

Well, for one, intersectionality is about how one describes reality, it is by no means normative and a cursory glance at the wikipedia page indicates as much, with citations if one is so inclined to put any effort at all in thinking critically.

But are you?

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

#385

Post by maxehmookau » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 2:51 PM UTC

nailer wrote: post #315

maxehmookau wrote: post #284

Brietbart is not journalism. It is a far-right propaganda outfit and its "work" has no place on a civilised forum such as HN.

Exactly how is this video 'far right propaganda'? The people talking are all Google executives. It's an hour long, there's no cuts or edits.

This video is not. Linking to breitbart supports them financially. We should not do that.

I noticed that people have posted links to the video that Breitbart won't financially gain from.

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

#386

Post by slg » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 2:55 PM UTC

dingle_thunk wrote: post #362

slg wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

By definition, neutrality is not support of anything.

Imagine you are a parent of two children, one 10 years old and the other 7. The two children are fighting with each other. What is the result of staying neutral in that argument? If you don't intervene the 10 year old is almost certainly going to win because they are likely stronger and more mature. By not intervening you are tacitly endorsing the 10 year old's power of the 7 year old.

The same thing applies in any fight/conflict/argument/debate when there is a power imbalance including in politics. This is most obvious in debates about civil rights. When it comes to those issues if you don't support an oppressed people you are endorsing the continue oppression of that people.

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

#387

Post by supernovae » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 3:02 PM UTC

monochromatic wrote: post #140

supernovae wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She was criticized for being female regardless of her misconceptions on military spending and how many jobs people have. A huge chunk of the world doesn't give equal forgiving or demands of females as they do males - they demand more and forgive less. Ever looked at PolitiFact for just about every other politician? Just look at Serena Williams.. she blabbed and it may be the end of her career (or a lingering black ey…

> She was criticized for being female No, she wasn't. There are lots of successful female politicians. She was criticized for being a moron.

Yes, she was. It's a systemic problem in American society. Your comment is essentially proof of your bias. Unless you want to back it up and say everyone is a moron because once again, everyone has said things that could categorically quantify them as a moron - but your holding HER and specifically HER to a special case.

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

#388

Post by Digory » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 3:04 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #217

Digory wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but google’s premise is/was that it is feeding you the unfiltered view of the crowd. If not the world, at least of American computer users. That’s some signal about invariably qualitative judgments on facts. “Hillary Emails” should give you results based on global pagerank, whether or not you agree with the subjective assessments about the importance of Hillary’s emails. Silently substituting the pagerank of N…

> Right, but google’s premise is/was that it is feeding you the unfiltered view of the crowd No, it's never been that; it's always been that it's algorithmically selected to promote the best information, whether the best answer to your question or, more recently through some of their mechanism, the information most likely to be useful in the absence of a specific request, considering a wide variety of general, (and,…

> it's always been that it's algorithmically selected to promote the best information

“Best” being the word doing the work here. There’s been some expectation that Google gives you “best” based on the wisdom of a very large, diverse group. The more it diverges from that, the more it risks losing trust as an impartial assistant.

>Are you seriously suggesting (pagerank)?

I might pick a more precise example after Google tells me the algorithm. I’m using pagerank as shorthand for the early period in which Google assessed “best” mainly through the wisdom of groups. It’s impossible to erase all subjectivity, and it’s never been perfectly objective, but that doesn’t make the goal less important. I wouldn’t object to later versions that address SEO gamesmanship, gives me local mobile results, etc.

Google’s problem is that the video shows people who most Americans would not trust to tell them what’s best, or how to find what’s best. People might trust Google to find out what most people say is best. Google risks making their judgment the product; but what got them this far was a sense they are skilled in reporting back something about the world.

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

#389

Post by nailer » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 3:09 PM UTC

danharaj wrote: post #353

tosser00001 wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There's no reason anyone has to respect ethno-nationalist views against immigrants." There are plenty of reasons to be against the current immigration regime that don't involve ethno-nationalism but it's nearly impossible to forward any such arguments without being accused of being an ethno-nationalist.

Like what?

I find it hard to believe you couldn't think of a reason to not support mass migration other than 'racism', but Sweden let around a million people into a country of 10 million in an unmanaged fashion which is causing a lot of social issues? Germany where Angela Merkel let in 5 million people and the CDU lost a huge amount of support after similar things happened?

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

#390

Post by simonsarris » Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 3:27 PM UTC

cromwellian wrote: post #319

Seems no one understands Popper's Paradox. Lots of talk about it being unfair that a workplace is intolerant of people who are intolerant. There are just some values that are not negotiable for a modern, civilized, homogeneous society. We're not talking about debates about the level of social welfare, or regulation, we're talking about common decency of treating people equally, regardless of gender, sexuality, or eth…

Except there are plenty of rational reasons one might want to restrict immigration by country, as even Gwern has gone over before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13859767

> immigrant outcomes differ by orders of magnitude by country and that this has considerable implications for the immigration debate and that many of the arguments made by the left for illegal immigration & open borders range from ignorant to outright lying with statistics.

In 2014 Havard fellow Eugen Dimant did a study on immigration from corrupt countries, with the consistent finding that "Immigration from corruption-ridden countries boosts corruption in the destination country."

https://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/crook-crook-he-still-crook-a...

To put forth either of these as reasons to restrict immigration from one set of countries, and encourage immigration from another, almost always gets you labeled a racist, ethno-nationalist, etc. If you don't believe you will be called that, I invite you to try and discuss them pro/con style (pretending you are fairly convinced) with some of your more liberal coworkers, and see what they say.

Just being immigration-skeptic in general now often leads to such charges, which is absurd. The most basic rational reason of all is very simple: If the fundamental mechanic of democracy is that the people vote and these votes matter, then every citizen should have a strong interest in making sure that the criteria for being a citizen is in place to attract good citizens and repel bad ones. Instead, we can barely talk about it.