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

441–450 of 486 posts

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

#441

Post by smsm42 »

test001only wrote: post #323
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…

This exactly. The common playbook now seems to be to hide racism and intolerance under the blanket of conservative and accusing anyone who opposes that to be against free speech and conservatives. These nonnegotiable values do not belong to the left or right, it belongs to the society as a whole.

No, the common playbook now seems to be to accuse anybody disagreeing with the hard left in racism and intolerance as an attempt to avoid any discussion with them and if possibly, demolish their personality and their life so nobody else would dare to speak up. While posing as "society as a whole" and taking on oneself to define what is nonnegotiable (which curiously seems to be exactly matching the views of whoever is declaring it) and unilaterally deciding that only the views the declarer holds or ones extremely similar to them are even worth discussing, and people not agreeing to them must be unpersoned.

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

#442

Post by smsm42 »

CoolGuySteve wrote: post #334
oriol16 wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

treating people equally, regardless of gender, sexuality, or ethnic origin This is a very vague statement, you can apply to your convenience. You could say Damore broke the principle and justify any penalty against him. I could say you don't follow this civility premise by choosing your partner based on your gender. Every country in the world has "ethno-nationalist views against immigrants", and things work fine.

The world would be $78 trillion richer if countries had open borders. So I'm not sure what definition you have for "fine". https://www.economist.com/the-world-if/2017/07/13/a-world-of...

This article is bunk. It makes unbased extrapolation from small-volume migration to a mass migration which has completely different set of problems. ObXKCD: https://www.xkcd.com/605/

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

#443

Post by monochromatic »

akhilcacharya wrote: post #417
monochromatic wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven’t exactly seen trans folks being rounded up and out into camps. The people who said everything was going to be all right were correct. TDS remains in effect for others.

“Not committing genocide” is a very low bar for a presidency in the worlds sole superpower and I’m concerned that anyone would hold this or any administration to such a low standard.

It’s what people were getting their panties in a wad over.

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

#444

Post by monochromatic »

akhilcacharya wrote: post #408
monochromatic wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No concerns about the “shy trump voter” phenomenon this time around?

Nobody believed that then either because it’s a myth.

How do you explain the election results then?

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

#445

Post by monochromatic »

supernovae wrote: post #387
monochromatic wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>every criticism of a woman is a criticism because she’s a woman

K.

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

#446

Post by smsm42 »

azinman2 wrote: post #211
rdtsc wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Its interesting to think about Brietbart putting this out there as some 'evil' thing, Never worked at Google, but as they say it went about as I would have expected based on my outside perspective. Or at least I wasn't stunned by anything in particular... Overall I think what people dislike is the disconnect between the PR message of "all opinions are welcome / we are open / neutral" vs the reality of them being fa…

Just because there’s a semi-uniform political bend doesn’t mean they’re biased in product. The ACLU backed the KKK’s right to March, but clearly doesn’t stand with the KKK’s values. That’s something the Breitbart audience can’t wrap their mind around, as they’d never do the same.

> Just because there’s a semi-uniform political bend doesn’t mean they’re biased in product

Surely. But that seems to be a basic assumptions in these quarters - if you hold certain views, they can't but influence who you are and how you do all things, including work. Isn't that the premise Damore and others were fired under? Isn't that the premise people get disinvited from tech conferences under - even if their politics has nothing to do with technology, their presence and others knowing about it can't but influence the interactions with them and the products they create, consciously or unconsciously.

But it can not work only in some cases - if we recognize that these things are unseparable, then it becomes impossible to claim Google being biased hard to the left has no influence on their decisions, including product decisions.

Example: if somebody who is working on search rankings writes an ML model to define what "reputable source" looks like, and by nature of their views they read only left-leaning publications, then the model will be trained in majority on such publications as "reputable", and would likely treat non-left-leaning ones as less reputable. Even without explicit intention of bias, the bias would be there. Moreover, since most of the people in Google would hold the same views, nobody would notice that bias as the output of the model would look exactly like they expect it to look.

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

#447

Post by simonsarris »

UncleMeat wrote: post #439
simonsarris wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, my contention is that people who want to talk about immigration often get a response sidetracked with talking about Trump & co and whatever their positions are, instead of talking about immigration. (Or worse, lumping any positions into support for whatever they're doing.)

That's fine, but that clearly isn't what happened here. This is very specifically about Trump.

The parent-most comment I replied to is commenting specifically on workplace tolerance, which I take to mean among employees and their own views.

Trump does not work at Google, Trump supporters at Google may support his policies, or not, and for his reasons or for their own reasons. Conservatives more generally have claimed Google is intolerant of their views, which is the reason this video is making the rounds in the first place.

So I disagree, I do not think this is very specifically about Trump. I think this is about workplace discussion of political issues, and for that matter is an issue in SV that pre-dates Trump. For example from 2015: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/closete...

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

#448

Post by smsm42 »

dzdt wrote: post #398
mc32 wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

20, 30 years ago many of the same people clamoring for open borders now were speaking against globalization, corporate imperialism, cultural imperialism, but speaking for and on behalf of the cause of American workers who were being swapped out for offshoring, etc. But now the credo is open borders and strong companies which can stand against nation states and dictate values.... It’s as if the political magnetosphere…

Who is clamoring for open borders? I don't know of any prominent examples of political figures who take that position, just examples where their opponents falsely characterise the position as "open borders".

Just in this topic there is several commenters that take exactly that position. There are many more. Of course, not every person who opposes immigration restrictions is for open borders, and not every politician that is ultimately for open borders would think it is a good tactics to proclaim it right now. But proponents of unlimited (and essentially unlimited - i.e. guarded by checks that anyone with two brain cells can pass or limited by mechanism that lacks enforcement in practice) immigration obviously and prominently exist. You can see people with slogans proclaiming that on any pro-immigration protest. Surely, not everybody thinks so. But denying that there are many people saying so is denying the obvious.

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

#449

Post by smsm42 »

dzdt wrote: post #419
mc32 wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ptogressive base makes arguments for it. They make arguments against ICE, make arguments agaist enforcing immigration laws, make arguments for “sanctuary cities”. What other country, even poor countries who, for consistency’s sake, should espouse such policy had such policies? Most othet countries I’ve been to the police have the power to deport; depening on case, on the spot. I have known of people who worked ab…

Neither "abolish ICE" nor "sanctuary cities" are equivalent positions to "open borders". That's my point. I just searched again, and find only one example of a politician coming anywhere close to advocating open borders (Keith Ellison, representative for MN, wore a shirt saying "yo no creo en fronteras." He has however repeatedly refused to openly say he supports "open borders".) The mainstream liberal/progressive po…

"sanctuary city" is essentially equivalent to open borders. If you deny the ability to enforce immigration policy, then having immigration policy is just a waste of money and effort. It's like having a door but no walls around, so if you are not allowed in the door, you just go around it.

> He has however repeatedly refused to openly say he supports "open borders"

Come on. If the person does not say "open borders" for tactical reasons, it doesn't mean he doesn't support the concept, especially if he says "no creo en fronteras".

> The push to abolish ICE and for sanctuary cities is a reaction to injustice committed in the name of the law by ICE specifically.

So let's say police and courts do an injustice (that happens a lot) and you say you want now to abolish police and courts. Would it be unfair to say you object to law enforcement? If yes, then you'd have to explain how do you see law enforcement absent police and courts. Or recognize that - for whatever reasons you arrived to this position - you are now doing exactly that. Somebody who objects to enforcement of immigration laws - as a whole, not in specific cases - must either explain how it is not "open borders" - and the burden of proof is on them - or recognize that's what they are for. Even if it is tactically uncomfortable.

> All the talk about "open borders" comes from conservatives purposely exaggerating and mis-characterizing their opponents' views

Please explain how "open borders" is mischaracterizing "yo no creo en fronteras". Maybe my Spanish is worse than I thought it is - what exactly does it mean then?

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

#450

Post by [deleted] »

smsm42 wrote: post #440
danharaj wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> intersectionality is about how one describes reality I am sorry, but this is one of the most useless definitions I've read lately. Almost any human activity and any point of view can be described as "about how one describes reality", from quantum gravity theory to buddhism. And, on top of that, it does not contradict the premise bitlax described above. I am all for thinking critically but if you proclaim that the d…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN