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

We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 888 posts

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#551

Post by SirLJ »

Veen wrote: post #532
PavlovsCat wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s an unfortunate error to believe it represents any reality other than Google’s opinion of what its users want in that second. That was also true when search results were purely based on terms entered, barring the domain name affecting the default language, and user configuration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble > A filter bubble – a term coined by Internet activist Eli Pariser – is a state of intell…

Google has evolved; whether it's for the better is open to debate. But we agree that it was never reality even if it used to be the same for everyone. One difference between Google and an old-fashioned library: however arbitrary the collection was, you'd always find the canon, the best selected by the people who could reasonably be expected to know the best. Today, especially on YouTube, there is no canon, no concept…

Whatever, I am way past Google and will not touch their products with 10 foot pole...

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#552

Post by simplify »

tomschlick wrote: post #517
electrograv wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps concerns about 'the over-militarization of police' is essentially a concern for situations where an extreme power imbalance exists between police and civilians, creating a much higher risk of totalitarian abuse and oppression by police in situations where the police force in question becomes corrupt or 'bad' in some way. (Disclaimer: I'm not making an anti-LEO argument; quite the contrary, I'm very pro-LEO, a…

> Can a civilian buy an MRAP? If so, I think your argument works very well Yes you can if you found one for sale (not sure what that market looks like). Civilians can also buy decommissioned tanks, Two ton trucks, humvees, etc.

I would add the question of, can a civilian buy it and use it on the streets? Just owning one in a garage doesn't really mean anything.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#553

Post by notJim »

scarface74 wrote: post #341

And if the employees placed thier values over profits, why are they still there? I wonder if they are going to refuse their stock based compensation?

It is far more effective for them to organize for change than for individuals to quit. Even if they reach the conclusion that quitting is the only option, if it's not organized, it will achieve nothing. The power an individual has is absolutely insignificant compared to the power of a company.

To be honest, Google might even prefer they quit. They could then just be sure to hire more amenable people in the future.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#554

Post by samstave »

jkaplowitz wrote: post #374
taude wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this was 139 out of 88K employees [1]. Doesn't seem like that many? How do we interpret the other 87K+? [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/273744/number-of-full-ti...

It's been a long time since my statistics and econometrics courses, but one conclusion that's definitely unwarranted would be to assume that the rest disagree with the signatories. People who speak up on an issue will always be a small fraction of the larger population of people who share the same opinion.

It would be really interesting stat to know how well heeled the 139 are vs the 88k who can afford to financially bacjk up their principles...

Out of the 88k how many dont care, how many cant afford to care, how many are looking to profit off not caring.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#556

Post by ssully »

electrograv wrote: post #537
tomschlick wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can a civilian buy an MRAP? If so, I think your argument works very well Yes you can if you found one for sale (not sure what that market looks like). Civilians can also buy decommissioned tanks, Two ton trucks, humvees, etc.

In that case, I'm definitely convinced to your side of the argument! If a civilian can buy it, I see no reason why a police force shouldn't be able to as well. That said, I'd love to hear any counter-arguments to this notion, if they exist.

The counter argument would be police departments rarely buy this equipment - it's given to them as part of a program between the Pentagon and law enforcement. They get the vehicles (and lots of other military grade equipment) for a huge discount or free.

There is also the fact that even if a civilian could technically buy one, it's not really feasible to actually do so.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#557

Post by bduerst »

Puer wrote: post #38

I considered working at Google last year after a recruiter reached out to me, but their decision to backtrack on their promise in China changed my mind. I do not morally condemn anyone who works at Google. I have many good friends that are both bright engineers and undeniably good people that work there. I just feel that as someone who's family is Taiwanese, I cannot in good consciousness support the company. I let t…

Would you still work for Amazon? Microsoft? Apple? Facebook?

Because they are actually in China and give concessions to the government.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#558

Post by tomschlick »

sdenton4 wrote: post #546
tomschlick wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm going to go with the vets' opinion on this one. Anecdotal opinions. I know plenty of vets who don't think MRAPs are a big deal at all. > If Brinks trucks do the same work, use Brinks trucks. Armored cars cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy and outfit from companies like Lenco. MRAPs are bought for ~$1k (transport costs) from the federal government. > Militarization of the police force is a very, very,…

It's exactly the riot cop problem. On the cop side, the more armor you have, the less you see and the more hostile the world /seems/; this increases the chance of using force instead of diplomacy in any given situation. On the civilian side, you get to feel like you live in a goddamned war zone, with the police as combatants. It's not a nice feeling. My own approach is to treat cops as large, gun-wielding wild animal…

> this increases the chance of using force instead of diplomacy in any given situation.

I'm not sure diplomacy works when someone is actively shooting at you or other people.

If people are rioting (actually rioting, not protesting) then I honestly don't care how the presence of a MRAP makes them feel. It's the police's job to stop the riot and they need tools to do that.

> I'm not going to call the cops for anything less than assault.

I'm glad you're not the majority. Because the world would be pretty shitty if all the police responded to was physical assaults and above.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#559

Post by tomschlick »

simplify wrote: post #552
tomschlick wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can a civilian buy an MRAP? If so, I think your argument works very well Yes you can if you found one for sale (not sure what that market looks like). Civilians can also buy decommissioned tanks, Two ton trucks, humvees, etc.

I would add the question of, can a civilian buy it and use it on the streets? Just owning one in a garage doesn't really mean anything.

I have personally seen Humvee's driving on the roads so I dont see why not.

Basically an MRAP is just a big truck so as long as it didn't break any traffic laws (too wide, too heavy, etc) then I'd assume its fine. Would depend per state though.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#560

Post by tivert »

oceanplexian wrote: post #331
GeneralMayhem wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Censorship in the EU is generally intended to protect individuals; censorship in China is meant to protect the ones doing the censoring. The EU has democratically elected governments; China is an authoritarian dictatorship. Those are differences in kind, not just degree.

I'm sure the Chinese would say exactly the same thing that the EU does about their system; it "protects" individuals from what they don't need to know. Comments like this make me glad I live in the USA. We don't discriminate on what types of censorship are acceptable or not. Less extraordinary exceptions (Child pornography, Libel), any censorship is in violation of our constitution and most closely held core values.

> I'm sure the Chinese would say exactly the same thing that the EU does about their system; it "protects" individuals from what they don't need to know.

It doesn't matter what the Chinese government says, because if they say something like that they're lying. Their censorship is meant to protect the power and privilege of the already powerful and privileged, and keep everyone else complaint to them.

The only way Chinese censorship "protects" individuals is by discouraging them from having dissident thoughts that the government may decided to personally and physically oppress them for having.

Post reply on HN