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

How the Valley treats experienced people

rachelbythebay.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–508 of 508 posts

Re: How the Valley treats experienced people

#501

Post by kiriakasis »

greglindahl wrote: post #290
dominotw wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An employer might prefer having employees with children Isn't this straight up illegal? Only straight ppl can have children, for example.

I have several gay friends with children. But yes, at least in California it's illegal to even ask if people have children in interviews.

> it's illegal to even ask if people have children in interviews.

This is to avoid so discriminate against people without children, an objectively right objective.

Still you can accommodate the needs of people with children as a sort of "levelling the field". The same way you can accommodate the needs of minorities by making sure that office culture is respectful of their identities.

If I can go a bit off-topic in both cases the specific demography you are trying to help might be just an example of a common human trait that is just easier to see in some people. Sometimes single men want to work part-time and white rich people do not like racist jokes.

Re: How the Valley treats experienced people

#502

Post by nathan_long »

oarabbus_ wrote: post #497
unclebucknasty wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zuckerberg is who he is--the same guy who, in college, called his fellow students "dumb f---s" for trusting him with their data. People want to excuse that as youth, but he wasn't an 8 year-old; he was an adult, with many of his morals formed. A statement like that is not indicative of immaturity, but insight into character--the way he views himself and other people--and it also reveals a willingness to use dishonest…

>Zuckerberg is who he is--the same guy who, in college, called his fellow students "dumb f---s" for trusting him with their data. I don't really get why people constantly bring this up. First of all he's not wrong - anyone with a FB account (including myself) is an idiot for trusting them, and second of all, it's not even really that insensitive. I mean, could most people here really claim to have never said anything…

It's notable for several reasons.

> First of all he's not wrong - anyone with a FB account (including myself) is an idiot for trusting them

First of all, many intelligent people got FB accounts in the early days because they didn't know / understand the privacy implications. Eg, some of them surely were college students who went on to become neurosurgeons, astronomers, doctors, etc. They acted on a reasonable heuristic - "this web site looks legit, people I know are using it, there appear to be social benefits, and I live in a country where rule of law is generally enforced, so it's probably safe enough." So they were not dumb categorically, even if their decision in this case turned out to be (arguably) dumb.

Second, for you to call the users idiots for trusting FB is one thing. For Zuckerberg to call them idiots for trusting him is different. A scammer probably thinks of his victims as idiots, whereas their friends think of them as regular people who got tricked. The quote sounds like he meant "because of course I'm going to abuse that trust."

And in context (according to https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg), that appears to be exactly what he meant, treating users' information as his own possession.

> Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard > Zuck: Just ask > Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS > [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? > Zuck: People just submitted it. > Zuck: I don't know why. > Zuck: They "trust me" > Zuck: Dumb f---s

So this quote is brought up not because it shows his insightful analysis of the fact that generally speaking, people should not trust online services, but because it seems to show his own intent, from the beginning, to take advantage of FB users and blame them for trusting him in the first place.

Re: How the Valley treats experienced people

#503

Post by lisper »

world32 wrote: post #500
lisper wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a bit of an overstatement, With all due respect I think I'm in a better position to judge that than you are. But there are two things you should know. First, I haven't told you the whole story (and I'm not going to). And second... > the person interviewing you did not know that you had been told there would be a know [sic] ruby questions The conversation went something like this: Him: Welcome, the first thin…

Ok, so that conversation sounds pretty reasonable, you said "OK, I'll give it my best shot, but don't expect too much.", then proceeded to give it a shot and actually succeeded at debugging it. So... whats the problem?

Like I said: the problem is that they lied to me, and as a result they made me waste a day of my life [1]. If I'd known that this was going to happen, I could have either brushed up on my Ruby, or (more likely) cancelled the interview because I would have known ahead of time that I would not be a good fit for their company. There is a reason I've never used Ruby, and it's not that I've never had the chance. I told them that, and they said it would not be a problem. But it was.

[1] Actually, it was only half a day because they cancelled the interview after two hours. Like I said, I have not told you the whole story, and I'm not going to. But the whole thing was a train wreck from beginning to end.

Re: How the Valley treats experienced people

#505

Post by lolc »

pdimitar wrote: post #476
lolc wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean funding them? I sort of have done that, though probably not in ways you would recognize easily. Unfortunately it would be too private to expand on this here.

I have always been curious about how this works or how people decide whom to fund -- or whose ideas they find interesting. Do you mind a private message?

I regret my reply that sounds a lot like I'm some sort of secret donor. Instead, I work with diverse political projects. They have in common that they don't use money transactions in specific situations where others would. It's interesting to see what happens when money as motivator is removed.

Sometimes I'm a technician, sometimes I help organize, sometimes I'm the legal front. And some projects I do fund, but not to a degree that anybody's livelihood depended on me.

Re: How the Valley treats experienced people

#506

Post by pdimitar »

lolc wrote: post #505
pdimitar wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have always been curious about how this works or how people decide whom to fund -- or whose ideas they find interesting. Do you mind a private message?

I regret my reply that sounds a lot like I'm some sort of secret donor. Instead, I work with diverse political projects. They have in common that they don't use money transactions in specific situations where others would. It's interesting to see what happens when money as motivator is removed. Sometimes I'm a technician, sometimes I help organize, sometimes I'm the legal front. And some projects I do fund, but not t…

And I am sorry if it sounded like I am fishing for sponsorship. Not at all!

I am simply very much interested in the dynamics of the process. I would like to know how do people get together to discuss such things in the first place, for example.

Apologies if I projected the wrong message before.

Re: How the Valley treats experienced people

#507

Post by lolc »

pdimitar wrote: post #506
lolc wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I regret my reply that sounds a lot like I'm some sort of secret donor. Instead, I work with diverse political projects. They have in common that they don't use money transactions in specific situations where others would. It's interesting to see what happens when money as motivator is removed. Sometimes I'm a technician, sometimes I help organize, sometimes I'm the legal front. And some projects I do fund, but not t…

And I am sorry if it sounded like I am fishing for sponsorship. Not at all! I am simply very much interested in the dynamics of the process. I would like to know how do people get together to discuss such things in the first place, for example. Apologies if I projected the wrong message before.

Haha no worries you didn't project that. At least not to me. I just tought my response came across as if I was a big benefactor.

As for how I found the projects to engage in: I got asked for tech help, went to a meeting, and found people that had unusual takes on reality. I went with those who were doing stuff, as opposed to those discussing how it ought to be. I don't have much initiative myself and prefer working with people who have that drive.

Re: How the Valley treats experienced people

#508

Post by castlecrasher2 »

cozuya wrote: post #269
castlecrasher2 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I just don't think I'm in te proper situation to do it. In my experience there are two kinds of pre-kid people: those who aren't ready for it and those who lie about being ready for it.

Irritating attitude and assumptions. Even the wording of "being ready for it" is ignorant. There are many, many successful people who do not have or do not want or will not ever want children.

My apologies, I didn't intend to suggest anything like people with no intention of having children are simply "pre-kid" until they come to their senses.
Post reply on HN