301–305 of 305 posts
I'll work overtime and crank more code, while others try to debate their moral stance
Always think about how you can benefit from a particular scenario
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I would consider India to be South Asia, not SE Asia" ok. that's fair. Do you consider Japan to be part of SE Asia? Taiwan? (Due disclosure, I've never lived either country - only transited through them - and don't follow their politics closely, but afaik they are both democracies with regular and fair elections). In your opinion are these countries 'true' democracies? (fwiw, not trying to pick a fight, just trying…
In my head, SE Asia is everything East of Bangladesh, South of Mongolia, North of Australia, and I guess West of Hawaii. I would include China in there, but not Korea or Japan, for not very well articulated reasons. I guess "Southern China" if that was a thing ;) Not sure about Taiwan at all. So, looking at the "Democracy Index"[1], the highest-ranking SE Asian countries are Malaysia and the Philippines, at 52 and 53…
Google execs know that as long as they have the best benefits in the industry and keep their workers cushy they'll also have complete control over them. This is because when you're at the top of the food chain, very few people are actually willing to put their money where their mouth is and take meaningful action. It's deliciously hypocritical to see Google workers here (and HN posters in general) lament Facebook wor…
People should not be making the choice between the health and possibly lives of their family and working for an employer destroying the fabric of society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> each of those Google (former) employees have shares They have class C shares, which do not have any voting rights. Shareholders without voting rights have absolutely no power to influence policy. > If they lose more employees it can be argued that they're ignoring their fiduciary duty to the shareholders by tarnishing the brand of Google which makes hiring more difficult which leads to less profits. You're making a…
> They have class C shares, which do not have any voting rights. Shareholders without voting rights have absolutely no power to influence policy. You're right, they're using class C for compensation: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/052215/goog-or... But that doesn't prevent employees from buying up class A voting shares, though: > A shares receive one vote, C shares receive no votes, and B shares receiv…
Nope. The company has control over how many class A and B shares exist, and currently between Sergey, Larry, and Eric they control over 50% of the voting rights as determined by shares: https://www.morningstar.com/articles/820137/which-stock-shar...
So there's absolutely no way any employees would be able force anything through a vote. They'd need to convince at least one of those three people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have to make decisions in support of their charter, which usually includes profit maximization. Google at least used to have "Don't be Evil" in there, which should be a pretty relevant shield.
It was never in the charter. It's not a shield of any sort. It's just a motto in the code of conduct. The motto has since changed but those words are still there, now in the last sentence. It's meaningless and always has been. Why do people think that this cheesy phrase makes any difference for a giant corporation?
> Why do people think that this cheesy phrase makes any difference for a giant corporation?
Speaking for myself. I thought it made a difference as part of the charter, with the expectation that overtly evil behavior can be punished eith real teeth (shareholder lawsuits for violating the charter)