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

Google's Civil War

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 158 posts

Re: Google's Civil War

#101

Post by AndrewDucker »

skybrian wrote: post #99
wswkb wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should be able to put, say, "this method is fucking up that variable" in a code comment without a puritan telling me not to do so. Which is funny, as it shows that we're going full circle.

If you think that's bad, wait until you see how nit-picky people get in code reviews. I wouldn't be surprised if there were lint rules for swear words. If you can't deal with criticism of your code, maybe working at a big tech firm isn't for you?

If you can't criticise people's code without swearing maybe working on a professional environment isn't for you?

Re: Google's Civil War

#102

Post by dictum »

wswkb wrote: post #82
pjc50 wrote: post #34

> And in an attempt to quell the increase in uncivil interactions on its internal platforms, its new “community guidelines” ban slurs and references to sex acts in any work document Rather surprised that people were getting away with that in the first place. Edit: just realised that, like codes of conduct, the key difference is that now the rule also applies to the people at the top.

I should be able to put, say, "this method is fucking up that variable" in a code comment without a puritan telling me not to do so. Which is funny, as it shows that we're going full circle.

Personally, I'd prefer "fucking up" to go away, along with "rape" as a colorful equivalent of ruining/causing damage to someone or something.

It associates sex with violence and destruction.

A similar thing used to happen with "gay", which kids would use as an adjective for frustrating or annoying situations.

My preferences notwithstanding, it's still better to be clearer about what's happening. "Fucking up that variable" says very little about the cause of the problem, and its possible solution.

Re: Google's Civil War

#103

Post by bijant »

wbl wrote: post #55
mcguire wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Bolsheviks were actually a minority.

No they were the majority in 1917. Earlier they had been the minority, but post Kornilov they were a majority at the time of the storming of the winter palace.

The Bolsheviks were a majority within the RSDLP in 1903. The extent of their support in 1917 within the wider population is highly debatable but their thought-leadership led to sufficient mindshare to (belatedly) ship the October revolution and scale their product to numerous global markets from the Americas to China within the 20th century. Adoption is currently stagnating while the product is being refactored.

The Bolsheviks, was a faction founded by Vladimir Lenin that split from the Menshevik faction of the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) at its Second Party Congress in 1903. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsheviks

Re: Google's Civil War

#104

Post by wffurr »

malvosenior wrote: post #71
DFHippie wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Retaliating against whistle blowers is a great way to generate bad PR for yourself. You may disagree that this is whistle blowing. You may view these employees as entitled troublemakers. I expect the googlers doing this view themselves as making personal sacrifices for the greater good. In any case, I doubt Google wants to lose talent to competitors because they are viewed as a hotbed of right-to-workers ideology in…

Google didn't hesitate to fire Damore. Whether you agree with him or not, he was definitely blowing the whistle on what he saw as a problem of political extremism being baked into Google's culture. The move was pretty much universally celebrated in the press (although I suspect it had a much more negative impact among people who are independent thinkers).

Damore was not engaging in protected behavior. NLRB sided with Google, and he withdrew his lawsuit.

Re: Google's Civil War

#105

Post by wffurr »

fyoving wrote: post #61
DFHippie wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Retaliating against whistle blowers is a great way to generate bad PR for yourself. You may disagree that this is whistle blowing. You may view these employees as entitled troublemakers. I expect the googlers doing this view themselves as making personal sacrifices for the greater good. In any case, I doubt Google wants to lose talent to competitors because they are viewed as a hotbed of right-to-workers ideology in…

1. Any bad PR resulting from firing these types would be a one time thing instead of this ongoing situation. 2. Google shouldn't accommodate the delusional and entitled. 3. Labor unions are antithetical to sound economic theory and practice, and no other company in the business supports them.

You are completely ignoring the fact that what you propose is illegal in the US.

Also 2 and 3 are just, like, your opinion, man.

I hope for your sake that you're a boss or capitalist and not a worker.

Re: Google's Civil War

#106

Post by deogeo »

icebraining wrote: post #98
deogeo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because those links are about the leaked comments of the diversity advocates. Even so, they do contain a quoted comment (though not leaked) - the right-wing "take out". An example of the reverse wasn't hard to find: > "Women, on average, have more openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also inter…

> though not leaked It's a public tweet, in fact. Easy to find along with the rest of the author's opinions and explanations. > An example of the reverse wasn't hard to find: That quote is from James Damore's memo, and he has been interviewed by many media organizations, like The Guardian and Business Insider, so I don't see how you can claim he didn't have a chance to explain himself.

Yes - he could explain himself after getting fired, and the whole incident blowing up. To treat the sides equally, the news would have had to have been:

Things got even uglier when social justice sympathizers leaked a memo made on the message boards by James Damore, to left-wing news sites, resulting in his firing. "We must do more to foster an atmosphere of open debate." Damore says.

Re: Google's Civil War

#107

Post by detaro »

roenxi wrote: post #49
SolaceQuantum wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, once employees start organising to influence management on business decisions they really need to pony up the capital and become shareholders. Deciding what management does is the privilege of shareholders, not employees. Isn't this precisely describing why unions were originally generated, so that employees can also leverage power equal to the shareholders, and therefore have a say in their own working co…

There is a big difference between that and what is being discussed in this article though. Unions are dealing with pay and conditions - important, but ultimately just aggregating topics that employers and employees were going to negotiate around anyway. This article is talking about: * Amazon workers are demanding more action from the company on battling climate change * Microsoft, employees say they don’t want to bu…

They clearly can at least temporarily, you can currently observe them doing so. Their employers now can decide if they want to call their "bluff" or not, and deal with the consequences of either choice.

Re: Google's Civil War

#108

Post by malvosenior »

wffurr wrote: post #104
malvosenior wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google didn't hesitate to fire Damore. Whether you agree with him or not, he was definitely blowing the whistle on what he saw as a problem of political extremism being baked into Google's culture. The move was pretty much universally celebrated in the press (although I suspect it had a much more negative impact among people who are independent thinkers).

Damore was not engaging in protected behavior. NLRB sided with Google, and he withdrew his lawsuit.

We're talking about PR not lawsuits.

Re: Google's Civil War

#109

Post by skybrian »

AndrewDucker wrote: post #101
skybrian wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think that's bad, wait until you see how nit-picky people get in code reviews. I wouldn't be surprised if there were lint rules for swear words. If you can't deal with criticism of your code, maybe working at a big tech firm isn't for you?

If you can't criticise people's code without swearing maybe working on a professional environment isn't for you?

You've misread my comment. I meant to say that swearing will get caught in code review like anything else.

Re: Google's Civil War

#110

Post by wswkb »

dictum wrote: post #102
wswkb wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should be able to put, say, "this method is fucking up that variable" in a code comment without a puritan telling me not to do so. Which is funny, as it shows that we're going full circle.

Personally, I'd prefer "fucking up" to go away, along with "rape" as a colorful equivalent of ruining/causing damage to someone or something. It associates sex with violence and destruction. A similar thing used to happen with "gay", which kids would use as an adjective for frustrating or annoying situations. My preferences notwithstanding, it's still better to be clearer about what's happening. "Fucking up that vari…

When I think of something being "fucked up", the last thing I think about is sex. Those words have grown a meaning of their own, away from the one they had.
Post reply on HN