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

141–150 of 158 posts

Re: Google's Civil War

#141

Post by nmcfarl »

nmcfarl wrote: post #83
AlexB138 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It must be said, again and again: corporations exist at the sufferance of the society that grants them their charter and only exist for the benefit of that society. I'm assuming you're talking about the US. We are not subjects of our government, or of some other sovereign, whether that be society or anything else. Our society is founded on individual pursuit of happiness, not collectivism. Put another way, corporat…

The state licenses corporations. Corporations exist for whatever reason their creators and the state decide on.

Continuing

I live in the US, and sit on the the board of a governmental organization, a nonprofit corporation and an LLC.

It is incredibly obvious from this perspective that the regulations the state chooses to apply greatly constrain what it is possible for your organization to do. And this goes beyond the day to day all the way up to the mission of the org.

The state definitely has a large influence on weather organizations exists, their form and the reasons for which and methods they operate.

Re: Google's Civil War

#142

Post by [deleted] »

selectodude wrote: post #113
darkpuma wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I twist my ankle and exclaim "fuck!", would that be in violation? It's not a dumb question, there are some people who are genuinely offended by that sort of language. Would the rules back them up, or me? In theory I'm in favor of these sort of rules, but I hope they leave some wiggle room for common sense, preferably erroring on the side of tolerance.

I think you can exclaim "fuck!", but maybe keep the "fucks" out of internal documentation and written communication.

[deleted]

Re: Google's Civil War

#143

Post by UncleMeat »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #80
UncleMeat wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has come up precisely twice in my immediate working group in the last few years (the Damore thing and the first walkout). It has affected by work literally not at all. Some people care deeply about this stuff. I agree with a fair amount of it. But from my perspective calling it a civil war is frankly ludicrous.

I think it affects some groups more than others. A lot of people get mistreated at Google (TVCs, women, people of color, trans people). It’s a lot of high achieving people and a high pressure environment. Inevitably some people will push others without realizing how hard they are pushing. It’s good in my opinion for people to speak out about this.

It is absolutely good to speak out. There *are" people at Google who are suffering due to their identity. No question. But these questions have become wrapped up in other activist topics related to government contracts, ai, and more.

I 100% support anybody who has been a victim at work due to their identity and support programs to help these people.

But that isn't a civil war.

Re: Google's Civil War

#144

Post by dang »

NotPaidToPost wrote: post #75
eropple wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an extremely...one-sided...view of things. Consider a more healthy one: capital and labor should be partners , and labor gets to have a say in the direction of the company, too. It must be said, again and again: corporations exist at the sufferance of the society that grants them their charter and only exist for the benefit of that society. A company that can't do that should have its charter revoked. And its…

[flagged]

Would you please not take HN threads further into generic ideological flamewar? First you posted flamebait above ("red guards of the left") and now head straight into the most generic and therefore most boring possible direction ("socialism does not work"). Maybe it doesn't, but all these discussions are the same, and tedious repetition is not what HN is for, so please don't.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Google's Civil War

#145

Post by eropple »

PorterDuff wrote: post #35
lemony_fresh wrote: post #29

[flagged]

I guess that's possible although I have no interaction with kids in their 20s and early 30s at those companies. I can't remember any political interests when I was that age aside from the odd scattering of typical programmer libertarianism, a natural side effect of living in a bubble. What I find amusing is all the fuss at these companies, perhaps about real problems perhaps not, while those same employees are all bu…

People can care about more than one thing at a time, yes?

Re: Google's Civil War

#146

Post by eli_gottlieb »

googthrow2019 wrote: post #120
rgoulter wrote: post #13

The Google organizers have taken to calling themselves the “entitled vocal majority,” after one employee publicly referred to them as the “entitled vocal minority.” I feel like this is a small example of where my views of these employees disagrees with the author's. (I'm fine with employees having strong opinions on ethical issues, but this kindof puff quote doesn't lend them respect). I dunno if the author thinks th…

The author's bias is obvious. She's not even trying to create an impression of objectivity. The activists and this article's author are congratulating each other all over Twitter. Besides, the article contains nuggets like this: > Meanwhile, there’s not a company in the sector that isn’t grappling at some level with the ways bro-gramming culture has made tech a toxic space for women and employees of color. Anyone who…

>The author's bias is obvious. She's not even trying to create an impression of objectivity. The activists and this article's author are congratulating each other all over Twitter.

The irony is that actually printing someone taking the appellation "entitled vocal majority" makes them look bad, not the company.

Disclaimer: I do not work for Google, but I'm pre-inclined to favor the employees doing more or less whatever they want, but holy hell, what a way for an activist minority to alienate itself from the base you need to form a union or cooperative.

Re: Google's Civil War

#147

Post by rudolfwinestock »

revvx wrote: post #135
wcarss wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may not be a disagreement -- but I was under the impression they moved to Albuquerque to work at/with MITS[1], the manufacturer of the Altair, and Microsoft's first customer. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Instrumentation_and_Tele...

The answer here confirms what you said: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=500807

I stand corrected.

Re: Google's Civil War

#148

Post by jkaplowitz »

panpanna wrote: post #50
jkaplowitz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The equity grants awarded by publicly traded companies like Google/Alphabet are far from worthless, unlike for early stage startups where indeed most of those employee stock options end up as worthless as you say.

Weren't some early Facebook employee cheated out of their shares by some legal gymnastics?

My understanding is that did happen, but far before Facebook went public. I was discussing options awarded by companies that are already publicly traded at the time of grant.

Re: Google's Civil War

#149

Post by skinnymuch »

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…

What does fucking up have to do with sex? I’d imagine it’s used in a sexual context in a significant minority of the time. And that’s not what it’s associated with.

Re: Google's Civil War

#150

Post by NotPaidToPost »

dang wrote: post #144
NotPaidToPost wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Would you please not take HN threads further into generic ideological flamewar? First you posted flamebait above ("red guards of the left") and now head straight into the most generic and therefore most boring possible direction ("socialism does not work"). Maybe it doesn't, but all these discussions are the same, and tedious repetition is not what HN is for, so please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelin…

I felt important to repeat that socialism does not work since we keep reading people advocating it. That is not generic, that's quite the crux to the issue here. I maintain the term "red guard" because that's exactly how they behave. See the reactions to me daring to contradict.

I am very surprised that a moderator would take side and use a rather rude and condescending tone in replying to a commenter that hasn't do anything beyond voicing a legitimate point.

Is that what HN is for?

Post reply on HN