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

James Damore and three others end Google suit

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 1001 posts

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#611

Post by username90 »

CydeWeys wrote: post #295
cassalian wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Damore committed the ultimate sin in the corporate world- he caused a huge PR mess. I agree with you; however Damore is only partly to blame... IMO the leaker of the memo is just as responsible for the PR mess as Damore is for writing the memo in the first place (no leak = no PR mess) (no memo = no PR mess) (memo + no leak = no PR mess).

It was already a huge mess internally even before it got leaked. Internal relations matter a lot too. I think he would have gotten fired even without the leak.

> I think he would have gotten fired even without the leak.

I don't think so, it had to go all the way up to Sundar before he got fired, Sundar wouldn't have taken a break from his vacation if it wasn't a PR mess. Internal messes happens all the time at Google and they almost never end with someone getting fired.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#612

Post by jlebar »

banads wrote: post #341
StephenAmar wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Always assume that what you say could be on the front page of the New York Times.

And also assume anything you say can/will be purposefully taken out of context and twisted in order to create rage click bait to satisfy someone's ideological crusade, or to generate revenue for a dying industry which is incentivized to cater to the lowest common denominator just to survive.

Literally his whole memo was posted online, in full. I struggle to understand the context that was missing.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#613

Post by meheleventyone »

mdorazio wrote: post #440
glenda wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see what’s wrong with calling it political... it surely isn’t scientific. The opinions he expressed seem like naive political theories based on his understanding of gender and society, which is an extremely nuanced topic.

I'm guessing if you read the memo you only read a version with sources and data omitted. The original version was very much science-based, even if you disagree with the science or think it incomplete/biased.

Citing papers doesn’t make an opinion piece “scientific” or unpolitical. It just means the author did enough research to prop their opinion up. It’s a particular failing of self described rationalists that seeing citations means the goal was objective truth rather than supporting a pre-existing bias or opinion. Particularly when dealing with papers in harder to study fields that have been at the centre of the replication crisis.

As with the SRE who tried to play epidemiologist the other day it pays to be skeptical about the evidence and opinions presented even if they are delivered with citations and in an academic tone. Especially when both are playing far outside their fields of expertise.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#614

Post by aisengard »

atdrummond wrote: post #146
ergothus wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As someone who actually read what he wrote, I just had to bite my tongue. That's not what he said at all, As someone that also read it, those arent the words he used, but that is very much what he was saying. A facade of misrepresented psuedoscience doesnt change the intent, motivation, or reality.

I went to HS with James for a few years and have spoken to him on this topic a few times. I don’t agree with how he went about pursuing the issue but your assessment does not comport with the views he’s shared with me or our contemporaries who stay in touch with him.

Then he should have done a better job representing himself. At any time he could come out and say exactly what he means and doesn't mean, and apologize for any harm done. Instead, he allied himself with the very people whose views you claim he doesn't hold. At some point, your actions define you.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#615

Post by username90 »

spangry wrote: post #528
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They fired the most vocal guy railing against Damore, so they plausibly could have fired the leaker as well.

That would certainly upset one of my preconceived notions about this whole affair. Could you provide a source on that?

Actually Google has been much harsher on the extreme left crowd at Google since then. They didn't say it officially but I think they realized that both sides were to blame for this PR mess and just bashing one side will make the other way more vocal and aggressive in the future.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#616

Post by ALittleLight »

ashtonkem wrote: post #607
ALittleLight wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you're judging Damore for being willing to share his considered and evidenced based beliefs with other people, because you don't like the ideology of those other people. That strikes me as a very anti-intellectual and anti-philosophical position.

I don’t really care about Damore or what he thinks. I’m just saying that if Damore continues to associate with alt-right figures, he shouldn’t be surprised when people start assuming that he’s an alt-right crank, because that’s how people work.

I wouldn't generalize your own flaws to "people". I suspect many people understand you can talk to people without agreeing with them on everything.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#617

Post by M2Ys4U »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #509
ravenstine wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this what conservatism actually is, now? I'm just wondering because, although I agree that nothing Damore said was conservative in a traditional sense, maybe conservatism has just been made more broad in recent years. For instance, I don't believe that I'm conservative at all, but my liberal friends and family tend to classify me as "conservative". I find it baffling because most of my beliefs are pretty permissiv…

> " For instance, I don't believe that I'm conservative at all, but my liberal friends and family tend to classify me as "conservative". " Rather than the old paradigm where political left == liberalism, I think there needs to be a distinction between the new progressive left and classical liberalism since both hold some views and philosophies that are incompatible with each other. It may well be that, like me, it is…

The en-US usage of the word "liberal" is really confusing to people outside of the USA.

Liberalism doesn't, and has never, meant "left-wing" except for in America.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#618

Post by pydry »

spangry wrote: post #317
pydry wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* Intellectual posturing and oneupsmanship in software teams. Participating in intellectual dick waving. * A strong focus on being "right" over working collaboratively (especially in domains with no right answers). * Hyper competitiveness - to the detriment of effectiveness. * A lack of empathy (e.g. PRs with "your code sucks, suck it up and stop being such a baby"). These things are hardly good from the perspective…

> but they're particularly off putting to women. This is the crux of the issue. For this to be true, it must also be true that men and women are, at least in some ways, intrinsically different (otherwise why would these things pose a greater challenge for women relative to men)?

>This is the crux of the issue. For this to be true, it must also be true that men and women are, at least in some ways, intrinsically different

I don't see why it's the crux. It's really only necessary that men and women be socialized differently for this to be true - to grow up surrounded by people telling you that you need to be more "agreeable" and "not too pushy".

I think whether it is true or not is rather beside the point. Toxic working environments are anti-meritocratic and anti productive. Even if we didn't give a fuck how many women entered the profession we should fix them. Intellectual dick waving leads to worse code, not better.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#619

Post by foldr »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #550
foldr wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that the cause is uncertain. Broadly speaking, the cause is sexism. What I'm saying is that there is no evidence whatever for a biological cause, and it is harmful to speculate wildly on biological causes in the absence of evidence.

There is far more evidence for biological causes than there is for sexism.

If you look closely, there is very little evidence for biological causes. There are many alleged biological differences which are alleged to be relevant, but rarely, if ever, evidence for a causal link.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#620

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

leetcrew wrote: post #593
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google allows (allowed?) relatively free socialization on internal mailing lists, and there are serious labor law issues with saying "you can talk about anything you'd like as long as it's not company policies or politically controversial".

most companies don't have to say anything like that. the absence of active encouragement is usually enough. the "default" is not to discuss sensitive topics over company email.

Google specifically wanted to encourage open discussion of things like company plans and priorities, which at many other companies are sensitive topics.
Post reply on HN