51–60 of 310 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd call it petty more than sleazy. Drama queens on both sides.
Threat of resignation is not a resignation. Either they follow due termination process, or she might still be employed or have good legal case.
Racism exists. Pay discrimination exists. Yet, you can't go about breaking every norm and rule if you are famous and from an under-represented group. I also saw the tweets at Yann LeCun. I'm not his biggest fan, but that wasn't right. She's hurting minorities for her own agenda. Edit: removed info about myself.
I'm sorry, but I call bullshit. With salary bands imposing constraints, it's not even possible for you to have made a third of what someone doing "the same job" made.
You can absolutely get paid that much more. Companies make exceptions all the time and justify two people doing the same job by paying more if someone is more experienced even if the technical skills performed and responsibilities by both people are equal. Instead of being rewarded for working twice the hours to learn something faster due to whatever reason someone can still be paid more for basically accomplishing the same amount of progress in their career but taking more time to do it.
Trust me there are all kinds of reasons you can get paid three times more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is still a civil way to accept a resignation, with proper timelines and transfer of responsibilities. She offered to resign in some time due to some demands, and the immediate termination seems to be related to an email unrelated to those demands. This sounds a lot like a sleazy move by Google to couch an immediate firing as a resignation.
Google did the right thing and they were civil. She made some pretty serious demands, not having been met, with such politicization there's no reasonable way to accommodate a longer handoff, and she knew that. Waaay too much risk there. She set her own terms, they accepted, that's it. She should have been more transparent in this, because in her Tweets she wasn't forthcoming that it was her terms. There are a ton of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is still a civil way to accept a resignation, with proper timelines and transfer of responsibilities. She offered to resign in some time due to some demands, and the immediate termination seems to be related to an email unrelated to those demands. This sounds a lot like a sleazy move by Google to couch an immediate firing as a resignation.
If someone says (in nicer words) "Do X or I'll resign" and the company doesn't agree to those terms, it's best to accept the resignation immediately because the employee's interests aren't aligned with the company's. It's also pretty common in roles like sales and PR to be shown the door the day you give notice, especially if you're going to a competitor.
If you make an ultimatum to your employer, and they don't want to accept, assume that it's over, right then and there.
Unless you're Michael Jordan, or have some kind of really existential terms with the company.
The comments here are weird right now. They seem overly focused on the spat she and Yann LeCun had a while back when it doesn't seem like this incident is about that? Hopefully some clarification comes out about what her demands were and the internet drops their pitchfork about something that happened long ago
The email she posted [1] makes it pretty clear that she sent an email with some demands/conditions (separate from the one "to Brain women and allies") and said that she would resign if they weren't met. Google said they wouldn't agree to them, accepted her threatened resignation, and told her it was effective immediately. Without knowing more context, it sounds like she tried to do some hardball negotiating by threat…
> Without knowing more context, it sounds like she tried to do some hardball negotiating by threatening to leave, and got her bluff called. Or she was on her way out anyway (or at least ambivalent about staying, it sounds like) and wanted to provoke Google to fire her. These days getting fired as a female minority is a good way to elevate your reputation among a certain crowd, maybe get a more lucrative offer elsewhe…
This is the olympics of mental gymnastics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you describe what happened? LeCunn calmly and rationally explained that a particular model produced biased results, and that that this was due to the bias in its training data. He was then excoriated as a racist by this woman and the Twitter mobs she incited, to the point where this Turing Award winner is no longer willing to engage with the public via that medium. LeCunn made repeated attempts to explain h…
> LeCunn calmly and rationally explained that a particular model produced biased results, and that that this was due to the bias in its training data. But this claim is certainly not necessarily correct, and he shouldn't have been so confident about it. Any part of a system can contribute to bias and that includes the model design, not just the data. If they want the system to work then they need to actually demonstr…
The most obvious and easiest way to clear this up would be for the original researches to train the model on a "Senegal" dataset as mentioned by LeCunn and see what the results are.
The email she posted [1] makes it pretty clear that she sent an email with some demands/conditions (separate from the one "to Brain women and allies") and said that she would resign if they weren't met. Google said they wouldn't agree to them, accepted her threatened resignation, and told her it was effective immediately. Without knowing more context, it sounds like she tried to do some hardball negotiating by threat…
There is still a civil way to accept a resignation, with proper timelines and transfer of responsibilities. She offered to resign in some time due to some demands, and the immediate termination seems to be related to an email unrelated to those demands. This sounds a lot like a sleazy move by Google to couch an immediate firing as a resignation.
that just reminded how Marisa resigned - if i remember correctly she just called on Monday morning to notify that she is already at Yahoo. So the "at-will" works both way.
>> certain aspects of the email you sent last night to non-management employees in the brain group reflect behavior that is inconsistent with the expectations of a Google manager.
as my friends managers explained to me - a manager represents the company to employees, i.e. when a manager speaks it is basically the company speaks and thus [until the company reacts quickly by disowning the manager's words] the company bears the burdens and responsibilities that the manager made promises/representations about - similar to that relationship between Pope and God pictured in the Dogma - so managers are trained to be very accurate with their words, and understandably a manager going off-rails is like a fire emergency to be dealt with immediately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Were you a vendor or did you work in sales/management. I have honestly never seen such a scenario in swes. Would love to know more.
Both full time SWEs. The gap exists, you can ask around. It's widely known at Google.