561–570 of 683 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The basic difference is that she implied I&D work at Google was ineffective while he implied half his co-workers were unworthy of their jobs. She made her managers mad while he made half the company mad.
> while he implied half his co-workers were unworthy of their jobs. Why do you and other keep propagating this myth? If anything I think you are making it harder for women in IT: You are building a narrative that many respected people doesn't respect girls in IT which probably makes it even harder for them to choose IT. Also I think you are building up under the idea that men and women are enemies in the workplace. A…
Wow. The pro-google push is really visible in this thread
You can look through my history and realise I've been nothing but critical at Google for their privacy and product lifecycle issues. Not sure I ever weighed in on their anti-union topics but would have been against them there too. The point is, I'm not a Google shill. Still, on this case, on a factual level, the only real dispute is whether this exchange: "Do X or I quit" "Ok, your final paycheck is in the mail and I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
believe Google vs believe a solitary worker (female, black, known political agenda)
What's your point? Jeff Dean is a solitary worker (male, white, known political agenda).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, a linear regression is explainable. I don't agree that this is, in general, the case. Dense linear models trained on a lot of parameters aren't exactly simple to trace, and even the weights aren't as intuitive as they might seem.What about regularization? What about pre-processing? What about feature selection? There are a lot of examples of linear regressions where, for example, you can reverse the sign of th…
Ok, fair enough, the more sophistication you add, the less explainable it gets. That being said, you can look at magnitude and direction of various coefficients and conclude certain obvious things. Even the case where reversing the correlation by picking some features instead of others says something -- those features point different ways but one has a higher magnitude so it 'wins'. They're ultimately pretty simple s…
Sometimes, but if you have correlated predictors, the 'explainability' can be distributed across coefficients of those predictors in unpredictable ways. Training a linear model twice with two different subsets of training data can give you very different coefficient weights.
Despite what both sides claim, IMHO papers like this are primarily PR, ideology, and politics, rather than science and technology. This is akin to a speech writer working for a politician, writing a piece that disagrees with the party platform, and refusing to fix it when asked.
She didn’t “refuse to fix it when asked”. She agreed with the proviso that she could have a meeting to figure out what she was and was not permitted to publish. The response was to decline to meet and fire her. It’s entirely plausible that the paper is bunk; however, when someone is willing to come down that hard to prevent an idea being published, I tend to err on the side of “worth finding out what”.
Are you sure she agreed to fix it? According to her tweets she agreed to take her name off the paper, not to fix it, and only if they agreed to her conditions which included releasing the names of all the reviewers involved. From Jeff Dean's email:
> ... including revealing the identities of every person who Megan and I had spoken to and consulted as part of the review of the paper and the exact feedback
If I was in their position, I would be extremely uncomfortable releasing the names of the reviewers with the likely result that they would be doxxed by Gebru on Twitter
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, nothing in this story suggest they do. They might have an inconsistent review process, like pretty much most processes in these companies - from interviews to promotions. Let's see how many people follow her and leave Google Research due to their practices. My prediction is zero.
That’s the beauty of modern discrimination. You never come out and say you’re discriminating. Rather you just apply the rules selectively. An inconsistent process is the best best way to discriminate. My prediction is you will see some people leave Google due to this. Likely those who worked closest to her. Apple is already extending interest.
From everything made public, her behavior constitutes a fireable offense at any company I've ever worked at, regardless of skin color. And there is precedent for non-PoCs being fired for posting unprofessional messages to internal message boards. So why would you consider her actions permissible?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is utter nonsense. If you looked outside her twitter feed and at evidence, its clear she was fired because she was toxic. Her threat to leave was her own fault which allows google to move forward. Look at her interactions with respected people like lecun. She has issues with disagreeing with people. She may be qualified, she can have opinions, you can also be the best engineer. If you are an asshole when it come…
It is not clear at all. Nobody at Google has said that she was fired for being toxic. That’s your inference.
No company will ever say this publicly.
Yes, that's my inference.
Looking at this Twitter thread between her and Jeff Dean 6 months ago: https://twitter.com/JeffDean/status/1278571537776271360 ...
She is highly toxic, not just in general, but specifically toward Jeff Dean, who is her manager's manager. Actually, doing that against anyone is not okay.
Reading between the line, she is absolutely fired for her toxicity. This event is just a last straw.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is his political agenda then, if you know it? (Possession/absence of Y chromosome/melanin does not constitute such.)
Protect Google.