231–240 of 307 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Gebru’s weak paper" Could you please back up your claim as to the paper's quality - do yoy have credentials and background that enable you to cast this judgement, or is this pedestrian?
Sure, I wrote a lot about this already when the paper leaked, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25314824
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For ages Christianity was a source of ethics in Europe Two angels arrive in Sodom, and Lot shows them hospitality. However, the men of the city gathered around Lot's house and demanded that he give them the two guests so that they could rape them. In response to this, Lot offers the mob his two virgin daughters instead. ... Lot's wife turns into a pillar of salt, but Lot and his daughters escape to Zoar, and end up…
LOL Genesis 19:30–38 is this really in the bible cant believe what i am reading big LOL
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Google did not want to fund research that conflicted with their bottom line, they could have avoided hiring researchers interested in that kind of work. Instead they hired these people and told them they would be free of censorship. Now that these people work there and depend on Google for their paycheck, Google is instituting this new policy. During a global pandemic. Sounds like censorship to me: hire the people…
You're confusing the ideas with their presentation. Google never allowed someone to post a paper under their name saying ‘datacentres generate CO₂, that's evil and we should focus on smaller datacentres’, but that doesn't mean they didn't care about CO₂ production; clearly they did, since they're now carbon negative. Same thing here. The researchers' jobs aren't to publically deface Google, they're to help direct Goo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really isn't. He lied. Normalize calling out corporate executives when they lie. I wish he hadn't. I'm disappointed that he did. But I don't know how else to describe sharing statements one knows (or should know) to be false.
No, he really, really didn’t lie. I wish people predisposed to only see Google as being on the wrong side of it would stop saying stuff like this.
He lied. There are falsehoods that he knew (or had a responsibility to know) were false in a public statement he put his name on. They've been repeatedly corrected both by other employees and by data.
Specifically, he at least lied about a 2 week requirement for paper reviews in the internal publication approval process. While that's listed as a further requirement, they don't "normally" require two weeks.
(I wouldn't, for example call the resignation statements lies. Those were unintentional falsehoods)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen these comments on internal email threads, but this is the first time seeing one out in the wild. Still blows my mind people who make >300k a year can't be bothered to walk 100ft to cut a shit.
Still blows my mind that companies paying people >300k a year would make them waste so much of the time they are paying for finding and waiting for toilets.
Poor Google managers. Nothing they do, say and think is private anymore. How sad :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I didn't talk bad about the company that I was getting my paycheck from Have you ever been in a union workplace?
No, but my work life was amazing. There are important things to address at Google, like not having enough sitting toilets for men (there's 3 times as much for women even though there are much less women in the office where I was working) that an union may help with, but that's different from the product PR.
The bathroom situation stank (pun not intended), but frankly there are other hills to die on.
Consider the historical parallel to the tobacco industry’s research departments. And asbestos. And lead. And talc. And etc. The researchers found that the products were harmful, but their results were squelched. “Do no harm,” indeed.
It’s like if an asbestos company did a bunch of research on healthy insulators, then found that the original products were in fact harmful. Before publishing it, the bosses demand mention of the prior work towards healthy insulators.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My first inclination was just to move on but you didn’t post on a throwaway so I will take the bait. Why do you think the toilet issue you described is a problem that needs to be fixed? My experience in every corner of life in America to date has been separated bathrooms by sex and the men’s restroom containing far fewer sitting toilets. We all know this is because women sit for both natural duties and men, generally…
I’m in favor of a more modern arrangement, where all restrooms are for a single person and can be used by anybody. It works well no matter what the gender ratio of the workforce is. Eventually we will all wonder why the heck we did it the old way.
Personally I find it more helpful to adjust my biological clock to avoid doing my business at the same time as everyone else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When the result is predefined it's not research anymore, it's advertisement. Still calling it “research” is fraud.
For almost any paper I read, before I pick it up, I know there were statistically significant findings. Those results were not predefined. Instead they are part of the academic review process that filters out null results. That same process (depending on the field) also rewards novelty or all sorts of other things. It's very much a human process.