491–500 of 864 posts
Good riddance, work is work, political agendas outside the office space please.
But that model isn't winning right now, if anything it seems that political agendas are encompassing more and more spaces.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, antiracism must be measured by its effects. Google's campaign had antiracist intentions, and racist effects. That doesn't mean we should all give up on effective antiracism, though. This tactic/campaign/etc. was not antiracist. Others can be. It's not clear at all why this should be taken to mean that "the more we talk about race...the worse the racial tensions and competition will become." The conversation arou…
Racism must absolutely be measured by intention, not effects. The very definition of racism is somebody actively discriminating against another race. Any other definition just ends up discussing Marxist ideas like "systems of oppression" which go nowhere and actively harm the conversation.
"Firing @timnitGebru created a domino effect of trauma for me and the rest of the team, and I believe we are being increasingly punished for that trauma." Wow. These activists are truly living in an alternate reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A company, Google included, will not comment on the circumstances of an employee's exit unless provoked. It is uncharacteristic for them to comment at all. If they are willing to go public with any statements, that indicates to me that they feel their reasons are iron-clad.
Or this group was a thorn in their side and thousands of employees are disgusted by their actions and they want to bury this as effectively as possibly. They don’t need an iron clad case they have millions of dollar to throw at lawyers. Once again, why should we give them the benefit of the doubt? Why should we ever give multi billion dollar companies the benefit of the doubt?
These people are looking for drama. They're looking for attention and their name attached as some kind of martyr.
The entitlement is insane, you can't work at Google, earn $450k salary and then start a culture war inside Google and create a massive impossible to quantify damage to the company morale and sow discord.
I am siding with Google here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is she really calling Dr. Gebru one of the world's leading scientists or am I misreading something?
One thing to understand is that these folks form a mutual admiration society and keep propping each other by making bombastic claims like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How much do they lose from the PR of gutting their AI ethics division of people who didn't toe the company line? More than a couple million easily, IMO. Very few people really care about this issue enough to permanently change their behavior. My family was pretty upset about Gebru firing but when I visited all of their computers were still defaulting to search Google instead of Bing or duckduckgo. A lawsuit where t…
> A lawsuit where they lied about firing someone is much worse PR and then the truth about why they fired her would get out and it would be much worse. We already know they lied about firing Gebru. > Also she hasn't denied the accusation. The fact that she's not blasting the press yet isn't a point against her.
But right now what we have is
Google: we fired her for exfiltrating data
Source close to meg as reported by newspaper: she wrote a script to exfiltrate data related Gebru
Meg: no comment
And your conclusion from this is Google is lying and she didn't exfiltrate data?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A lawsuit where they lied about firing someone is much worse PR and then the truth about why they fired her would get out and it would be much worse. We already know they lied about firing Gebru. > Also she hasn't denied the accusation. The fact that she's not blasting the press yet isn't a point against her.
Did google lie about a verifiable fact in the Gebru firing? I would doubt that. If you could find something like that I would seriously reconsider how I viewed Google's statements. But right now what we have is Google: we fired her for exfiltrating data Source close to meg as reported by newspaper: she wrote a script to exfiltrate data related Gebru Meg: no comment And your conclusion from this is Google is lying and…
They literally denied firing her to begin with, stating that they had instead had simply accepted her resignation.
> ... And your conclusion from this is Google is lying and she didn't exfiltrate data?
No I'm saying there's probably more information that we're missing that completely changes the circumstances (as was the case if you only looked at Google's statements on Gebru's firing). The word on the street is that she saw a wrongful termination coming and made backups of emails to discuss with her lawyers.
You will learn a lot about Margaret Mitchell's firing by simply reading this piece she shared publicly on Twitter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ERi2crDToYhYjEjxRoOzO-uO... A few punchlines: "Every moment where Jeff Dean and Megan Kacholia do not take responsibility for their actions is another moment where the company as a whole stands by silently as if to intentionally send the horrifying message that Dr. Geb…
I always wonder how smart, driven people aren't able (willing?) to cope with these situations.
I kept asking myself how much a year of my life was worth and it turns out - unless it’s fucking insane money ($10mil+ liquid) then I can’t suffer through something I disagree with or basically feel like I’m someone’s bitch.
I think eventually to a person it feels like you’re living a dishonest life because you’re working on something you disagree with but you have to shove down those feelings to get paid. It grows resentment. But who knows, I’m really only speaking to my own experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google doesn't need to disclose the details. It could contain their private information or someone else's.
Google doesn't need to, and no one needs to assume that Google’s description is accurate, either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'Wrongful termination doesn't tend to hit the court system like you think it should unless you have hard evidence, particularly in at will states' is absolutely something I've heard from lawyers.
Discovery is a thing. Big companies are more likely to catch these shenanigans, making it automatically a legit term, and also more likely to have retention policies where you can get it later in discovery. You're right about smaller corps.