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

Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

781–790 of 864 posts

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#781

Post by JamesBarney »

monocasa wrote: post #641
JamesBarney wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To get back to basics, the definition of resign is "voluntarily leave a job or other position." It doesn't mentioning leaving at the exact date and time you choose. She didn't want to work @ Google anymore, and she told them she didn't and she'd find a good time to leave with her boss. Google responded with "now is the best time to leave".

Jumping from a legal definition to the Oxford English Dictionary's definition doesn't look great for your argument. "Well sure, but if we use another definition about this legal situation that has no basis in the applicable law then Google wasn't lying" doesn't really hold a lot of water. To be a resignation she needed to set the final date of employment. She did not, so it was not a resignation. Google knows this fa…

I'm sorry if it was confusing. But I was not using the law to argue she was ineligible for unemployment. Or that legally she "voluntarily quit".(though there is at least an argument she did) Only that Google's or Jeff Dean's use of word resigned was not an easily verifiable lie.

I used the term Gebru firing because I think either description is equally accurate. It was a firing in the sense Google did not want her to work there anymore. It was also a resignation in sense she didn't want to work there anymore.

You're arguing that it's a bold faced law to describe a letter of resignation as such if there is not a specific date. You haven't shown this is true in California law much less English. And if it's true in any sense it's not a lie.

If I went to my boss and said "I don't wanna work here anywhere, I'll check my calendar to find a convenient last day". And they respond with don't bother go home you'll get your two weeks.

You're argument is if someone described that event to someone else as me resigning they'd be a big ol liar?

That doesn't seem right to me.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#782

Post by JamesBarney »

wpietri wrote: post #715
JamesBarney wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've definitely had management not listen to me. But I wouldn't share that information publicly in order to get them to coerce them into making the right call. And if I did I definitely wouldn't expect to be working there for long. Should have known that they were hiring people they would later consider trouble makers is a very different goal post than part of the job description.

In which case, you see yourself not as a professional, but as a minion. That's fine, but understand that it works differently for other people. Consider a doctor, for example. A hospital can hire them and give them orders. But they see themselves as having a duty to the patient and to society. If something isn't right, they will surely say so internally first. But if harm continues, they absolutely will raise a rucku…

It's weird that use the term and minion and professional in a way such that the farther you go up the org chart the more "minion like and unprofessional" they get. With the CEO probably being the most minion like and least profressional.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#783

Post by throwaway3699 »

GavinMcG wrote: post #718
throwaway3699 wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not complicit. I've never been in a position of authority over hiring or loans, etc... nor have I ever treated anybody differently for their skin colour. Racism is about intent and your definition expands it well beyond what figures like MLK understood it to be. To do anything else is evil.

MLK named "the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice" as "the great stumbling block in [the] stride toward justice." I'm not expanding a thing.

That's still incorrect. I'm happy for there to be disruptions in order to get justice. What I don't agree with is that I'm somehow complicit for society's problems be virtue of being born into it. Or would you be prepared to charge your children with that burden too?

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#784

Post by ergocoder »

tehwebguy wrote: post #699
ergocoder wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Timnit and her supporters are toxic. Can you imagine calling out your manager of manager on Twitter like this? https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1278569638532530177 Like wtf. This happened 6 months before Timnit was fired. I would absolutely not work with this person if they behaved like Timnit. She and her supporters are absolutely fired for being toxic. They are playing martyr.

> I would absolutely not work with this person What would that look like, would you quit? Give your boss an ultimatum? Something else?

To be real, I'd slowly move away and look for other projects that don't involve her.

If I was her boss, then, yeah, I'd probably want her to transfer away.

She called out her boss to take a stand in public against racism. It somewhat implies that Jeff Dean may not be against racism.

It's a really toxic tweet.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#785

Post by ergocoder »

_y5hn wrote: post #661
ergocoder wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Timnit and her supporters are toxic. Can you imagine calling out your manager of manager on Twitter like this? https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1278569638532530177 Like wtf. This happened 6 months before Timnit was fired. I would absolutely not work with this person if they behaved like Timnit. She and her supporters are absolutely fired for being toxic. They are playing martyr.

This tweet, what's wrong about it? Timnit Gebru Jul 2, 2020 Yep generally you did, thanks. But not about me, Deb and others being attacked by White supremacists, anonymous accounts etc. Clear support means taking a clear stand. And this doesn’t seem to be ending.

Why would you call out your colleague to take a public stand?

You really don't see anything wrong with it? Wut?

And if he didn't, the implication would be that he was racist, basically.

Timnit doesn't take a stand on blacks attacking Asians on twitter either. Is she racist against Asians?

Now let's go through 1000 other issues in the world!

So, yeah, this whole charade of calling out your colleague to tweet about your cause on twitter is highly toxic.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#786

Post by _y5hn »

ergocoder wrote: post #785
_y5hn wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This tweet, what's wrong about it? Timnit Gebru Jul 2, 2020 Yep generally you did, thanks. But not about me, Deb and others being attacked by White supremacists, anonymous accounts etc. Clear support means taking a clear stand. And this doesn’t seem to be ending.

Why would you call out your colleague to take a public stand? You really don't see anything wrong with it? Wut? And if he didn't, the implication would be that he was racist, basically. Timnit doesn't take a stand on blacks attacking Asians on twitter either. Is she racist against Asians? Now let's go through 1000 other issues in the world! So, yeah, this whole charade of calling out your colleague to tweet about you…

They are both engaging on Twitter, and I don't see any calling out. Unless you find a good quote, that is just discussing, as adults should.

It may be bad choice on them both professionally, but you're singling out one..

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#787

Post by ergocoder »

_y5hn wrote: post #786
ergocoder wrote: post #785

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you call out your colleague to take a public stand? You really don't see anything wrong with it? Wut? And if he didn't, the implication would be that he was racist, basically. Timnit doesn't take a stand on blacks attacking Asians on twitter either. Is she racist against Asians? Now let's go through 1000 other issues in the world! So, yeah, this whole charade of calling out your colleague to tweet about you…

They are both engaging on Twitter, and I don't see any calling out. Unless you find a good quote, that is just discussing, as adults should. It may be bad choice on them both professionally, but you're singling out one..

Because she mentioned Jeff Dean first. Then, Jeff needed to ask what this was about.

Then, Jeff ended with "personal attack is not okay". Like huh?

At this point, we might as well ask Jeff to tweet that the earth is round. Otherwise, we would call him a flat earther.

This isn't called "engaging" when one side would assume you were racist if you didn't tweet to support their cause. The word you are looking for is strongarming.

The whole convo is just cringe.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#788

Post by pseudalopex »

JamesBarney wrote: post #781
monocasa wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jumping from a legal definition to the Oxford English Dictionary's definition doesn't look great for your argument. "Well sure, but if we use another definition about this legal situation that has no basis in the applicable law then Google wasn't lying" doesn't really hold a lot of water. To be a resignation she needed to set the final date of employment. She did not, so it was not a resignation. Google knows this fa…

I'm sorry if it was confusing. But I was not using the law to argue she was ineligible for unemployment. Or that legally she "voluntarily quit".(though there is at least an argument she did) Only that Google's or Jeff Dean's use of word resigned was not an easily verifiable lie. I used the term Gebru firing because I think either description is equally accurate. It was a firing in the sense Google did not want her to…

She didn't say "I don't wanna work here anymore". She said they could discuss a last day when she was back from vacation.

They said her employment was terminated immediately. So no more pay.

Gebru was able and willing to continue working at the time Google terminated her employment. So it was involuntary in California law and English.[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26203772

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#789

Post by that_guy_iain »

aerosmile wrote: post #261

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 am a major pain in the ass at my company. I point out flaws constantly and clearly state what problems exist. But when I do that, I literally don't name names and make general statements such as "Company does not currently have the expertise to solve this issue and are requesting a consultant" while talking about basic issues or "Everyone is leaving because IT is seeing how bad things are and we're at the forefront so all the problems will be hitting the rest of you guys soon." And even then I think if I wasn't in a country with such strong legal employement rights I would so get fired for it. So calling out people by name just seems nuts.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#790

Post by jariel »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #566
belltaco wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to an Axios scoop from Jan, she was running a script to find emails in her Inbox related to Gebru and sending thousands of files "to multiple external parties". https://i.imgur.com/fDV9kKV.png

I mean multiple external parties could mean two parties and technically not be a lie. It could also be multiple external services that she has an account at and still not technically be a lie. I guess someone could not be specifying more clearly how nefarious the goings on because of legal reasons, but it could also be that they're not specifying more clearly because then everyone would make the pffft noise and point…

Yes, you could make the argument that this information is not definitively damning ... at the same time it looks pretty bad on her, and it seems likely that Google was doing something because someone was doing bad things.

Also worth noting is that from a PR perspective, the press doesn't seem to be interested in anything other than making Google look bad, which strengthens my view that they are narrative creators more than anything.

Post reply on HN