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

Apple's director of machine learning resigns due to return to office work

macrumors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 734 posts

Re: Apple's director of machine learning resigns due to return to office work

#161

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

thr0wawayf00 wrote: post #38

Here’s to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes… the ones who see things differently — they’re not fond of rules… You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can’t do is ignore them because they change things… they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the on…

Touche. It's so silly- in the Marines we would say, "adapt and overcome."

Jarheads are smarter than all of you? Suck it up and get it done.

Re: Apple's director of machine learning resigns due to return to office work

#162

Post by temp8964 »

Austin_Conlon wrote: post #53
thr0wawayf00 wrote: post #38

Here’s to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes… the ones who see things differently — they’re not fond of rules… You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can’t do is ignore them because they change things… they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the on…

In a talk Craig Federighi gave, he said some of his most inventive work was done remotely with his NeXT Cube in a cabin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43sjym5ZS68&t=677s .

This sounds great. Maybe Apple thinks it can find someone else can do the same job in office. Also they can't just make exceptions for "talented" people, I guess.

Re: Apple's director of machine learning resigns due to return to office work

#164

Post by fivre »

Aeolun wrote: post #132
qbasic_forever wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We deserve to have input into how we work best and if that means walking away from companies run by egomaniacs that need to see butts in seats, then so be it. The logical conclusion of this line of thinking is to organize your coworkers. You have much more bargaining power about your work conditions as an organized union. The history of unionization stems primarily from workers demanding safe working environments.

You have much more bargaining power, yes. But you’ll also be bargaining as part of a group that includes Joe Useless, who sits in the next cubicle over and ostensibly fulfills the same role as you. The company may be happy to give you a 10% raise, but they’d rather lower JU’s salary by 10%, so they won’t budge on your demands for an increase, since it’d also apply to him.

The company doesn't want to give anyone a raise. They are not happy to give anyone a raise. Companies do not willingly increase their costs, full stop.

You could maybe make an argument that companies may increase wages for high performers for retention reasons, because needing to replace valuable employees is a large, if somewhat intangible cost, but that's pretty iffy. Companies are made up of and managed by humans, who are notoriously short-sighted and willing to discount potential risks when there are financial incentives to do so.

50% of the time Joe Useless makes more than you do already, because they joined later and market rate for the position shifted upward. You'll still need to fight tooth and nail, alone, individually, to reach parity, even if you're a top performer. Your manager isn't usually going to say "hmm, we're paying Joe Useless 1.2X, while we're paying Sally Superlative 1.0X--we really should pay Sally 2.0X! Your manager will be overruled by the CFO if they do suggest this anyway. Large wage increases based on expertise happen because you're able to better sell yourself to _another_ company when changing jobs.

Ultimately, I'd prefer a system where Joe Useless and I fight for equal wage increases collectively, because the balance of power is such that we're more likely to get them than each of us going it alone. Joe Useless is gonna be there anyway unless the company decides they're so useless as to fire them. So long as Joe Useless is there in the same role as I am, I don't care if they get equal pay, especially not if they're helping in the fight for increases in our equal pay.

Re: Apple's director of machine learning resigns due to return to office work

#166

Post by gwern »

jackblemming wrote: post #18
daniel-thompson wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate on this.

GANs were just low hanging fruit that Schmidhuber already found. By most accounts Ian Goodfellow is kind of an asshole, and there was some drama about him a few times over the years. I don’t know the man, that’s just what I’ve heard.

If Schmidhuber had really found everything he says he found, the Singularity would've happened decades ago.

Re: Apple's director of machine learning resigns due to return to office work

#168

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

baq wrote: post #121
readthenotes1 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not. I really doubt that most people would give up a job in a satisfying office environment with people they truly enjoy working with on a product/project they are excited to work on everyday simply because of they are told they have to go in and meet those people they really groove with three times a week.

some people have a life outside of the office and found that the commute takes a very large toll on that. they didn't know previously, but now have two years of experience that they'll never forget.

Prior to the pandemic, people I worked with in NYC wore their commute times as badges of honor. “You commute 90 minutes each way? That’s nothing. I commute 2 1/4 hours each way”

Think of that. Some people were spending 4.5 hours commuting every day. And it was ok with them.

Re: Apple's director of machine learning resigns due to return to office work

#169

Post by worik »

hooande wrote: post #77
zasdffaa wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm one of those misfits/troublemakers/etc. I've done my life mostly on my terms, and I've had it really tough. Conformists generally get it much easier. I'm all for more independent thought and fuck-you-ness but never forget that for most people that comes at a high price, so take off the rose-tinted specs.

here's to you, good luck in your journey. make it worth it "If you're going to try, go all the way. Otherwise, don't even start. This could mean losing girlfriends, wives, relatives and maybe even your mind. It could mean not eating for three or four days. It could mean freezing on a park bench. It could mean jail. It could mean derision. It could mean mockery--isolation. Isolation is the gift. All the others are a t…

I do not think that Charles Bukowski is a good role model. I love his writing, some of it is very disturbing, and some I only read once - will not repeat the experience.

But to live like him? No thank you

Re: Apple's director of machine learning resigns due to return to office work

#170

Post by xapata »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #97
hooande wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

here's to you, good luck in your journey. make it worth it "If you're going to try, go all the way. Otherwise, don't even start. This could mean losing girlfriends, wives, relatives and maybe even your mind. It could mean not eating for three or four days. It could mean freezing on a park bench. It could mean jail. It could mean derision. It could mean mockery--isolation. Isolation is the gift. All the others are a t…

"Elegant, inspiring, soaring prose often makes for incredibly shitty real-world advice." - hn_throwaway_99

Well, if you don't want your life to turn out Bukowski, don't take advice from Bukowski.

As Modest Mouse said, "God, who'd want to be / Such an asshole?"

Post reply on HN