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

The Google layoffs are about personal ambition and poor leadership

andzwa.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 292 posts

Re: The Google layoffs are about personal ambition and poor leadership

#281

Post by ss108 »

hgsgm wrote: post #254
Balgair wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember Obama talking about this. I'll (poorly) paraphrase: 'When I first got into politics, I thought it would be like the rest of life. You know, when you see a great NFL player, he's a lot better than the college guys, who are a lot better than the high school guys. Same with pianists. The guys in the concerts are some of the best of the best. But that wasn't true in politics. The people that were really good a…

What did Obama think "good at politics" means? He conflated management with elections.

? I'm not sure you really get how the government works if you think it's susceptible to the kind of "management" we would like in the business context, or if you think winning elections to ram through various policy ovjectives isn't the entire point to a lot of people (of both/every political stripe). The system rewards quick wins, not governance.

Re: The Google layoffs are about personal ambition and poor leadership

#282

Post by spritefs »

komali2 wrote: post #221
spritefs wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Aligning society along a hierarchy of "intelligence" is really just aligning it on a hierarchy of access to education, which is just a function of economic class privilege (or racial class privilege really, these are tightly integrated even today in many societies for historical or otherwise reasons). This is the claim: intelligence is just some combination of education, class, and race Let's state the obvious here…

Can you demonstrate that genetic factors play a stronger part in how our society defines "intelligence" than the things I mentioned? I doubt this can be demonstrated to have a much stronger effect than educational opportunities, which is a function of class, which in some societies, such as American society, is a function partially of race, for historical and contemporary reasons, as well as a function of economic co…

> that while of course various aspects of intelligence can be affected by genetics

Yep this is what I was looking for. Given this, the original claim isn't right

> Can you demonstrate that genetic factors play a stronger part in how our society defines "intelligence" than the things I mentioned?

Claim above was that intelligence "is really just" access to education, but now the goalpost has shifted

Now it's that access to education is "the most significant part". Is it? How could we know either way? By churning out a bunch of studies? The claim still isn't falsifiable

Re: The Google layoffs are about personal ambition and poor leadership

#283

Post by hsn915 »

gretch wrote: post #275
mediaman wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Privilege is necessarily a comparative concept. Most people in America are privileged compared to a rural Chinese farmer. The median Google employee is privileged compared to average American citizens. It's healthy to acknowledge this.

I didn’t deny it actually. The real healthy thing is to acknowledge what are facts and what are not facts. A ball is moving 15 mph. Is the ball moving fast or slow? Btw, you're whole framework for 'privileged' is broken because it's a binary condition and 1 dimsenional. Check out this incident where a profession NBA player was harassed by the policy simply for being black: https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/10/us/sterling-b…

Yes he is.

Re: The Google layoffs are about personal ambition and poor leadership

#284

Post by komali2 »

spritefs wrote: post #282
komali2 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you demonstrate that genetic factors play a stronger part in how our society defines "intelligence" than the things I mentioned? I doubt this can be demonstrated to have a much stronger effect than educational opportunities, which is a function of class, which in some societies, such as American society, is a function partially of race, for historical and contemporary reasons, as well as a function of economic co…

> that while of course various aspects of intelligence can be affected by genetics Yep this is what I was looking for. Given this, the original claim isn't right > Can you demonstrate that genetic factors play a stronger part in how our society defines "intelligence" than the things I mentioned? Claim above was that intelligence "is really just" access to education, but now the goalpost has shifted Now it's that acce…

> Claim above was that intelligence "is really just" access to education, but now the goalpost has shifted

It really is just that.

Similarly, strength is really just about how much you work out. "But genetic factors!!" Eh, it's mostly just about how much you work out. It's not really worth talking about genetic factors when the majority of the population can't do a single pullup. Are we moving goalposts, or rather just doing actionable conversations?

> Now it's that access to education is "the most significant part". Is it? How could we know either way? By churning out a bunch of studies? The claim still isn't falsifiable

I'm not going to do your work for you. For some reason you really wanna talk about genes. I'll be honest, I'm going to take you at good faith here, but I'm mighty suspicious of where you're hoping this conversation will go.

Why are you more interested in talking about genetic factors of intelligence than the far more significant factors in economic conditions? What's the deal here? Where you going with this?

Re: The Google layoffs are about personal ambition and poor leadership

#285

Post by komali2 »

WalterBright wrote: post #272
komali2 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so then, I'm doing a labor theory of value. What actual risk does an investor take? Loss of capital? Compared to an employee who, in the situation where capital is lost, loses the means by which they feed and house themselves, and in the USA, provide healthcare for themselves? On top of which, right now, investors aren't really taking much loss. This action by Google is done for shareholder value. So not only is…

> I just don't see why what an investor does has any value at all compared to an employee Without investors, the employee does not get paid, as there is no money to pay him.

Google has 256 billion dollars in revenue. Can't they use some of that to pay the employee?

Re: The Google layoffs are about personal ambition and poor leadership

#286

Post by komali2 »

WalterBright wrote: post #271
nerdponx wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The assumption that price paid == utility is only valid in the economic equivalent of "assume no friction" from intro-level physics. The equivalence isn't guaranteed to hold once you bring individuals' budget sets and various market distortions into play (information problems, sticky prices, et alia). You see the same thing on the supply side, with the assumption that price sold == marginal cost breaking down in gene…

Bottom line: you're still only valuing something by what you are willing to pay for it. That is its value to you. (Others assign a different value, but that's how the market works.) Supply + Demand determine the value.

Right but notice utility is mentioned nowhere. Demand is totally irrational, because it's human. See toilet paper, fujifilm x100v, tesla stock, NFTs. Supply can be arbitrarily subject to the irrational whims of humanity as well - see oil, diamonds.

"Supply + demand" seems an oversimplification of a huge chain of irrational human links.

Re: The Google layoffs are about personal ambition and poor leadership

#287

Post by 93po »

hsn915 wrote: post #202
komali2 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mate these people aren't your enemy no matter how much you think they make compared to you. You think it was only blue haired 300k social media managers that got layed off or something? There's sand pounding IT guys there that got layed off too, I know for a fact cause some are my friends. Yeah it was a Google job so it was lux but they were running fiber and getting called in at 2am cause some clueless executive's e…

If they have real skills they can find employment else where. They are whining because they know they were being over compensated at Google and that they are unlikely to be able to find another job that pays so much money with so little effort. They're not my enemies but they're not my friends. I don't feel sympathy for them. If anything, they should feel sympathy for me and give me some of that extra cash they've be…

I think your frustration is better directed at capitalism in general instead of your fellow workers. Also if you can do their job as well as them, go spend time studying how to interview at Google and get a job there too.

Re: The Google layoffs are about personal ambition and poor leadership

#288

Post by spritefs »

komali2 wrote: post #284
spritefs wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that while of course various aspects of intelligence can be affected by genetics Yep this is what I was looking for. Given this, the original claim isn't right > Can you demonstrate that genetic factors play a stronger part in how our society defines "intelligence" than the things I mentioned? Claim above was that intelligence "is really just" access to education, but now the goalpost has shifted Now it's that acce…

> Claim above was that intelligence "is really just" access to education, but now the goalpost has shifted It really is just that. Similarly, strength is really just about how much you work out. "But genetic factors!!" Eh, it's mostly just about how much you work out. It's not really worth talking about genetic factors when the majority of the population can't do a single pullup. Are we moving goalposts, or rather ju…

> Similarly, strength is really just about how much you work out.

Some people can get shredded really easily because of genetics. Some people are just naturally more fit than others

> but I'm mighty suspicious of where you're hoping this conversation will go.

My point is your initial point is an oversimplification. If you throw the same resources at the same group of people from a similar socioeconomic status, there will still be a difference of ability. Some people will move faster than others

So the crux of my argument is this: just because there's an inequality of outcome does not imply that the cause is purely socioeconomic. Given constitutional differences, striving for equality of outcome is a sub-optimal use of resources

Should there be standards or some kind of baseline? Yes. But striving for absolute equality of outcome at the expense of everything else is a net negative for society

Re: The Google layoffs are about personal ambition and poor leadership

#289

Post by kebos »

The Google employee experiment, in my eyes was one to support.

Try treating employees pretty well, encourage a lot of new grass root projects in a supported environment.

No one in Google will be doing anything grassroots now. The end of this experiment is a shame.

For a while it dragged other companies up with it e.g. for top talent you had to go half way towards Google perks.

Re: The Google layoffs are about personal ambition and poor leadership

#290

Post by komali2 »

spritefs wrote: post #288
komali2 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Claim above was that intelligence "is really just" access to education, but now the goalpost has shifted It really is just that. Similarly, strength is really just about how much you work out. "But genetic factors!!" Eh, it's mostly just about how much you work out. It's not really worth talking about genetic factors when the majority of the population can't do a single pullup. Are we moving goalposts, or rather ju…

> Similarly, strength is really just about how much you work out. Some people can get shredded really easily because of genetics. Some people are just naturally more fit than others > but I'm mighty suspicious of where you're hoping this conversation will go. My point is your initial point is an oversimplification. If you throw the same resources at the same group of people from a similar socioeconomic status, there…

Nobody is talking about equality of outcome except you. Why did you bring it up?

It is good and right to provide good and equal educational opportunities to people regardless of economic status. Countries like the USA aren't, and should. What are you arguing for here, some kind of genetic evaluation first to make sure we aren't "wasting resources" on a kid that will do math a little more slow? Why not just redirect abundance to the point it doesn't matter?

Post reply on HN