131–140 of 328 posts
It thinks, therefore it did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a great xkcd, but there are 2 upsides to this arrogant approach. First, arrogance is a nerd-snipe maximizer. Second, there is a small chance you're absolutely right, and you've just obviated a whole field from first principles. It doesn't happen often, but when it does happen and there is no clout like "emporer's new clothes" clout. EDIT: The downside, of course, is that you appear arrogant, and people won't l…
> Second, there is a small chance you're absolutely right, and you've just obviated a whole field from first principles. Mostly when I read about things like this happening, it's happening to a formerly intractable problem in mathematics. Do you have examples outside of math?
> I sat on it because I wasn’t sure of the optics of posting such an essay while employed by Google Brain. But then Google made my decision easier by laying me off in January. My severance check cleared... I'm really baffled by how people think it's OK to write public accounts of their previous ( and sometime current! ) employers' inner workings. This guy got paid a shitload of money to do work and to keep all intern…
We're all thinkers who are asked to apply our minds in exchange for money, not slaves whose brain is leased to or owned by our employers for the duration of our tenure.
Even when asked to keep things secret, there's still no way for a company to own every last vestige of knowledge or understanding retained in our minds, and there's still an overwhelming public interest in building on and preserving knowledge, to the point that, in my opinion, nearly any piece of human knowledge short of trade secrets should eventually be owned by humanity as a whole. (and there's even some moral arguments to be made about some trade secrets, but that's a much deeper discussion)
I personally find that people who are overly concerned with secrecy view their integrity from the lens of their employer, but not at a human interest level. To be clear, there are still times for secrecy or the security or integrity of information to be respected, but it's nuanced and generally narrower than people expect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been quite careful not to divulge anything confidential, and anything that is remotely close to sensitive has publicly accessible citations. My opinions about Google are tantamount to discussions about workplace conditions, and it would be very bad for society if ex-employees were not allowed to discuss those.
But all your opinions are informed by your years of TGIFs and internal emails and discussions and presentations and your insider perspective. When you talk about promotions, or internal values and prioritizations, you are leveraging info gained privately. If I'm wrong and nothing in your contract or on-boarding said you shouldn't talk about internals, then my bad. But I suspect they were as clear with you as they wer…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a very optimistic take on how new generations perceive the ethics surrounding confidentiality. Are you really _baffled_ by this? I understand that it's a common position, but it's a position that is so clearly tainted by the conflicts of interest between employer and employee. And a keen awareness of those conflicting interests _only_ serves to better an employee's ability to serve themselves best in a capital…
I totally get why people act this way. Because it's Very Important That Everyone Knows What I Think. But there is no inequity or conflict of interest here. None of that about being trapped in a capitalist economy is to the point here. He has probably a couple million dollars in his bank account that wasn't there before, and the deal was to not talk publicly about internals (which includes promotions process, internal…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you have knowledge of the employment contract, can you share the relevant language with us? I actually could dig up my own contract from years ago (ugh, the effort though) but Confidentiality clause is in there, and it was made clear during on-boarding what is expected from employees: don't share any internal info unless you're an authorized company representative.
You should write to to the author, to scold them directly!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems to be quite evil though.
Every business is essentially in the business of making people addicted to their products in some way. You're an oil company - you want people to drive as much as possible. You're an airline company - you want people to fly all over the world as much as possible. You're a fashion company - you want people to buy new clothes constantly. You're a beverage company - you want people drinking your drink all the time inste…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm really baffled by how many people think a job is more than a job and there's some ownership over the employee's critical thinking capabilities during the job and after it ends. While I agree the OP is "going for internet brownie points" (or probably a bit butthurt from being laid off from a certifiably top-5 cushiest job in the United States) the article doesn't include anything even remotely trade secret and is…
> a company has to pay extra Part of my problem is that Google (and similar companies) are already paying insane (in the best way possible) amounts of money, and when you sign the agreement to take said money, you explicitly promise you won't talk about company internals. To me this is quite simple: if you accept what winds up being millions of dollars in cash+equity, and you give your word that you'll keep your mout…
So how do you ever get a better job than entry level, if you aren't willing to use the knowledge you gained at prior jobs in new jobs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I totally get why people act this way. Because it's Very Important That Everyone Knows What I Think. But there is no inequity or conflict of interest here. None of that about being trapped in a capitalist economy is to the point here. He has probably a couple million dollars in his bank account that wasn't there before, and the deal was to not talk publicly about internals (which includes promotions process, internal…
Yet for some reason OP and everyone here are supposed to care what YOU think?