261–270 of 290 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean you are the one reacting. I am curious what you are trying to achieve except casting shame (implied morality) and shutting down conversation. I assume (maybe incorrectly) that you are just reacting without thinking about the deeper level of what you are trying to express.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's too convenient that so many of these stories go something like "It was okay when I joined but somewhere along the way things there got dirty, but I'm still clean!" Why is it always that way? Why is no one ever writing "It was always dirty there but I convinced myself that it wasn't until I couldn't do it anymore." Because people don't want to admit "I made a mistake." That's why.
That’s one possibility. Could also be “it got worse”. Could also be a combo of the two. This “holier than thou” stuff is lame. Shaming people for having a job. You working for UNICEF?
Most of us have worked at a place that was either bad enough that we knew and didn't say anything or that we should have known was that bad. That isn't anything new. You do what you gotta do and all that.
What we're splitting hairs over is whether or not Google (and others) were already "too bad to work for" 10-15 years ago. And whether or not some people correctly identified this and others didn't / did but say that they didn't.
You're totally right -- very few of us have careers entirely at places like UNICEF. That's just reality. What isn't reality is the image some people like to portray that they didn't know or couldn't have reasonably known that the entity that they were a part of for so many years was no UNICEF.
moral clarity usually sharpens the moment the last RSU hits the brokerage account
This announcement is also 9 years after they started, and Google has a 4 year vesting schedule, so it's not even possible that this coming after the initial grant vests.
This is a completely unfair and unsubstantiated dismissal of the article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet it directly speaks to the comment it was replying to. It makes the point that RSUs are generally multi-year; so if you're getting them with _any_ frequency, you never get to the point of "the last RSU vests".
It remains privileged. I have my golden handcuffs too, probably most on HN do. That doesn’t change the reality expressed.
The vast majority of HN in the US is almost certainly within the top 1% of earners in the US (the cutoff is ~660k for households, ~450k for individuals), and the rest is probably within the top 10% (the cutoff is ~260k for households, ~150k for individuals). So overall it's a fairly privileged place, even if it likes to often pretend it's not.
In my life i've been both very poor and very rich. I'm now happy, and that matters a lot more than either.
I also happen to think it's fairly naive to believe that making lots of money makes it trivial to leave a place.
It's like believing having loved someone for 20 years makes it easier to get divorced.
Isn't his just weird repost of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48496396 ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The person youre replying to also employed the term TDS in recent comments, which I believe refers to Trump Devotion Syndrome. Muddying waters and making debate impossible are his goals. He hoped to antagonize everyone with his trigger word.
TDS, like BDS (ODS never really caught on), is typically known to be Derangement Syndrome, targeted at people who the commenter thinks to be unreasonably upset about the politician in question.
[flagged]
This comment make a couple assumptions I don't agree with: 1. That technological development and a "carbon neutral goal" are incompatible. Carbon neutrality is precisely a problem of technological development, with green energy, battery technology, and improving the grid all on the vanguard of modern technological development. The problems caused by global warming will only get more severe (even if they don't cause t…
1. It's not about technological development as an absolute metric, but as a relative metric. The current AI race is a winner-take-most game. Google must compete and shoot to become a $10T+ company or effectively go under. Those are the choices. I think the OP is naive about the middle ground.
2. I object to the OP's 2000s-era popular moral handwringing over America's military. America's military is a force for good in the world. You might think it's not perfect -- sure -- but you should seriously imagine a world without it: I think you'll like that one a lot less. Consider that the OP in this blog post might be wrong about his ethical position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It remains privileged. I have my golden handcuffs too, probably most on HN do. That doesn’t change the reality expressed.
Of course i realize how privileged it is. It seemed like useful information to the discussion, so i added it. I don't particularly care if people know how much or how little i made. The vast majority of HN in the US is almost certainly within the top 1% of earners in the US (the cutoff is ~660k for households, ~450k for individuals), and the rest is probably within the top 10% (the cutoff is ~260k for households, ~15…
It’s genuinely great to read you’ve found happiness.